By Jana Winter
Published July 29, 2010
| FoxNews.com

For the Afghan soldiers who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas, there's no place like Canada.

Since 2002, 46 Afghans have deserted their armed forces while in the U.S. for language and military training. Of those 46, roughly half--at least 22--have found their way north of the border. 

They made the trip with the help of a network of people, including Afghans who left Lackland Air Force Base before them; a group of naturalized and undocumented Mexican women in Texas; relatives of current and former Afghan military students living in the West; and at least one Iranian taxi driver who runs a human smuggling business at the Canadian border.

The Afghans who have made it to Canada appear to be living comfortably there -- and many have put themselves on Facebook, where they connect with other Afghan dissenters and active U.S. and Afghan military personnel, including members of the Afghan military currently attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland or receiving training at other military bases in the U.S. 

Based on interviews with U.S. and Afghan military personnel, civilian and military sources at the Defense Language Institute, interviews with some of the AWOL Afghans and information gleaned from their online profiles, FoxNews.com has exclusively uncovered details of a pipeline that runs from San Antonio to Toronto.

The first leg of the pipeline involves a group of women, some of whom are believed to be Mexicans illegally in the U.S., who pick up the men outside Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio and drive them to their next stop. Often, that’s a bus station or airport, but sometimes the women drive them farther. In at least two instances, they accompanied the Afghans all the way to Canada...

by Chuck Baldwin
July 27, 2010

The Monday, July 19, 2010, edition of The Washington Post featured an investigative report entitled “Top Secret America,” with the subtitle, “A hidden world, growing beyond control.” The report begins, “The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

“These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

“The investigation’s other findings include:

*Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

*An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

*In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings–about 17 million square feet of space.

*Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

*Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year–a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.”

On the surface, the Post report appears to be a valiant effort by a major mainstream newspaper (second in influence to only the New York Times) to expose widespread government abuse and chicanery. But don’t get too excited yet.

In Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (July 23, 2010), Skousen writes, “The [Post] series has just enough tantalizing information to sell a lot of papers, but almost nothing that exposes the illicit side of US operations–a large portion of which is involved in recruiting, training, and running covert agents–only a small portion of which are spying on real enemies. A lot of spying targets our allies and patriotic Americans who the government worries could someday provide a source of rebellion against the growing totalitarian state.”

Skousen further charges that there is a “dark side” to “each agency of [federal] law enforcement.” This “dark side” involves “a lot of compartmentalization, front activities, hidden budgets and false stories in order to keep honest government employees and agents from knowing what’s going on behind their backs.”

Skousen continues: “What few do get a glimpse into government’s dark side are warned off with threats, some subtle and some lethal–threats which send a chilling message to others to not ‘ask too many questions.’” Skousen then quotes the Post report as saying that since 9/11, the NSA (National Security Agency) has grown to where it now consumes “1.7 billion pieces of intercepted communications every 24 hours: emails, bulletin board postings, instant messages, IP addresses, phone numbers, telephone calls and cellular conversations.”

Concerning all those government organizations and private companies working on counterterrorism projects that the Post report refers to, Skousen writes, “Once again, the series tells us nothing about the substance of what they do, much of which is unsavory and illegal.”

Skousen goes on to say, “What [the Post report] won’t tell you is that almost a third of these [NSA] operations are dedicated to black operations against Americans and other Western governments who need to be surveilled in order to control them and keep them from resisting the agenda of the New World Order. Much expense is allocated to spying on the unsavory private behavior of Congressmen, and even State officials–building compromising dossiers on people who influence the political process so they can be coerced into compliance when necessary.”

Skousen also chides the Post report for failing “to show how connected certain companies are to the mercenary contractor explosion that is growing into a force that will eventually be used to threaten individual liberties at home. The Powers That Be don’t need to hire foreign armies to clamp down on American dissidents. They are training hundreds of thousands of mercenary Americans to do it and using foreign wars to sort out who is ruthless enough or unprincipled enough to take orders without questions–similar to the way the Nazis sorted and selected those who would form the Brownshirt and SS brigades.”

See Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief at:

http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/

See The Washington Post report at:

http://tinyurl.com/washpost-hidden-world

In short, while claiming to expose the federal government’s “hidden world,” the Post report actually does little to uncover the illegal and dark activities that Washington employs against the US citizenry, and by so doing serves more to cover up this sinister activity. Even so, do you not find it more than a little interesting just how few media sources did anything to pick up the Post report? Did you read any of this in your local paper? Did you see anything of this on CNN or Fox News? Come on, folks! You are aware that most of the media outlets (including network television) in this country obtain the vast majority of their “news” from The New York Times and The Washington Post, are you not? So, how convenient is it that this report (such as it is) was virtually ignored?

