A BBC Radio 4 investigation sheds new light on a major subject that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.

General Smedley Butler, author of the famous quote "war is a racket", exposed the fascist plotters but was subsequently demonized and shunned by the government and the media.

In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

According to the BBC , the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and "Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."

The conspirators were operating under the umbrella of a front group called the American Liberty League, which included many families that are still household names today, including Heinz, Colgate, Birds Eye and General Motors.

Butler played along with the clique to determine who was involved but later blew the whistle and identified the ringleaders in testimony given to the House Committee on un-American Activities.

However, the Committee refused to even question any of the individuals named by Butler and his testimony was omitted from the record, leading to charges that they were involved in covering the matter up, and the majority of the media blackballed the story.

In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

The proven record of Prescott Bush's involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.

Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.

In his documentary film Martial Law , Alex Jones interviews John Buchanan, who was instrumental in uncovering the documents tying Prescott Bush to the financing of the Third Reich. Watch a clip above. The subject is also covered in Alex's upcoming film, End Game, which includes rare video of Smedley Butler's testimony.

Click here to listen to the BBC Radio 4 investigation.

10 min - Jan 23, 2007 - No ratings yet   (2 ratings)

Watch video here Hide video - Related videos

Prison Planet July 24, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, better known as the D.C. Madame, says that anything up to a hundred notable individuals remain undiscovered on the infamous phone numbers list, and that "big names" may also feature.

The government claims that Palfrey's former escort service, Pamela Martin and Associates, was an illegal prostitution ring, and yet it was allowed to operate for 13 years before Palfrey's attempt to close the business made many influential Beltway politicians nervous that she was about to spill the beans on their involvement - triggering federal harassment and a criminal investigation.

In response, Palfrey released a giant archive of phone numbers of people who used the service, forcing several public officials to admit their involvement, including Senator David Vitter and State Department official Randall L. Tobias.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, Palfrey outlined the long chain of harassment and surveillance she had endured on behalf of the government's "investigation" of the case, many details of which are routinely ignored by the corporate media, including how federal agents posed as a couple who were interested in buying her home as a means of accessing her property without a warrant.

She also detailed how her financial transactions were intercepted and also how the warrant to search her house was finally obtained under the pretext of anti-terror laws, of which this case bore no relation.

Palfrey eventually had all her financial and real estate assets frozen by the government before she even knew what she was being charged with.

Palfrey characterized the situation as "puzzling, twisted and bizarre," adding, "This is not a case about prostitution, it never was, it isn't now and it never will be - there's something very rotten at the core of all this."

Palfrey said she had been completely blackballed by the mainstream media who are not interested in the story, including the Washington Post and the New York Times who declined to speak with her.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., admits his involvement in the call girl scandal at a press conference last week.

The D.C. Madame indicated that the identities of more big name individuals involved in the scandal were about to be released.

"We now know it goes at least as high as a United States Senator," said Palfrey, "I'm hearing rumors now from other people that there are other possibilities in that stratosphere so to speak, on that level."

Palfrey stated that there were anything up to a hundred of other notable individuals that have yet to be exposed as having used the escort service, including potential "big names".

Asked if Palfrey agreed with the observation that Republicans favored gay male prostitutes over women, Palfrey responded, "I don't know about that, I seem to think that as well by reading news reports."

As we have highlighted before, mainly Republican self-proclaimed Christian attendees to the annual Bohemian Grove retreat - a kind of summer camp for the elite where policy is formulated without oversight - are routinely "serviced" by gay male porn stars, who are transported in to work as valets, according to a report in the New York Post .

The D.C. Madame scandal is important for several reasons but the core issue is the fact that the majority of high-level public and government officials are embroiled in these kinds of activities, along with even seedier pursuits, and this ensures they are completely compromised and can be politically blackmailed to maintain the status quo, because if it was to fall then they would go down with it.

This strikes at the very root of why the majority in Congress consistently oppose immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a new investigation into 9/11 and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney - because to lend support to such actions would leave them vulnerable to a brutal exposé of whatever skeletons are in their closet.

Palfrey concluded by promising that new developments in the case may emerge within the next few weeks.

Click here to listen to the interview (prison planet.tv members only - please consider subscribing here and getting access to all our exclusive multimedia content).

Coach Dave Daubenmire
July 25, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

I was sitting in the balcony at church the other night. It really gives you a different view of the congregation. As is usually the case, the Word that came forth out of the pulpit was rich and uncompromising. That is why I like to go, to feast on the Word. It gives new meaning to the word buffet.

