The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
Opponents of the measure, including major national Hispanic groups, say it will lead to racial profiling, and 53% of voters in the state are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants also will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t share that concern
Those figures include 23% who are very concerned and 18% who are not at all concerned.
Civil rights concerns were a bit higher last year. following a series of aggressive enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sherriff.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate's position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.
The measure is already having an impact on this year’s Senate and governor races in the state.
Senator John McCain, who is facing a serious Republican Primary challenge this year in part over his involvement in developing immigration reform legislation, on Monday endorsed the new state law. McCain now earns just 47% support to challenger J.D. Hayworth’s 42% in Arizona’s hotly contested GOP Senate Primary race.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Arizonans consistently have been critical of the U.S. government’s failure to secure the border with Mexico, and that anxiety has increased with growing drug violence along the border.
While many in Washington, D.C. view immigration reform as a way to legalize the 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the country, 73% of voters in Arizona now say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of these undocumented workers.
In July of last year, 51% of Arizona voters said it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.
That view is shared by voters nationwide and has been for several years.
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it.
Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer now has the bill on her desk, awaiting either her signature into law or her veto. State Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer for governor this year, has announced his opposition to the new law.
The top four GOP contenders for governor of Arizona, including Brewer, have all expanded their support since last month in match-ups with Goddard. The Democrat has lost ground and now trails in all four contests. One factor in the latest trends may have been Goddard’s refusal to join other states in suing the federal government over the new health care law. Brewer found a way to proceed despite Goddard’s refusal and got a big bounce in the polls.
The new law puts into state statute some of the policies that have long been practiced by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. But his aggressive enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration have triggered a Justice Department probe and moves by the Obama administration to reduce his ability to enforce federal immigration laws.
When these moves against Arpaio were first reported in March 2009, 68% of Arizona voters said they had a favorable view of the sheriff. Voters also strongly favored his tactics including police raids on places where illegal immigrants gather to find work.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
|
WALL STREET FIXES GOLD PRICES By Pat Shannan A leading precious metals
watchdog group says it has compelling proof the prices of gold and
silver have been manipulated for years by Wall Street firms, and it is
demanding government regulators take action.
Murphy wrote to Gensler on March 8: “Because of the decades-long interference with the gold market, we estimate the free-market price of gold is multiples of the current price. Growing stress caused by burgeoning physical bullion demand is threatening to lead to a price explosion, which will restore to the market the balance that regulation has failed to maintain. In our view, the Comex [New York Commodities Exchange] paper market will become dysfunctional, with ‘force majeure’ having to be declared as the concentrated shorts are unable to deliver on their obligations.” If GATA indeed has the evidence of massive physical positions impossible to cover, and should this evidence be made public, the repercussions for the price of gold and silver will be unprecedented. Dedicated AFP readers will remember it was GATA that two years ago spent $265,000 for a full-page, onetime advertisement in The Wall Street Journal asking in broad headlines: “Anybody Seen Our Gold?” GATA’s ad warned, “This manipulation has been a primary cause of the catastrophic excesses in the markets that . . . threaten the . . . world.” What GATA had warned against has come to pass, and its investigation has not ceased. In pursuit of Obama’s “transparency in the federal government,” GATA has made Freedom of Information Act requests to the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department for a candid accounting of their involvement in the gold market, particularly in regard to gold swaps. In a reply to GATA’s lawyers dated Sept. 17, 2009, Fed Governor Kevin M. Warsh acknowledged that the Federal Reserve has gold swap agreements with foreign banks but insisted that such documents remain secret. As a result, last December, GATA sued the Federal Reserve in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking access to the Fed’s withheld records of gold swaps. In his lengthy letter, Murphy told Gensler, “Initially we thought the manipulation of the gold market was undertaken as a coordinated profit scheme by certain bullion banks, like JPMorgan, Chase Bank and Goldman Sachs, and that it violated federal and state anti-trust laws. But we soon discerned that the bullion banks were working closely with the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve in a gold cartel, part of a broad scheme of manipulation of the currency, precious metals and bond markets.” GATA has long implicated the Comex as being a mechanism by which gold and silver price suppression is implemented, and the smoking gun is the excessive concentration of bullion bank positions in the gold and silver futures markets that enables market manipulation. The CFTC’s own reports of November 2009 show that just two U.S. banks held 43 percent of the commercial net short position in