As I’ve said in speaking engagements–both large and small–all over America, We have more to fear from Washington, D.C., than from Tehran or Baghdad, or from any other foreign entity. America’s founders understood this and tried to warn the American people accordingly. For example, Daniel Webster warned, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

The protection of the people from the totalitarian tendencies of their own central government in Washington, D.C., is why the framers of the Constitution included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or target shooting; it was all about the American citizenry being prepared to defend itself against its own federal government. The founders’ distrust of the central government is why they attempted to divide the power and authority of government into three separate branches. They expected the three branches to compete against each other and to hold each other in check and balance against governmental abuse. And this is also why the individual states each maintained their own sovereignty and independence when creating the central government in 1787, because, at the end of the day, it is going to be the states that form the final fortress for freedom.

For all intents and purposes, the three branches of the federal government have done nothing to prevent the massive expansion of unconstitutional governance by Washington, D.C. The passage of the Seventeenth Amendment was the beginning of the end, as far as separated power was concerned. Neither has it made much difference which political party was in power in DC. The unlawful expansion of federal power has continued under both. This means that there are only two remaining protections against absolute federal tyranny: 1) strong, independent, and defiant State governments, and, 2) a determined and fully armed citizenry...

By David Goldman, staff writer
July 26, 2010: 7:14 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- IPhone users can now legally hack their phones to download applications that aren't in Apple's App Store.

The U.S. Copyright Office, a division of the Library of Congress, has authorized several new exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), one of which will allow mobile phone users to "jailbreak" -- or hack into -- their devices to use apps not authorized by the phone's manufacturer. The new rules will be published on Tuesday in the Federal Register.

Jailbreaking iPhones in order to download apps that are unavailable in Apple's App Store had been a legal gray area: Apple technically had the right to request a $2,500 government fine for damages every time a user violated the law that bans "circumvention of technological measures" controlling access to copyrighted works -- in this case, the iPhone's iOS software.

Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) never actually requested that a fine be levied on an iPhone customer. But it fought to preserve its right to: Apple filed an objection last year to the rule the Copyright Office has now adopted.

The Copyright Office's decision means that jailbreakers will not face legal sanctions, but phone makers are still free to fight back technologically against the practice. Apple typically voids the warranty on iPhones that owners have hacked. The company maintains that tampering with the iPhone can introduce bugs and glitches.

"Apple's goal has always been to insure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone, and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience," a company spokeswoman said in response to the Copyright Office ruling. "The vast majority of customers do not jailbreak their iPhones."

The Copyright Office also renewed and expanded its 2006 decision allowing mobile phone users to jailbreak their phones in order to switch carriers. Previously, the office allowed firmware updates to enable network-switching; this week, it added a provision allowing software hacks as well. In other words, iPhone users can now legally download software that will enable their phones to join a non-AT&T (T, Fortune 500) network...

By John R. Quain
Published July 22, 2010
FoxNews.com

Has search and advertising giant Google been tracking you just to sell you stuff -- or is it because the U.S. government asked it to? A congressional hearing later today may raise more questions than answers.

Since May, Google has been in hot water worldwide over the information it collected during its street-mapping projects. European regulators have been pressing the company since it was revealed that Google collected information from Wi-Fi networks as its street-view vans cruised neighborhoods around the globe. The information Google gathered included e-mail fragments and passwords, alarming politicians and privacy and security advocates in Germany, France, and Spain.

Recently, the Washington Post noted as part of a two-year investigation into America's intelligence community that Google supplies special mapping and search products to the U.S. military and intelligence community, with some Google employees enjoying top secret clearance to work with the government. That news has consumer advocates and politicians asking exactly what information Google has collected -- and why.

"Is there some relationship between Google and the NSA (National Security Agency)?" asked Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "Was this data shared with intelligence agencies in America? It's a question. We just want a straight answer." The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) civil-liberties organization has also weighed in, demanding that Google "grow up."

If there is such a connection, it would explain why there has been little federal government reaction. Representatives would be extremely reluctant to call for an investigation if they felt it might compromise national security, Court noted.

Still, there has been pressure from state governments. A group of 38 state attorneys general led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has asked Google for detailed information on what it gathered, how the software was tested (if it was inadvertent), and who at the company was responsible for the Wi-Fi spying. The state AGs have also asked the Energy and Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the issue and said they could take legal action if it doesn't get answers.

For Google's part, a company spokesperson reiterated the search engine giant's official position to FoxNews.com in an e-mail:

"As we’ve said before, it was a mistake for us to include code in our software that collected payload data, but we believe we did nothing illegal. We’re continuing to work with the relevant authorities to answer their questions and concerns."...

July 15, 2010 - 4:49 PM | by: Jamie Colby

Last August, the Obama administration pledged to overhaul how those entering the U.S. illegally would be held and treated at detention centers across the country. Many who enter illegally but have not committed other crimes, are housed at Level 1 facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE while those here illegally who have committed crimes are at more secure ICE detention centers classified as Level 2 or 3.