But being above the sheep sitting in the pew gives one a different perspective. As I listened to the sermon I allowed my eyes to cascade across the crowd. As is usually the case, I tend to see things a little differently. Rather than seeing hearts stirred by the Word of God and the exhortation of the pastor to more fully live-out one’s faith, I had another image flash through my mind.

“They’re grazing,” I said to myself. “Look at all the folks in the pew. They are like sheep just grazing on the Word.” Three times a week they show up to gorge on the “meat” of the Word. I don’t blame them. The food is good, it feeds the Spirit, it sustains us in tough times. But in a sense it is nothing more than spiritual-welfare.

As I surveyed the crowd I was struck with the realization that most Christians, even in good Bible-teaching churches, are over-stuffed. You know the feeling, the laziness that always follows a good meal and the desire to sit in an easy-chair and snooze. That is what is happening in our churches. Christians are sitting in the pew, occasionally raising a hand in agreement with the Word, crying out, "Amen" to the pastor much the way a sheep “baaa’s,” and slowly chewing on the meat that is being served. When the service is over, they go home, lie on the couch, chew on the cud, and bide their time for their next opportunity to go to church and eat.

They don’t understand that the purpose of the meal was to give them nourishment for the battle. The battle for souls is raging and most church-goers are too content to merely feast, oblivious to their role in advancing the Kingdom.

But just as the world is fighting the ‘battle of the bulge” from over-eating at the buffet, so too, is the church weighted down by spiritual fat. Although we often like to blame our weight-gain on a “gland” problem, or “trouble with our knees,” the truth is we get overweight because we eat more calories than we burn off. Being overweight makes us sedentary, lazy, and stagnant.

I call it the “Dead Sea Effect.”

Have you ever read much about The Dead Sea? It is fascinating study. Let me save you some time and give you a quick over-view of what I have learned.

• The Dead Sea is the lowest elevation on earth.
• It is 1083 feet deep.
• It is the world’s 2nd saltiest body of water.
• The salt content is 30% ….nearly 9 times saltier than the oceans.
• In Hebrew the Dead Sea is called the Yam ha-Melakh (help--info), meaning "sea of salt," or Yam ha-Mavet, "sea of death."
• The sea is called "dead" because its high salinity means no macroscopic aquatic organisms such as fish or water plants can live in it.
• Because of its unusually high concentration of salt, anyone can easily float in the Dead Sea.
• The Dead Sea area has become a major center for health research.

Coach Dave Daubenmire, founder and President of Pass The Salt Ministries www.ptsalt.com and Minutemen United www.minutemenunited.org, is host of the high octane Pass The Salt radio show heard in Columbus, Ohio.

In 1999 Coach Daubenmire was sued by the ACLU for praying with his teams while coaching high school in Ohio. He now spends his energy fighting for Christian principles in the public domain.

E-Mail: coach@ptsalt.com

By Jon Christian Ryter

July 25, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

America's far left still thinks socialized medicine is good for everyone simply because everyone would be covered (whether they want to or not) and, because everyone (except their poor constituents) would be forced to pay exorbitant taxes to the federal government to finance it. It would also be very good for government since it would promulgate the bureaucracy. When she carried the self-ascribed title of co-president (and took the job description just a little too seriously for most of official Washington, DC), Hillary Clinton—with the help of strategist Ira Magaziner—forged the legislation known as the Health Security Act of 1993 that would have nationalized 1/7th of the US economy if it had made it through the Democratically-controlled Congress. As the media hawked the Health Security Act, they constantly pointed out that our neighbor to the north, Canada, has had national socialized medicine for 28 years, beginning with the passage of the Orwellian healthcare system—the Canada Health Act—that covered 100% of its citizens. It was an Orwellian victory any utopian socialist—but no one else—would be proud of.

In fact, it was so Orwellian that Canadians living elsewhere in the world are still required to be covered. Just like the mandates in Hillary's proposed Health Security Act had it been enacted. And, like Hillary's Health Security Act, the Canadian healthcare system determined when it was pointless to waste the taxpayer's money funding health care for terminal conditions— conditions like terminal cancer, the final stages of AIDS, and just plain old "old age."

Until the last few years, the medical community of Canada was convinced that the medical system in Canada was on par with that in the United States—even though Canadians have historically flooded across the border to seek medical attention in the United States—particularly when they were faced with life-threatening medical conditions, most of which would have required an extended waiting period in Canada.