gold and 68 percent of the commercial net short position in silver. In gold, these two banks were short 123,331 contracts but long only 523 contracts, and in silver they were short 41,318 and long only 1,426. Murphy asks, “How improbable is it that these two banks attract most of the investors who want only to sell short?” He went on to point out that GATA knew that the two banks that hold these large manipulative short positions, JPMorgan Chase and HSBC, held more than 95 percent of the gold and precious metals derivatives of all U.S. banks, with a combined notional value of $120 billion. This concentration dwarfs the concentration in the gold and silver futures markets and should raise great concern about the lack of position limits on the Comex. Giving CFTC one more hurdle before closing, Murphy wrote, “It is also disturbing to us that HSBC is the custodian for the major gold exchange-traded fund, GLD, and that JPMorgan Chase is the custodian for the major silver exchange-traded fund, SLV. It is a significant material omission to fail to disclose to GLD and SLV investors that the custodian banks of the two exchange-traded funds have an interest in falling prices in the futures and derivatives markets.” He pointed out that detailed daily monitoring of gold trading reveals the pattern that the gold price consistently falls in the darkness of early dawn New York time when the gold cartel’s traders report to work in London, and again following the evening gold price fix, when physical market pricing has concluded for the day, and in the access market following the Comex close. Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan’s experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1980s. Both are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS for $25 each. Subscribe to American Free
Press. Online
subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS
ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper. (Issue # 14, April 5, 2010) |
|||
SPLC, ADL SMEAR PATRIOTS
By Mark Anderson
Did you know that informing
Americans about the often bitter truth about their nation and the world
constitutes “hate”? Neither did we. But the Alabama-based Southern
Poverty Law Center sees itself fit to list 512 American patriot groups
in a special issue of its quarterly Intelligence Report and
characterize them as “hate” groups—even while admitting, “[The] listing
here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in
violence or other criminal activities, or are racist,” as the report
states.
If these groups are not criminally inclined, then what’s
the problem? The problem from the SPLC’s viewpoint is that many of these
groups, whatever their imperfections, communicate pertinent information
to a population that is increasingly indifferent to, or distrustful of,
big media, misplaced or abused government authority and the rogue
corporate structure.
Of course, not every group that made “the
list” is always accurate in its views, nor does freedom of speech mean
you must be accurate, nor does it exclude those who may say stupid
things. It’s not illegal to be eccentric, nor is it against the law to
be angry or upset at what’s going on. Most people are. Deal with it.
Corporate
structure has colluded with government to impoverish the average person
and bail out corporate titans to the tune of billions. Everybody knows
this, except, it seems, the SPLC, which wants to tell Americans and law
enforcement officials to distrust these citizen groups while those in
the corporate world rob our nation and close down our industry.
 |
If calling attention to corporate-government actions that threaten the future of every man, woman and child is “hate,” then some groups listed by the SPLC stand “guilty as charged.”
But observe that usually those who shout “hate” the loudest are themselves the “haters,” for lack of a better word. It’s the world’s oldest trick: Accuse others of what you are guilty of, as a ploy to smear your perceived
opponents. The SPLC seems adept at this. Good people in conservative groups are lumped in with obscure elements and lesser-known groups who would disagree with each other on many issues. But the SPLC makes it seem like they agree on most things, to broaden the smear.
Yet, it’s not as if the SPLC is particularly important or credible. This whole thing has become a tiresome perennial exercise for the leftist SPLC, which sees anyone to the political “right” of its positions as “extremist”—another abused buzzword used to confuse the population. It’s all a matter of perspective. If you are in a group as ultra-left wing as the SPLC, almost everyone else is automatically to the right of you. Then it becomes a question only of who to put on “the list.”
Meanwhile, the SPLC speaks of illegal immigrants as if breaking U.S. immigration laws is unimportant. In other words, it’s OK to enter the nation illegally, but it’s not OK to protest it. Overall, the SPLC’s work borders on slander and libel.
The biggest problem, however, is that the SPLC has the ear of the Department of Homeland Security, among other government agencies that troll for signs of “domestic terrorism” and may equate these American “extremist” groups with potential terrorism without justification.
Most Americans are a mixture of “right” and “left” views, if such labels must be used, and most people actually have much more in common than is usually assumed. For example, except for a minority of neoconservatives running our foreign policy (a breed of alleged conservatives who lust for empire and conquest), a sizable cross section of both liberals and traditional, constitutional conservatives want to stop fighting perpetual wars.
AFP reminds Americans that there are about 800 U.S. military bases in at least 120 nations and that our interventionist foreign policy is bankrupting our nation, maiming and killing our own soldiers who are not given winnable missions, and bringing untold agony and death on innocent foreign people. Is it hateful to report that?
And excuse us for noting that Israel does not need nor deserve exclusive U.S. protection and foreign aid. The Israeli army’s slaughter of largely defenseless Palestinians in late 2008 showed the whole world what that rogue nation is all about.