According to ICE, sometimes facilities provide housing for both but these populations are never mixed. The non-criminal, lower risk detainees could soon see the biggest changes in living conditions– 28 changes proposed in total – while even those at more secure detention facilities could see some, like improved access to legal libraries and other changes that will not however, according to ICE, put the public at risk.

News of the proposed changes came when The Houston Chronicle published a leaked, internal email from Corrections Corporation of America or CCA, a private contractor working for ICE. Check out the email below that lists the changes proposed. ICE confirms to Fox these are the improvements proposed by CCA that it is now considering.

The ACLU and other immigrant activist groups say upgrading conditions for detainees is a start, but most working on behalf of illegal immigrants want more sweeping reform. ACLU staff attorney Vanita Gupta tells Fox “some of them actually will make a difference in the living conditions of detainees, who I have to remind everyone, are not criminals."

But Chris Crane the president of AFGE 118 Council, the union representing ICE officers says “we have to take every precaution possible to make sure that they are safe and that our employees and officers inside these facilities are safe". Again, ICE tells Fox it hasn’t decided yet which of the CCA proposals will be approved and any that are, ICE insists will not put the public at risk. How about the cost of making these upgrades to detention? CCA picks up the cost, not taxpayers...

By RICHARD A. VIGUERIE | 7/16/10 4:26 AM EDT

Richard A. Viguerie says Bob Inglis (above) and like-minded Republicans have passively, and actively, contributed to big government. AP

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39835.html#ixzz0ttfirZ28

Tuesday, 13 Jul 2010 11:04 AM

Article Font Size   

By: Arnaud De Borchgrave

There is no better illustration of the futility of the $1 trillion Iraq war than news photos of a long line of gasoline tankers lined up bumper to bumper as they leave Iraq to enter Iran.

The U.N. Security Council’s decision to strengthen economic measures against Iran and President Barack Obama’s signing into law draconian new legislative sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions leave Iraq's defeated government unable to act.

The Iraq Study Group, led by Lee Hamilton, the prominent Democrat who heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center, and James Baker, whose Institute for Public Policy is at Houston's Rice University, warned in 2006 that Iran, now rid of erstwhile enemy Saddam Hussein, already was wielding more influence in Iraq than the United States.

The only sanction that would undermine the mullah's military regime seriously is a severe shortage of gasoline. Iran is awash in oil but lacks refining capacity and has to import 60 percent of its gasoline. A lack of governance in Baghdad has allowed Iran to strike a sub-rosa deal for gasoline imports.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government narrowly lost national elections (89 to 91 seats, both rivals short of the 163 seats needed to govern alone) in March. Endless palavers since then have failed to produce a new coalition. With suicide bombers trying to reignite a bloody trail of sectarian violence, Joe Biden flew into Baghdad over the Fourth of July weekend for his fifth visit since becoming vice president. He urged Iraq's political leaders to form an all-party coalition ASAP.

On his first night there, sirens wailed and a voice shouted over an extensive loudspeaker system: "Duck and cover." Five mortar rounds exploded in the Green Zone, a large maximum-security area in the heart of Baghdad that houses the $700 million, 100-acre U.S. Embassy, now the world's largest.

There was a time when Hussein, the dictator who was executed on Dec. 30, 2006, was the most effective barrier to Iran's regional ambitions. In 1980, he launched an invasion of Iran that led to a Mexican standoff that lasted eight years and caused 1 million deaths on both sides.

Iranian teenagers were pressed into service as "suicide volunteers" with a golden key around their necks — for the gates of paradise that would allow them to meet up with 72 virgins.

Until now those advocating military action against Iran's nuclear installations were found mostly in Israel and among the "neocon" lobby in Congress, and its sympathizers in think tanks and the media. In recent weeks, the ranks of those who now concede the inevitability of a military showdown with Iran's theocracy-cum-military regime have widened to include normally less bellicose politicians and their military friends...

Published July 13, 2010
Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY -- A list containing the names and personal information of 1,300 people an anonymous group contends are illegal immigrants has been mailed around Utah, terrifying the state's Hispanic community.

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert wrote in a tweet Tuesday that he has asked state agencies to investigate the list -- sent anonymously to several media outlets, and law enforcement and state agencies. A letter accompanying the list demands that those on it be deported immediately.

Most of the names on the list are of Hispanic origin. The list also contains highly detailed personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, workplaces, addresses and phone numbers. Names of children are included, along with due dates of pregnant women on the list.

"My phone has been ringing nonstop since this morning with people finding out they're on the list," said Tony Yapias, former director of the Utah Office of Hispanic Affairs. "They're feeling terrorized. They're very scared."

The list's release comes as several conservative Utah lawmakers consider sponsoring a tough new illegal immigration law similar to the one passed recently in Arizona.

Arizona's law, which takes effect July 29, directs police enforcing other laws to ask about a suspect's immigration status if there is reason to believe the person is in the United States illegally.