When you compare the training and proficiency of healthcare providers in Canada to those of the United States there's little or no difference. Although they are not quite as innovative, Canadian doctors are every bit as capable as US doctors, and Canadian healthcare facilities are every bit as good as US hospitals. The biggest differences between the private healthcare system in the United States and the public healthcare system of Canada are found in the area of personal cost—and the wait. The US healthcare system—due largely to the extraordinary cost of malpractice insurance—is far more expensive than the Canadian universal healthcare system. But at least in the United States, if you have a heart attack and need bypass surgery, that lifesaving operation is performed within hours—not months or years.

Healthcare costs are kept artificially low in Canada because the government is the provider. Private insurance companies (which insure human life and property) are discouraged from offering health insurance policies. Six Canadian provinces—Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Quebec—have banned insurance companies from offering health insurance to their policyholders. The other four Canadian provinces have laws that discourage private insurers from offering health plans while a national law makes it illegal for Canadian citizens to pay for health care that is deemed medically necessary and is provided by either the provincial or national government. Yet, scores of Canadians purchase health insurance coverage in the United States every year because, increasingly, the medical orthodoxy of the Canadian healthcare system is being challenged by patients and doctors alike. Even without private healthcare coverage, more and more Canadians cross the border every year to have critically-needed medical procedures done in the United States.

While the largest number of healthcare seekers come to the United States want elective cosmetic surgery, many of those who come need lifesaving procedures that are not available to them in Canada, or that are not available to them quick enough to prolong their lives. Patients seeking plastic surgery at Canadian hospitals have an average wait of 35.4 weeks—over 8 months—before the procedure can be done. While there is an average delay of 10 weeks for any surgery, women with gynecological problems are forced to wait at least 14 weeks after they are diagnosed before surgery can be done. Those requiring ophthalmological surgery will generally wait 27.3 weeks. If you need orthopedic surgery, you will likely wait at least 40 weeks before the bone doctor goes to work on you. If you need neurosurgery, the odds are pretty good you will wait up to 32 weeks for the procedure you need to save your life. If you need cardiac surgery, you only have to wait 8 weeks. When the cancer time bomb is ticking inside your body, you will still wait at least 5 weeks for surgery—and an additional 5 weeks before you can start radiation therapy.

Michael Moore, who uses his propaganda skills as a film maker, ignores the monumental problems with the Canadian healthcare system and calls the US healthcare system "sick." In his new documentary "Sicko," Moore portrays the US healthcare system as inferior to that of Canada. All of the top tier 2008 Democratic presidential contenders propose slightly different versions of a universal healthcare system for Americans if they get elected. And, as US politicians—who argue that only the United States and Mexico are the only two developed countries in the world without universal healthcare—are struggling to develop a system that won't bankrupt the treasury coming out of the chute, the Canadians are fighting the socialist bureaucracy in Canada to undo 28 years of bad medical law to privatize their failing public healthcare system.

Under the current system—which is actually a hodgepodge of different socialized healthcare plans—every Canadian citizen (with a few exceptions) regardless of their medical history, income or standard of living, is entitled to precisely the same access to hospitals, the same medical treatment from primary care physicians, and the same eye and dental care as anyone else. The government pays 70% of the cost, the patient pays 30%. The problem with the Canadian system is not centered on the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer—who not only pays a stiff tax for the coverage, but 30% of the cost for the treatment as well—but, rather, on the inability of the Canadian system to deliver medical services in a timely fashion. The bureaucrats in Canada are fighting the current attempts to privatize the system because they believe privatization will lead to "inequality" in healthcare with wealthier Canadians being able to buy certain treatments or more "deluxe" services than the poor. As it is today, the wealthier Canadians simply get on a plane and fly to Johns Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic, or some other major US medical center specializing in their particular disease or disorder—without a 6 to 40 week wait for surgery.

Over the last couple of decades private clinics offering specialized services began popping up in various Canadian provinces. Private health insurance plans, which have always existed to help defray the patient's portion of the healthcare bill, and which are generally offered as part of employee benefits packages in most Canadian companies, are now being used to defray a portion of the cost for care in private facilities.

Even though they do so, under federal law in Canada, private clinics cannot legally provide any medical procedure that is covered by the Canada Health Act since that could be construed as offering better medical care to those who could afford private care than that which is generally available under the public health system. For example, if you needed an MRI or Petscan, you could be forced to wait several months at a public health system hospital or clinic. In a private clinic, the doctor would order the test one day and the MRI, catscan or Petscan could be scheduled for the next day—like it is here in under our archaic private healthcare system that Hillary, John and Barack want to change for us.