Thus, hardly more need be said, except to say that just as Germany and other European nations can and should defend themselves without American taxpayers holding their hands, the same goes for Israel, which is perfectly capable, with some 200-400 nuclear weapons, of defending itself. This is not “anti-Semitism.”
SPLC’s Intelligence Report includes this general description: “Of these groups, 127 were militias . . . and the remainder includes ‘common-law’ courts, publishers, ministries and citizen groups. Generally, patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the ‘New World Order,’ engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines.”
The actual listing consists of John Birch Society, Oath Keepers, Constitution Party, American Independent Party and various other patriot-citizen groups and chapters in all 50 states. None gives any indication of being dangerous. There also is a Texas-based group to end the Federal Reserve’s private central banking racket, which is tough to define as “hate.” And Gary Franchi’s principled Restore the Republic in Illinois is listed, when this writer can personally attest to Franchi’s honesty and passion to report the truth and make America a better place.
Other, more obscure, groups are listed, too, whose status and intentions are unknown. Yet, they all have a right to their opinions and to engage in the political reform process.
Unless engaged in actual, provable crime, any person or group can say anything they want in the United States. May it always remain that way, regardless of attempts by some to reclassify free speech as hate speech and label concerned Americans as “enemies of the state.”
Mark Anderson is a longtime newsman now working as a deputy editor for AFP. He and his wife Angie provide photographs and video of the events they cover for AFP. Listen to Mark’s radio show at republicbroadcasting.org, Saturdays at 2. Email him at at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to American
Free Press. Online
subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS
ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.
Print
subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six
free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website
or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .
Sign up for our free
e-newsletter here
- get a free gift just for signing up!
(Issue # 19, May 12, 2010)
|
Was Gulf Oil Spill an Inside Job? By Victor Thorn Could the catastrophic Gulf of
Mexico oil rig explosion be part of a larger scheme to “reform” the
energy industry, just as the Obama administration has “reformed”
healthcare, banking and automobile manufacturers? Worse, is “cap and
trade”—possibly the worst legislation ever penned—the ultimate endgame
behind this spill, which they are now capitalizing upon?
Of vital importance is CCX’s role as the sole “carbon trading system” under Obama’s cap-and-trade bill. CCX would act as a quasi-stock market to buy and sell energy emission allowances. Richard Sandor, CCX founder, estimated a $10 trillion potential for this easily manipulated market. BILDERBERG INFLUENCE With that much money at stake, a host of high rollers enter the picture. Namely, one company with a huge ownership interest in CCX is Generation Investment Management (GIM), whose chairman is former Vice President Al Gore. Four other GIM founders include Henry Paulson, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris—all of Goldman Sachs. Not surprisingly, Goldman Sachs purchased 10 percent of CCX in 2006. One other individual on CCX’s board of directors is the controversial Maurice Strong, a New Age occultist with direct ties to the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. Since Goldman Sachs has now become part of the equation, we next need to examine its non-executive chairman, Peter Sutherland, who formerly filled the same role at BP, the company at the center of this debacle. As the third-largest global energy company in existence, BP has four direct links to Bilderberg: former CEO John Brown, chairman Carl Henric Svanberg, chief executive Tony Hayward and Sutherland. In addition, Sutherland formerly served as the World Trade Organization’s director general, EU commissioner and chairman of the European Trilateral Commission. This background information is important because the top recipient of BP donations during the 2008 presidential campaign was Obama. Similarly, the second highest political action committee contributing to a political candidate in 2008 was Goldman Sachs. The beneficiary of their largess: Obama. Undoubtedly, one of Obama’s primary big government missions is to enact cap-and-trade legislation. To implement this plan, influential decision makers such as Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker and Timothy Geithner are all members of the financial mafia. In this vein, David Mayer Rothschild stressed that last year’s Copenhagen environmental summit was “an attempt to establish a world government.” Likewise, AFP editor Jim Tucker reported on March 24, 2007 that General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, said political leaders should “address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide.” The Rothschilds have spent huge amounts of money promoting the global warming hoax. Goldman Sachs is obviously an arm of their empire, whereas BP is among a host of companies in Nathan Rothschild’s portfolio. A TEAM EFFORT Considering the nature of these prominent players, one factor binds them all together. Cap and trade, via the CCX, will tax carbon-dioxide emissions and generate trillions in revenue. Only a month ago, however, this legislation sat dead in the water with virtually no support from Congress or the American public. But now, with an environmental catastrophe at hand, could it be resurrected and enacted in a way that mirrored President Clinton’s counter-terrorism bill following the OKC bombing? Ironically, big oil and global bankers are two of the most ardent supporters of climate change legislation. In this sense, seeming adversaries such as “environmentalist” Gore and BP are on the same team; as are Cheney’s Halliburton, Goldman Sachs and Obama’s CCX. It should also be noted that prior to their demise, the corrupt Enron Corporation lavished huge amounts of praise on cap and trade legislation. Lastly, if gasoline prices surge this summer due to the Gulf of Mexico spill, one obvious benefactor will be the new green-friendly “smart cars” owned by GM (Government Motors). As AFP goes to press, all containment efforts have failed as millions of gallons of oil continue to gush into the Gulf of Mexico on a weekly basis. Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93. Subscribe to American Free
Press. Online
subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS
ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper. (Issue # 21, May 26, 2010) |
|||||
The MEDIA IS THE ENEMY
Find out why maverick, independent grass-roots media voices such as American Free Press have declared all-out war on the elite-controlled Big Media Monopoly in America and around the globe . . .In the old Soviet Union, the government controlled the media. Not a word of substance could be published without prior approval from the Bolshevik commissars. Today, in the United States, the situation is starkly similar. But most Americans don’t even know it.