Herbert has said a new immigration law likely will be passed when lawmakers convene in January, although he said it may be different from Arizona's. Herbert spokeswoman Angie Welling was traveling back from Washington, D.C., Tuesday and could not immediately be reached for comment.

The letter included a long recipient list, including newspapers, broadcast outlets, The Associated Press, law enforcement and state agencies, various Utah officials, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Salt Lake City. The letters began arriving in mailboxes in recent days.

Dave Lewis, communication director for the state Department of Workforce Services, said his agency didn't receive a copy of the list from the governor's office until late Tuesday.

"We've got some people in our technology department looking at it right now," he said. "It's a high priority. We want to figure out the how's and why's."

He said his agency is one of several with access to the information included in the list.

The letter says some names on the list were sent to the ICE office in Salt Lake City in April. It says the new list includes new names, for a total of more than 1,300.

Included with the new letter is one dated April 4 addressed to "Customs and Immigration" and from "Concerned Citizens of the United States."

In the April letter, the writers say their group "observes these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings."

"We then spend the time and effort needed to gather information along with legal Mexican nationals who infiltrate their social networks and help us obtain the necessary information we need to add them to our list," the letter says.

A phone message left for the on-duty ICE spokesman was not immediately returned.

Published July 10, 2010
FoxNews.com

The Obama administration’s new approach to dealing with companies that hire illegal immigrants results in firings, not deportations, the New York Times reported Friday.

Instead of immigration sweeps at factories and farms which used to lead to illegal workers being shipped out of the country, the administration’s new policy—government conducted audits labeled “silent raids” by employers—usually only result in the workers losing their jobs, the Times said.

The Times article comes just over a week after the president delivered his highly anticipated speech on immigration reform, which was criticized on both ends of the political spectrum.

In these audits, federal agents examine company records to find illegal workers on the payroll, forcing “businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant… not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid,” the Times said. This makes it more difficult for companies to hire undocumented workers to fill these positions in the future, the article explained.

These audits reach more companies than the Bush raids, employers said. This year alone, Immigration and Customs Enforcement have facilitated the firing of thousands of immigrants and “levied a record $3 million in civil fines,” the Times reported.

This ideology stands at the very center of the current battle between the federal government and the state of Arizona’s new immigration law. Arizona’s law makes not carrying the appropriate immigration documents a criminal offense and gives authorities the power to detain anyone they think is an illegal immigrant. Several lawsuits—including one filed against the state by the federal government— are now pending.

View the original story from The New York Times.

Published July 06, 2010
FoxNews.com

By Jay Bavisi co-founder of the EC-Council
Published July 02, 2010
FOXBusiness

Our complex system of usernames and passwords is astoundingly outdated and increasingly prone to security breaches and theft. Yet, so far it has been mostly up to the individual to protect himself against various forms of identity fraud—with larger corporations taking relatively little responsibility. 

But this could change in a big way. Right now the federal government is proposing a new system being referred to as the “Identity Ecosystem”—which was highlighted in the recently-released draft paper, “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace” [NSTIC]. 

The Identity Ecosystem would allow Americans to choose to obtain a single authenticated ID for online transactions. Like a passport, this single ID could travel with them online and be used to access everything from e-mail, to online health records and banking information. Furthermore, the Identity Ecosystem would only reveal the least amount of information necessary for each transaction. 

To highlight the potential consumer benefits of such a system, the White House’s proposal uses the example of an individual filling a prescription online. Under the “smart ID card,” the pharmacy would only receive proof that the individual is over 18 and that the prescription is valid. No other information like birth date or the reason for the prescription...

Thursday, 01 Jul 2010 07:48 PM

Article Font Size   

By: John Rossomando

President Barack Obama’s zeal to give illegal immigrants amnesty is holding the nation’s border security hostage to his political agenda, says GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe.

As Obama called on Congress to tackle comprehensive immigration reform in a speech Thursday afternoon, Inhofe told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that the president clearly is using border security as a bargaining chip to obtain amnesty for millions of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

That was the same charge made by Inhofe’s friend and colleague, Arizona GOP Sen. John Kyl, who stirred controversy last week when he revealed a discussion in which Obama told him that taking action to secure the Mexican border “would remove the incentive for comprehensive immigration reform.” The White House has denied Kyl’s allegation.

Inhofe told Newsmax that he has total faith in Kyl’s assertion because he “has never told a lie” in the almost 25 years he has known him.

Consequently, he places more confidence in Kyl’s credibility than that of the White House.

Rumors in Congress suggest Obama will stop at nothing to achieve his goal of allowing millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country, Inhofe said. The administration reportedly plans to use an executive order to circumvent Congress and block the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants.

Inhofe predicts the president will use his power to stop or delay the deportation of illegals to select a block of deportees — anywhere from 1,000 to 100,000 at a time — and prevent them from being sent home.