The Hillary Clinton Health Security Act of 1993 was modeled after the Canadian healthcare system—which is touted by the Canadian government as the best public healthcare system in the world because, the Canadian government noted, the average lifespan of a Canadian is 80.1 years—higher than it is in the United States. The average lifespan for men in the United States is 79.8 years. Longevity is lifestyle related. The fact that the average Canadian lives 3 months longer than an American is not because healthcare is better in Canada than it is in the United States since nothing could be farther from the truth. If it was, Canadian citizens and Canadian physicians would not be suing the Canadian government for the right to purchase personal health care outside of the Canadian healthcare system.

Two years ago a 47-year old Canadian physician, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, sued the provincial Quebec government for the right of his patients to buy health care on their own. Chaoulli is one of a growing number of doctors in Canada who have opted out of the provincial healthcare system. Because he opted out, the Quebec Health Care Act prohibits him from providing private medical services in public health hospitals—which all Canadian hospitals are. For part two click below.

By Jon Christian Ryter

July 25, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Dr. Chaoulli purchased a mobile operating room—a large white van with "Emergency Medicine 24 Hours" painted in large block letters on both sides of the vehicle. The van, equipped with portable electrocardiogram, an X-ray machine and intravenous equipment needed to give a lifesaving blood transfusion sat, unused, in the driveway of Dr. Chaoulli's home. The Quebec government told the physician is was unlawful for him to use the van—and it is unlawful for the physician to accompany his "emergency" patients to the hospital since he opted out of Quebec's healthcare system and was deemed, by the government, as no longer certified under the public health system. Physicians who opt out of Quebec's public health system, are prohibited under the Quebec Health Care Act from providing private medical services in public health hospitals. In addition, the Quebec Hospital Insurance Act denies the patients of private practice doctors from buying insurance to cover their private medical costs.

When he filed his original lawsuit in Quebec's Superior Court, Chaoulli said that he did so only because he felt he had an obligation to his patients. He argued that the terms of the Quebec Health Care Act violated his rights as a Canadian physician, and the personal and professional freedoms of Quebecers who came to him for medical care. After two years, the case—now referred to by the Canadian media as the Chaoulli Decision—arrived at the arch-liberal Supreme Court of Canada [SCC] where all of the pundits predicted Chaoulli's argument would fall on deaf ears.

The SCC shocked everyone—particularly the bureaucrats who have controlled Canada's healthcare system with an iron hand since 1984. On June 9, 2007 in a 4 to 3 opinion, the high court struck down the 23-year old law and gave private practice physicians in Canada a resounding victory. The 3-member minority argued it was not the job of the court to settle long-standing debates between private enterprise the the public health care system.

SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachllin and Justice John Major (who wrote the majority opinion) said: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care." Their decision was only the first chorkle of a death thrall that could take up to a decade since before the public health system can be partially dismantled—into a public health system for the poor and the elderly similar to that in the United States—all ten Canadian provinces and Canada's three territories must align their health care systems to comply with the Chaoulli Decision. And private insurance companies must now step up to the plate with new insurance products modeled after those used in the United States.

When Chaoulli challenged Quebec's monopoly on healthcare, one of his private practice patients, George Zeliotis, a retired businessman joined him as co-plaintiff. Zeliotis argued that he's a casualty of the existing system. The 67-year-old retired businessman told the court he waited almost a year for hip-replacement surgery in 1997. While he was on the waiting list for surgery, he was immobile and in great distress. He told the court that he appealed to politicians, hospital administrators—and even the media—for help. "The pain was intolerable," he told the media during a break in the trial. He said he would have gladly paid for private surgery had it been legal. "At night I couldn't sleep. The only thing to relieve my pain was the surgery. There was no choice. Day by day I was hoping the telephone would ring and someone would help me. Any future surgery could [also] be delayed. I wouldn't be able to govern my life."

Zeliotis hired a lawyer to plead his case. Chaoulli represented himself. One of Chaoulli's key witnesses was Dr. Edward Coffey, past president of the Quebec Medical Association—and a longstanding advocate of parallel private and public health care systems in Canada. Coffey told the court that Canada was the only industrialized nation in the world not to offer its citizens a choice between public and private health care.

Keep that mind when Hillary, John and Barack argue that the United States and Mexico are the only industrialized nations that do not offer universal healthcare. No other industrialized nation except their healthcare "model"—which has failed—mandates that the citizens of that nation must use the State's universal healthcare system to the exclusion of any private system. Hillary's Health Security Act would have required every American to use the public health system—or go without treatment. No private practice physician under Hillary's Health Security Act would have been allowed to treat a patient who was declined for a procedure by the public health system.