In the United States today, it is a select handful of super-rich families and tightly-knit financial interests—a plutocratic elite—who own the Big Media and who control the government through their ownership of that media. . . .
Every single one of the major media outlets is controlled by this powerful interlocking combine.
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune—even such “regional” giants as The New Orleans Times-Picayune, The Miami Herald, The San Diego Herald-Tribune. . . . The list goes on and on.
And these media powerhouses control dozens—actually thousands—of other daily and weekly newspapers, magazines, and radio and television outlets across America (and around the globe).
PLUS: Did you know that every single supermarket tabloid is owned by just one, super-rich Wall Street banker?
To consolidate their influence, the Masters of the Media and their international corporate allies reward obedient journalists with membership in the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Com mission where they rub shoulders with others in the international policy-making networks. A handful get promoted to the higher ranks of the secret Bilderberg Group.
The so-called “mainstream” media is very much a “closed shop” and only those willing to do the bidding of the global power elite need apply. Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings and other puppets are just the public faces that the American people see.
Behind the scenes are the shadowy owners and corporate power brokers who dictate what you will (or will not) see in your daily newspaper or on the evening news.
The average American has no idea that super-rich predators with names like Rockefeller, Rothschild, Bronfman, Newhouse, Murdoch and Redstone are making vast profits and achieving immense power through their stranglehold on the American media (and, increasingly, on media around the globe.)
? These shadowy media controllers decide which politicians are “in” and which politicians are “out.” (They made Bill Clinton overnight. They also broke Richard Nixon overnight.)
? The Masters of the Media decide which issues can—or cannot—be debated. (Imagine a public de bate over the Federal Reserve system on Ted Coppell’s Nightline. It will never happen!)
? The Masters of the Media promote the perverse, anti-Christian Cultural Communist ideology that permeates publishing and broadcasting today.
? The Masters of the Media decide which are the “good wars” and which are the “bad wars.”
? The Masters of the Media decide who is the “hero” and who is the “villain.”
If the Big Media decides you will be the patsy, then the patsy you will be.
It’s that simple. Ask Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray or Gordon Kahl or Randy Weaver or the victims of Waco.
As we said: THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY.
And that’s why American Free Press is right here on Capitol Hill taking up the challenge against this enemy. We’re in the forefront of the battle to reclaim America.
But American Free Press couldn’t exist without the support of its readers. That’s what makes this populist newspaper unique.
We have lots of enthusiastic readers—good patriots all across America—but we don’t have the massive resources or the endless financial backing of the Media Monopoly.
In 1989, there were 11 major media giants emerging as the most powerful names in the global Media Monopoly. Today there are nine major corporations dominating the global media (although two of the nine are actually controlled by one family).
And that’s why American Free Press exists: to counter the ever-tightening Media Monopoly both here in the United States—and around the globe.
Subscribe today and find out the news that you need to know. One year of weekly issues of American Free Press is $59—weekly issues delivered right to your doorstep. Two years of weekly issues of American Free Press are just $99. If you’d like a trial subscription or if you’d like to send a gift to a friend, try our 16-week trial subscription to AFP for just $17.76. Our on-line version, AFP OnLine, is just $15. Every week you get an electronic version of the newspaper in PDF format you can open right on your computer. Full color and about one megabyte, each issue can be opened in Adobe Acrobat®. You can order online by clicking here.
To subscribe to AFP call toll free at 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) and charge a subscription (or any of the many other informative products offered by AFP and First Amendment Books) to Visa or MasterCard.
OUR GUARANTEE: If you are ever dissatisfied with your subscription to American Free Press, just drop us a note to the above address and we will gladly refund the unused portion of your subscription.