“This is just a way for them to accomplish their agenda in this way to allow them to do what they have failed to accomplish in the legislature,” Inhofe says. ”It’s kind of the same they did unsuccessfully on the global warming and cap and trade.

“They tried to do it with the EPA and the Clean Air Act; they are trying to take everything over by the executive [branch].”

In his speech Thursday at American University in Washington, Obama seemed to suggest that border security isn’t that important in passing immigration reform. In fact, he raised doubts that the border could be secured at all.

America's borders are "just too vast" for the immigration problem to be solved with fences and border patrols alone, Obama said. He also slammed Arizona’s popular immigration law, which empowers police to arrest illegal aliens and has found majority support in polls across the country.

Obama took Republicans to task, in particular 11 GOP senators who supported recent efforts to improve the immigration system. He did not name any in particular but told his largely supportive audience at American University that those lawmakers had succumbed to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."

In response, Kyl, one of the 11 Republican senators Obama alluded to, said he had a good reason for his position this time around.

"My constituents have said do everything you can to secure the border first," Kyl told Fox News Channel. "It's our job to secure the border, whether or not we end up passing so-called comprehensive immigration reform."...

NYC, New York, June 30, 2010 -- Todd Brendan Fahey, author of Wisdom's Maw (Far Gone Books, 1996)--surrounding the CIA's LSD experiments known as Project MK-ULTRA--has opted to disperse his collection of black satire, Dogshit Park & other atrocities, freely over the Internet.

"Satire hasn't been in vogue in literature...probably ever," cracks Fahey, in an interview with Mondo 2000 founder R. U. Sirius. "It is a cast of mind, and which mostly feels like a curse. Joseph Heller did it right with Catch-22; Vonnegut lived on it; William S. Burroughs was it. And of course, Hunter. And they're all gone."

The collection--which includes interviews Fahey conducted with Ken Kesey and Timothy Leary, and a legally-challenged aborted fragment for New York cigar magazine Smoke--was born of a troubled marriage, the strain of becoming a university English professor and copious quantities of LSD, which, he admits, "had to that point fueled nearly all of my fiction and creative nonfiction."

The core stories were constructed in four months, at the turn of 1993, as Fahey says, "in a white heat, basically smashed on acid."  They center, as does all satire, on social discontent--marital dispute, workplace monotony, avarice and lust, and with a heavy emphasis on Dogshit Park: "A haven," as he tells it, "for winos and druggies, in the rich, white student ghetto of Isla Vista," on the fringes of affluent UC-Santa Barbara campus, where Fahey spent his first two years of university.

Three of the stories involve the titular locale. Others morph fragments of the author's past: the introductory teaching stint at a backwoods college in Ogden, Utah; his rocky, and very public, tenure as a doctoral Teaching Fellow at University of Louisiana-Lafayette, and a special fixation with Amsterdam.

The collection features story-specific illustrations from artists Rich Mackin and Mark Reusch, with whom Fahey collaborated during the mid-1990s while contributing to Boston's Lollipop magazine; a chance encounter on Facebook led to a reunion of the artists, who have, themselves, achieved cult status for their underground creations.

Having run the rounds of the New York literary mafia and "the world of agents," Fahey says: "No way was 'a publisher' going to take this bunch. And I could have felled trees and spent $5k to get it done that way [via self publishing], but why?"

Fahey sharpened his teeth within the graduate Professional Writing Program of University of Southern California, studying for two years under Hubert Selby, Jr. (Last Exit to Brooklyn) and further at University of Louisiana-Lafayette, where Pulitzer nominee Ernest J. Gaines tolerated his on-paper antics with bemusement. "He said they seemed about right for Penthouse; I took it as a compliment," Fahey recalls. (Gaines offered back-jacket praise for Wisdom's Maw.)

Todd Brendan Fahey writes because he must, acknowledging thus far few fiscal dividends. "Blake died broke and so did many others. But if it's in you," he says, "and if you're anything like me, it is going to have to come out."

Dogshit Park & other atrocities can be found as another Far Gone Book at: www.dogshitpark.com

Contact:
Far Gone Books
fargone@fargonebooks.com
www.dogshitpark.com

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie"

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.

"There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the world who were suspicious of the government's story about what had happened at the Pentagon that day," Ranke explains. "The doubts were initially fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a 757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had released fraudulent data, or both."

"We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the dead-end theorizing that was taking place", says Marquis of the project's genesis. "We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and interviewed everyday people about what they saw."

When these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing picture, say the researchers.

"To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers," explains Ranke. "The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path."

It wasn't just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that the team spoke with, however.

"We've also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion", says Marquis. "We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of confirmation."

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that "criminal elements within the U.S. government" were complicit in the attacks.

"If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you," reads a note on the front page of their website, CitizenInvestigationTeam.com. "We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did."