Dr. Coffey testified that "...in a parallel, noncompetitive health insurance system, everyone pays into the universal public system but also has the option of paying for private health insurance." He countered the criticism of the government's lawyers that allowing private and public health insurance to coexist would create one system for the rich and another for the poor. "It is not only the wealthy who buy insurance," Coffey said. "Almost half the private insurance bought today is purchased by those earning $30 thousand or less." He also noted that an unofficial, two-tiered medical system already existed in Canada and that those with education and "connections" already jump to the front of the line.

According to the Fraser Institute, on the average in Canada, it takes 20 weeks to get an appointment with a specialist—21 weeks for a neurosurgeon. However, it only takes about 3 weeks to see an oncologist. According to Dr. David Gratzer, a registered physician in the Canadian system, "If you're healthy and willing to wait, [the Canadian healthcare system] is the best system in the world. What you discover," he added, "is there are wait times in Canada for any condition." Sadly, many times the waiting period is fatal.

Barry Stein, a Montreal lawyer with metastatic colon cancer was just one of a score of witnesses—both patients and family members of deceased patients—who sought medical treatment they could not get because they were on the tail-end of miles long waiting lists in their provinces and could not, under existing rules, go to another province to get treatment. Stein sought medical treatment in New York after being put on a surgery and chemotherapy waiting list. Despite the urgency of Stein's condition, his surgery was postponed 3 times due to hospital overcrowding. The Regie de l'assurance-maladie du Quebec, which is responsible for operating the province's health insurance system, denied his request in 1996 even though the surgical insertion of an internal chemotherapy pump that was not available in Canada, was recommended—and deemed medically necessary. In 1996 Stein asked the Regie de l'assurance-maladie du Quebec to reimburse his expenses for the treatment in the United States. When the government refused, he petitioned Quebec's Superior Court to review their decision. In August 1999—3 years later—the health care system was ordered to reimburse him for the medical costs. Had Stein not been a man of some means, he would have died long before Quebec authorized the payment for help—or the treatment itself.

Dr. Daniel Doyle, a Quebec cardiovascular surgeon, described to the Canadian court how several of his patients, on waiting lists for bypass surgery, died. The average wait for a bypass was from six to eight months. An ophthalmologist testified that many patients go blind while waiting up to 18 months for cataract surgery. The incidents of patients dying while waiting for treatment are almost pandemic. Public health officials, who were not concerned before the Chaoulli Decision, are scrambling to find solutions to that one issue in order to keep their medical house of cards from tumbling down around them.

Colin McMillan, president of the Canadian Medical Association, attributed the long waits to a lack of capacity in the healthcare system on a government austerity program during the 1990s. To save money, the Canadian government curbed the importation of physicians from other countries and cut back on the number of doctors they were willing to train domestically. "We thought there was a surplus of doctors," McMillan admitted, adding, "we thought we could save some money." That's generally what happens when bureaucrats are put in charge of anything other than counting beans in a jar. When bureaucrats are allowed to treat people like numbers, people stop being flesh and blood and simply become statistics.

To Hillary, John and Barack, we are simply demographic statistics. You can see "us" in the colorful spread sheets these plutocrats use to show America how they are going to insure every American like they do in Canada. Every American, regardless of age or health, will be insured—just like they are in Canada. And the New Democrats will will do it for less money than we currently spend in our private insurance plans—just like the Canadians. At the expense of our loved ones—and perhaps us. They will fail. Just like the Canadians.

And, finally, there is a reality about socialized medicine that most people don't want to even contemplate. Government suddenly has control over whether you live or die when you become seriously ill. When the Democratically-controlled Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, they buried an amendment in the budget bill called the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990. PSDA required hospitals to ask elderly patients and those with severe chronic conditions, or those whose medical conditions would continue to decline, to sign living wills.

The legislation was worded in such a way to imply that patients were being allowed to more actively participate in decisions about their own treatment. In reality, the legislation was a euthanasia amendment designed to lighten the bureaucracy's financial obligation for the elderly by euthanizing them when its determined they will likely not improve sufficiently to lead a fairly productive, normal life, and ending the government's obligation to continue sending them Social Security checks. Its pretty much like killing two birds with one stone—if you pardon the pun.

Thank God for selfless, caring Democrats like Hillary, John and Barack. Hope we all live long enough under their universal healthcare plans to appreciate them for their selflessness. For part one click below.

© 2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

[Read "Whatever Happened to America?"]

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com