Many people seem to be taking them up on this offer. Their video has already received almost 70,000 views online since it was first posted to their website a few weeks ago with only a grass roots promotional effort behind it.

Perhaps more notable than the size of the audience, however, is the caliber of some of the people in it. A newly-published compendium of endorsements on the CitizenInvestigationTeam.com website includes praise from a wide array of distinguished and well-respected Americans.

Emmy-award winning actor and former president of The Screen actors Guild, Ed Asner, calls the film a "reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th".

Prolific non-ficition author Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley affirms that the film "successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77's flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon".

"If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001", says FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo.

Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé and many other titles, says he is "pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm", while scholar, author, and radio host Dr. Kevin Barrett says that the film proves "that the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamakaze crash of a hijacked commercial jet."

Scott McKinsey, an award-winning network television director, says "The DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11".

Architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org), a coalition of over 700 professional architects and engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11 (the third was World Trade Center 7), calls the film "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and says that it "deserves serious attention".

Retired Navy Commander and aviator James R. Compton calls National Security Alert "the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time" and "a must see for every citizen in our country".

"Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril", warns Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired Marine pilot who has flown 303 combat missions.

The full quotes from these individuals and others can be read at here.

National Security Alert can be viewed for free online here.

June 28, 2010 - 10:07 AM | by: Lee Ross

Published June 25, 2010
FOXNews.com

The widow of a Houston police officer killed by an illegal immigrant was "shocked" to learn that the city's former police chief has landed a top immigration job with the Obama administration, her lawyer told FoxNews.com on Friday. 

That's because Joslyn Johnson, whose husband, Rodney Johnson, was killed in 2006, is suing former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt for failing to enforce federal immigration laws. She claims her husband would be alive today if the city had bothered to check up on the gunman's immigration status. 

Now that Hurtt is taking a job to oversee partnerships between federal and local officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Johnson -- and other critics -- say they're concerned the official who resisted immigration enforcement in Houston will now be in charge of promoting it. 

"She was shocked at the irony," Johnson's attorney, Ben Dominguez, said. 

As a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers. During his tenure as Houston police chief, he criticized ICE's key program that draws on local law enforcement's support. He said in 2008 that local police "don't want to be immigration officers." He described that as a burden on the force. 

Several years after the killing, Hurtt announced he would participate in the federal 287(g) program, which gives local police authority to initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants linked to serious crimes. But then the city backed off the program and linked up with ICE on a separate one that has local officials run immigration checks on suspects once they are in jail.

Johnson could not speak directly to FoxNews.com because she is also a member of the Houston police force and subject to rules prohibiting her from commenting on department policy...

By Jana Winter
Published June 25, 2010
FOXNews.com

At least 11 of the 17 members of the Afghan military who went AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas and are considered deserters by their nation have turned up in the exact place you'd expect to find them in the year 2010.

They're on Facebook.

And, by the look of things, they're not unlike millions of other young men on the social networking site. One proclaims to be a fan of Paris Hilton and is a member of a group named “FREE Webcam Sex with ME!” Another is a fan of hip hop music, Michael Jackson, the tearjerker movie The Notebook, Family Guy and Sports Center. Another is a fan of soccer and the Godfather.

But others have friends whose motives may be much more sinister. Some belong to the “Afghanistan Mujahideen” group, a page that features, among other content, videos from the American-born Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn, a.k.a. Azzam the American.

According to a nationwide be-on-the-lookout (BOLO) bulletin that was sent by the North Texas Joint Terrorism Task force to law enforcement agencies across the country last week, the 17 Afghan deserters walked away from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base, where they had been studying English. The men have military identification that would give them access to secure U.S. military installations, the bulletin read. The existence of the BOLO alert was revealed exclusively by FoxNews.com.

One week later, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement source told FoxNews.com that only two or three of the 17 Afghans remain at large. The source said investigators have been working with Canadian immigration records and now believe that many of the men are in Canada.

David Smith, spokesman for Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, told FoxNews.com he was told that four of the men remain unaccounted for. Of the 13 who have been located, he said, six have pending refugee claims in Canada, two have permanent residency in Canada, four are in the process of being deported and one is a conditional resident alien in the U.S. 

But one thing most of them have in common is an affection for social networking. FoxNews.com found Facebook pages belonging to 11 of the 17 deserters. The wife of one of them also created a page, on which she said her husband should not have appeared in the BOLO alert because authorities knew exactly where he was — at a South Texas immigration detention center, where she said he’s been held for the past eight months.

Many of the men found on Facebook appear unconcerned that they are being actively sought by law enforcement officials, having made little or no attempt to disguise their identities or whereabouts. Eleven of the men can be linked together either directly or through mutual friends on Facebook...

$386,000: Investigator says there were ethics violations.

By SEAN COCKERHAM
scockerham@adn.com

Published: June 24th, 2010 11:41 PM
Last Modified: June 24th, 2010 11:42 PM

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/06/24/1339431/settlement-of-ethics-complaint.html#ixzz0rsM1U1RZ

by Stephen Clark
Published June 24, 2010
FOXNews.com

By Judson Berger
Published June 24, 2010
FOXNews.com

The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com. 

The issue was raised publicly by eight Republican senators who wrote to the White House on Monday to complain that they had heard the administration was readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress. 

The White House would not confirm or deny the claim. But the former Bush official said the discussions are real.  

"The administration at the very minimum is studying legal ways to legalize people without having to go through any congressional debate about it," the source said, calling the senators' claim credible. "Whether somebody pulls the trigger on that, that's another issue." 

The senators -- Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- claimed in their letter that the administration was looking at extending what is known as deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. 

The former official said it's unclear what specific avenues the administration is considering, but that one potentially feasible option would be to use either deferred action or parole to legalize at once the millions of immigrants who have overstayed their visas -- not necessarily those who crossed the border illegally...

By Judson Berger
Published June 21, 2010
FOXNews.com

Republican lawmakers are calling on the Interior Department to stop charging what they describe as "extortion" money from the Border Patrol -- millions of under-the-radar dollars meant to cover environmental damage stemming from their everyday duties along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The Department of Homeland Security, which houses the Border Patrol, last year signed a deal with Interior -- the administrator of America's parklands -- to cough up $50 million for environmental "mitigation" needed in the wake of the construction of a border fence. That was after DHS had already spent or committed millions more for expected environmental damage caused by the Border Patrol over the years. 

Though both the departments of Homeland Security and Interior say the money goes toward preserving and restoring sensitive habitats, Republicans say the arrangement doesn't make sense. 

The Border Patrol needs that money to address the weighty task of securing the border, they say, arguing that agents are actually helping conserve the environment by keeping out smugglers and immigration violators who have no regard for America's natural resources. 

They note that the transactions are conducted with little congressional oversight, and the Border Patrol has privately described the routine negotiations as a "constant headache." 

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the kicker in the multimillion-dollar tradeoff is that the money doesn't even guarantee the Border Patrol open access to the land. Agents still have to follow particular rules to drive into wilderness areas to pursue suspects or set up routine patrols. 

"That conflict has got to be resolved," he said. "If the Border Patrol was allowed to have free access to patrol the borders at will ... it would have the same effect that they're doing in other areas." 

Bishop in March called on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to stop "extorting" the money from Homeland Security. "Money appropriated for border security should only be spent on making our borders more secure, and not diverted to unrelated DOI spending projects," he said in a statement at the time. According to Bishop's office, Salazar has not responded...

englishnews@chosun.com / Jun. 18, 2010 11:55 KST

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency committed two major blunders during the Korean War by underestimating the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea and failing to predict the intervention of Chinese communist troops until a day before it happened. And a response plan developed by the U.S. government in case of another invasion contained the option of using atomic weapons against the North and northern China.

The revelations are contained in a set of CIA documents that were declassified on Wednesday, including a report entitled "Two Strategic Intelligence Mistakes in Korea, 1950," which reviews the mistakes.

According to the report, a paper dated on June 19, six days before the Korea War broke out, noted that "while [North Korea] could take control of parts of the South, it probably did not have the capability to destroy the South Korean government without Soviet or Chinese assistance," adding, "This belief caused them to ignore warnings of [North Korea's] military buildup and mobilization near the border, clearly the 'force protection' intelligence that should have been most alerting to military minds."

The CIA had been monitoring China's moves from the start of the war, but even after the balance tipped in favor of South Korea with the success of the Incheon landing operation that choked off the communist advance, it saw no signs of Chinese intervention. On Oct. 12, it reported, "While full-scale Chinese Communist intervention in Korea must be regarded as a continuing possibility, a consideration of all known factors leads to the conclusion that such action is not probable in 1950," and on Oct. 15 in a meeting, Gen. Douglas MacArthur told President Harry Truman "there was little chance of a large-scale Chinese intervention."

But on the following day, 30,000 Chinese troops poured across the Duman (or Tumen) River followed by 150,000 more soldiers a few days later, leading to a full-blown battle with allied forces. Finally on Nov. 28, MacArthur admitted that he faced a "completely new war."

According to other documents detailing the U.S. plans after the war, U.S. officials convened a strategic meeting on March 2, 1954, after the Korean War ended in a ceasefire, and came up with a plan to use atomic weapons against North Korea and parts of China if the North invaded the South again.

By Jana Winter
Published June 18, 2010
FOXNews.com

Ten of 17 Afghan military deserters who walked away from a training program on a U.S. Air Force base in Texas remain at large, sources close to the situation told Fox News on Friday, and seven of the men have been accounted for. 

The 17 deserters went AWOL from Lackland Air Force Base, where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, according to a "Be-on-the-Lookout" (BOLO) bulletin issued on Wednesday.

Sources said that as of November 2009, one of  the deserters was in Canada, one is now a lawful permanent resident in the U.S., one has left the country and another four are in federal custody and in removal proceedings. The other 10 remain unaccounted for.

On Wednesday night, the BOLO bulletin listing all 17 deserters was distributed to local and federal law enforcement officials and joint terrorism task force members across the country. 

The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," written by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas and obtained by FoxNews.com. 

The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S. 

"I can confirm that 17 have gone missing from the Defense Language Institute," said Gary Emery, Chief of Public Affairs, 37th Training Wing, at Lackland AFB. "They disappeared over the course of the last two years, and none in the last three months." 

The most recent Afghan to disappear from Lackland was First Lt. Javed Aryan, who went AWOL in January 2010, Emery told FoxNews.com. The others listed in the NCIS report disappeared at various times last year.

Each of the missing Afghans was issued a Department of Defense Common Access Card, an identification card used to gain access to secure military installations, with which they "could attempt to enter DOD installations," according to the bulletin. Base security officers were encouraged to disseminate the bulletin to their personnel.

"The visas issued to these personnel have been revoked, or are in the process of being revoked. Lookouts have been placed in TECS," it reads.

Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), which is shared by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, is a computer-based database used to identify people suspected of violating federal law. 

Afghans are not the only foreign military who have gone AWOL from Lackland, Emery said.

"In 2009, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center reported two other students from countries other than Afghanistan went missing," he told FoxNews.com. "They include one Iraqi who requested asylum in Houston and one Djiboutian whose status is unknown. To date in 2010, one student from Tunisia and one from Guinea Bissau have gone AWOL in addition to the Afghani student [Aryan] who went AWOL in January. 

"To put these numbers in perspective," Emery said, "more than 3,400 international students entered training at DLI in 2009, including 228 from Afghanistan."

A senior law enforcement official said Friday that the Afghans' disappearance was more of an immigration violation than a security threat, saying there are no "strong indications to any terrorism nexus or impending threat." 

"A number of these guys have already been located or accounted for by now," the official said. "Some are in removal proceedings to be deported already. (Authorities) still need to locate the others, and that is why the bulletin went out."

The official said the information is "kind of old" -- up to two years -- but added, "It is important in the sense that some people look to come to the U.S. and will take advantage of invitations to train or attend a conference or to study, etc. But their real intention is to get to the U.S. and start a new life. It is not completely rare for this to happen....

"Although we are vigilant and need to work toward not allowing this to happen," the official said, this alert should "not necessarily" be described as "a national security threat, more of a 'hey these guys violated our laws and we need to find them.'"...

By John Stossel  · Wednesday, June 16, 2010

I'm confused. When I walk around busy midtown Manhattan, I often smell marijuana. Despite the crowds, some people smoke weed in public. Usually the police leave them alone, and yet other times they act like a military force engaged in urban combat. This February, cops stormed a Columbia, Mo., home, killed the family dog and terrorized a 7-year-old boy -- for what? A tiny quantity of marijuana.

Two years ago, in Prince George's County, Md., cops raided Cheye Calvo's home -- all because a box of marijuana was randomly shipped to his wife as part of a smuggling operation. Only later did the police learn that Calvo was innocent -- and the mayor of that town.

"When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake," Calvo said. "But the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don't hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor."

Radley Balko of Reason magazine says more than a hundred police SWAT raids are conducted every day. Does the use of illicit drugs really justify the militarization of the police, the violent disregard for our civil liberties and the overpopulation of our prisons? It seems hard to believe.

I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm -- wreck lives and hurt people. But that's true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn't work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

Everything can be abused, but that doesn't mean government can stop it, or should try to stop it. Government goes astray when it tries to protect us from ourselves.

Many people fear that if drugs were legal, there would be much more use and abuse. That's possible, but there is little evidence to support that assumption. In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years. Yet the Dutch are actually less likely to smoke than Americans. Thirty-eight percent of American adolescents have smoked pot, while only 20 percent of Dutch teens have. One Dutch official told me that "we've succeeded in making pot boring."

By contrast, what good has the drug war done? It's been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. Since then, government has spent billions and officials keep announcing their "successes." They are always holding press conferences showing off big drug busts. So it's not like authorities aren't trying.

We've locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America's human-rights record because our prisons are "packed with inmates."

Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do!

Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don't smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime.

The drug trade moved to Mexico partly because our government funded narcotics police in Colombia and sprayed the growing fields with herbicides. We announced it was a success! We cut way back on the Colombian drug trade.

But so what? All we did was squeeze the balloon. The drug trade moved across the border to Peru, and now it's moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States.

That's what I call progress. It the kind of progress we don't need.

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote: "(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness ... (w)hy not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays ... ? The mischief done by bad ideologies is more pernicious ... than that done by narcotic drugs."

Right on, Ludwig!

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM