A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
============
BY ALFRED WEST
(AKA THE SOVEREIGN EDITOR).
============
Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
More on the Immigration Situation: A Little About the Protest SupportersGateway Pundit reports that "[t]he Mexican Government is running full page ads on US immigration policy in at least three major US newspapers this week."(1) In short, the government of Mexico is demanding a voice in how the government of the People of these United States decides immigration policy.
Gateway Pundit, in another article, also shed some light on Enrique Morones, organizer of the massive immigrant protests this past week across the country . . . [who] is a member of the radical Buenas Noches Border control group."(2) This group encourages violence against American citizens who volunteer to watch the border for illegal crossings. Among their goals is the dissolution of the Southern border altogether.
My own research also turned up some information that might interest you. "Faced with immigration legislation that could criminalize undocumented workers and those who help them -- including union organizers -- and deny workers permanent residence in the U.S., the nation's two labor federations and their allies have launched mass protests and lobbying for positive immigration reform. Demonstrations began March 10 with a 400,000-person march in Chicago's Loop. And the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, La Raza Unida, LULAC, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and others will build up to a mass march in D.C. during a "National Day of Action" on April 10, leaders told a D.C. press conference on March 22." [emphasis added](3) Please note the involvement of La Raza Unida. This is a reputedly radical political movement founded by Jose Angel Gutierrez(4), who is a professor at the University of Texas in Arlington, who is noteworthy for making the statement, "We have an aging white America. . . . They are dying. . . . They are [in] fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, WE HAVE GOT TO KILL HIM."(5)
Make of that what you will. I'm sure it doesn't reflect the views of all Latinos, but La Raza Unida's involvement, given this statement by its founder, should put these protests under new scrutiny.
The Mexican/Latino Invasion Finally Reaches the Front Pages
You've seen it all over the news over the last weekend -- literal armies of people in the streets, protesting. What are they protesting? They are protesting the enforcement of certain laws of these United States. "More than 500,000 people rallied in Los Angeles on Saturday, demanding that Congress abandon the House-passed measures that would make being an undocumented immigrant a felony and would erect a 700-mile fence along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border."(1) If you do not believe that such measures might be necessary, you might consider that "[t]he Pew Hispanic Centre estimates that there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants, and that nearly four fifths are from Mexico or other Latin American countries."(2) Illegal is the key word here. For some reason, our government absolutely refuses to adequately enforce our immigration laws where illegal Latin American immigrants are concerned. In response to major unrest among native Americans over illegal immigration, the House finally passed a bill that, in addition to what was mentioned above, "would . . . impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants [and] demand that churches check the legal status of those they help."(3) And why shouldn't penalties and other requirements apply to people who help lawbreakers? Isn't it normal to hold accomplices accountable for the crimes of people they knowingly help?
In response to the passage of this bill by the House (which is finally listening to the People), illegal immigrant supporters took to the street and "waved the national flags of Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala. Some held up signs that said "HR 4437" with a red slash through the center."(4) If I may be so bold, this is not the behavior of people who want to be a part of the People of these United States. Nor do they seem to want to be part of the People. Instead of protesting in the language of the realm, they chant, "'Si se puede' in Spanish, which means, 'Yes we can.'"(5) Yes you can, what? Break our laws? Invade our land? Refuse to speak our language? You protesters obviously don't think that the law should apply to you.
There are some realistic arguments against a law forcing the government to deport all the illegals currently here. For example, "the immigration reform bill would make the 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants felons. Sending them back to their native lands could be a huge blow to the economy."(6) The Bush Administration possibly has seen this potential problem and this may be the reason for the president's persistence in pushing for a guest worker program.(7) On that note, I might be persuaded that a guest worker program is a good idea if it is set up to reward migrants who actually bother to learn English. And when it comes down to it, I only have two requirements for immigrants. First, I ask that they learn English. It's simply rude not to. I wouldn't go and live in their country and demand that they accommodate me in my own language; I would learn theirs. Second, I ask that they respect other's rights to life, liberty, and property. If those two requirements are met, come on in. I don't care. And I think the laws should be changed to make it easy for people fluent in English to become permanent residents (but not citizens -- that honor should be reserved for those who come here legally). Why not? If they can come here and find jobs, why shouldn't they? If they're coming and collecting welfare or receiving any other social services, send them back from whence they came -- such people demonstrate by their actions that they do not respect the life, liberty, and property of others. Please note that "[t]he proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3 percent for native households."(8)
As I write this, the "Senate Judiciary Committee approved sweeping election-year legislation Monday that clears the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship, a victory for demonstrators who had spilled into the streets by the hundreds of thousands demanding better treatment for immigrants. With a bipartisan coalition in control, the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally. It approved a new temporary program allowing entry for 1.5 million workers seeking jobs in the agriculture industry."(9)
Alright, Senate... so you lack the backbone to actually enforce our existing immigration laws. I'm really only concerned about two things, as I said. English is a must. People who do not respect the life, liberty, and property of others should be immediately deported. I would urge the Senate to approve a measure that would allow local police to assess whether someone arrested is an illegal immigrant or not. And if they are, to have a mechanism by which they may be handed over to federal authorities for deportation. They also have to make sure that such malefactors are, in fact, deported. "In March 2000, Congress made public Department of Justice statistics showing that, over the previous five years, the INS had released over 35,000 criminal aliens instead of deporting them. Over 11,000 of those released went on to commit serious crimes, over 1,800 of which were violent ones [including 98 homicides, 142 sexual assaults, and 44 kidnappings]."(10)
One thing that annoys me is that the sheer scale of the crime associated with illegal immigration is simply ignored in most of the major coverage. "While the news reporters talked about illegal workers who perform jobs Americans refuse to perform, they continue to avoid mentioning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who prey on men, women and children -- US citizens. It is these innocent Americans who are murdered, raped and robbed because of an insane immigration policy. Criminal aliens are entering the US in the tens of thousands and remaining here as they join violent gangs such as MS-13, or they choose to commit their mayhem solo."(11)
And for those of you who say that it is unfair to associate the violent beasts comprising MS-13 with "honest" hard-working illegal immigrants, consider the following: "The violent MS-13 -- or Mara Salvatrucha -- street gang is following the migratory routes of illegal aliens across the country, FBI officials say, calling the Salvadoran gang the new American mafia."(12) For those of you who are unaware of this group of two-legged beasts, "MS-13 -- the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents -- has become known in recent years for home invasion robberies, drug dealing and machete attacks on its enemies. . . [and even] could be far more dangerous than thought [apparently employing extremely well-honed paramilitary tactics and using military-grade weaponry]."(13)
The Senate needs to support the border fence. Whatever happens, that border needs to be sealed. Too much crime comes across it. "The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003 . . . the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: 'Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population.' . . . [and one] in five in our prison population were illegal immigrants who had been convicted of a felony after entering the country illegally."(14) Additionally, "heavily-armed Mexican trafficking gangs to smuggle people and drugs into America."(15)
If you think that what I just described is bad, it gets worse. There is a good case to be made that there is a full-scale Mexican invasion going on, and has been for years. The scale of these protests shows just how successful the invasion has been. One of the aims of these protests is to keep the U.S. government from attempting to stem the tide of the invasion. A lot of Americans sense this, and that is why the House felt such pressure to pass the bill they did. The Mexican government actively encourages illegal immigrations. You could say that illegal immigrants are their number one export. If you challenged a Mexican government official on this, they would deny it. Fortunately, actions speak louder than words. "[T]he Mexican government has published what could only be described as a how-to book on breaking into the United States.
The 'Guide for the Mexican Migrant' was created by Mexico's Foreign Ministry in a pocket sized comic book style and millions of copies were distributed. It describes ways for illegals to cross the border without being detected by Border Control and gives detailed information on their 'rights' should they be discovered by those charged with protecting America's borders."(16) In addition, the Mexican government has threatened to sue if U.S. citizens volunteer to monitor the border and assist the border patrol in identifying illegal border-crossers.(17) The Mexican president, Vicente Fox, was even prepared to deploy the Mexican army to defend illegal border crossers against any violent actions by American volunteers watching the Southern border.(18) If this isn't evidence of a Mexican-government sponsored invasion of the United States, I don't know what is.
Further evidence of hostile acts by Mexicans against the United States include actual military incursions into our territory. "According to [an] unnamed [Border Patrol] agent, the Tohono O'odham Police Department encountered the Mexican army unit . . . along the Santa Cruz trail inside the Papago Farms border patrol area, just south of Forest Road 21. The area is between five and 10 miles inside Arizona. . . [this was one] of a series of similar incidents along the U.S.-Mexican border -- from California to Texas. [U.S. Representative] Tancredo cites 23 such incursions [in 2001] alone. Several . . . occurred in [Spring of 2002].
The U.S. Border Patrol agent, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Tancredo during a phone conversation that one of his colleagues noticed a military helicopter flying overhead about five miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The chopper was heading south toward Mexico.
Shortly after, he came upon a Humvee, which not only began to approach him, but to fire upon his vehicle. According to the agent's testimony, the vehicle's rear window and back driver's-side windows were destroyed. Fortunately, the agent was able to flee the incursion unharmed. He concluded the conversation with Tancredo saying, 'As far as I am concerned, that [incursion] should be an act of war.'"(19)
As you can see, there are a lot of issues associated with illegal immigration that are not largely reported in the debate over the current legislation. In light of the Mexican government's behavior over the last few years, the waiving of Mexican flags by protestors becomes more ominous. The fact is that there is too much crime coming across the Southern border not to close it up. If the Senate refuses to do this at least, then they will have failed in their basic duty to act in the best interests of Americans. Let's give the illegals who have made an effort to assimilate permanent status if we must, but something about the violent crime coming across the border has to be done. I urge you to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel on this issue. Illegal immigrants should not determine our national policy. They don't vote. Nor should they.
Repeat after me, American Education Establishment: READING, WRITING, ARITHMETIC. . .
. . . Reading, writing, arithmetic; reading, writing, arithmetic...
Any school that sacrifices reading, writing, and arithmetic for social engineering-style education focused on self-esteem and diversity should have all of its tax funding immediately revoked.
Sure this is an extreme measure, but the problem has reached an advanced stage. According to a Seattle Times editorial, "[t]he U.S. now imports more high-tech products than it exports. The number of American 18- to 24-year-olds with science degrees has fallen to 17th in the world, plummeting from third three decades ago. Only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2003."(1)
Contrast this with China where there are "many new, well-equipped laboratories, often staffed by brilliant Chinese nationals who were trained in the U.S. or Europe and then recruited back to China. One highly touted research park near Beijing boasts 22 colleges and universities next door to Chinese branches of Fortune 500 companies."(2)
The writer states that where China's government can command its subjects to become scientifically literate, the United States must rely on the resolve of its citizens -- and that Americans are not sufficiently motivated at this time.(3) The writer further points out that "[t]he U.S. science push in the Sputnik era was driven by fear of military superiority by an enemy. Now, we're faced with a different but no-less-compelling threat: the possibility of economic decline for our children and grandchildren."(4)
I would like to respectfully disagree as to that last point. China is not perceived as a military threat because our government and out news media bend over backwards to keep China from being perceived as such, despite that nation's continuing policy of belligerence.(5)
The point is that our education system has degraded to such an extent that, had this been done to us by a foreign power, it would be tantamount to an act of war. The fact is that China is a bigger military threat than our politicians are willing to admit, and to continue to emphasize diversity and sensitivity training over reading, writing, and arithmetic education is a betrayal of their duty to act for the good of the People. I think that if the People, in general, were aware of the actual threat posed by China, we would see a drive to put America back on top; similar to the fervor spawned by Sputnik. The most maddening thing is that it's not hard to discern the hostile nature of the Chinese government. It's on public record. They tell us through their words and actions.(6)
The Bush Administration is Blind to Security Threats Posed by China and Chinese Companies
There was a waiver published in the Federal Register noting "that China will not be held responsible for its continued proliferation of weapons. These weapons include sales of advanced Chinese cruise missile and ballistic missile technology to the mullahs of Iran. The move by the Bush administration removes the required punishment against Beijing."
In other news, there are some "3,000 Chinese army companies operating inside the U.S. . . These Chinese army-owned firms engage in a wide range of criminal activities including espionage, theft, illegal exports, extortion, tax evasion, computer hacking and even violence. Many of the firms participate in illegal arms sales, and several have been caught trying to sell weapons to terrorists. . . according to federal law, the Bush administration should be publishing a list of the known [People's Liberation Army]-owned firms each year. Instead, just as the Clinton administration did before George Bush, the current White House ignores the law and refuses to release the list of known offenders."
"In addition, China has engaged in a financial war against America with its freely operating banking system that allowed North Korea to launder hundreds of millions of dollars in counterfeit currency. The effort to siphon fake $100 bills into America was led by the Bank of China (BOC), a financial entity controlled by the communist government. . . The Bush administration has pulled its punches on the Chinese banks and money laundering. The Bush administration applied tough sanctions against North Korea for printing fake $100 bills. However, no such sanctions have been applied to any Chinese financial institution or entity for fear of angering the boys in Beijing."
Finally, "the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate [Hutchison Whampoa] to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere. . . Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator . . . its billionaire chairman, Li Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years."
A bit of advice to our government in general and the Bush administration in particular: Chinese companies that have strong ties to the Chinese government are a security threat. Often, they are controlled by the Chinese military, which has the potential (as stated by the Chinese government) to be force hostile to Taiwan, Japan, and, by extension, the United States. Do not deal with China. How they treat their own people is an indicator of how they would treat us if they could. They think nothing of conquering Taiwan, an independent nation.
Our entire government has underestimated the credible threat posed by China for at least the last ten years. It is time we rectified this situation. I would like to suggest that the Bush administration officials who have been aiding and abetting the tyrants of Beijing be removed from office -- immediately.
Thanks to Charles R. Smith for drawing my attention to this.
I have written a lot about China. Here are a few stories from last year and the year before that should give you an idea of how bad China really is and why we shouldn't be dealing with them:
Paramilitary style police squad shoots and kills unarmed optometrist
"Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force."
This man, who was non-violent, had been under investigation for illegal gambling. Is it appropriate to use such overwhelming force against a man engaged in behavior that is only really wrong because the government says so?
Do you have an office betting pool for the Superbowl? Did you know that it amounts to illegal gambling in many, if not most states?
Does the use of paramilitary police squads to apprehend people engaged in activity that hurts no one strike you as good or bad? Do you feel safer? Or in more danger?
Did you know that the number of federal laws carrying criminal penalties cannot be counted?
The gun-wielding thug who shot this doctor needs to be arrested, indicted by a grand jury, and tried -- at the very least -- for negligent homocide.
The malefeasor who pointed his gun at, shot, and killed Dr. Culosi has been named.
The paramilitary enforcer is one Deval V. Bullock, who is 40 this year. According to the established facts, Mr. Bullock's .45-caliber H&K handgun was in proper working order and did not malfunction (meaning that the wielder of sidearm had to pull the trigger). Mr. Bullock drew his weapon, deliberately pointed it at Dr. Culosi, and fired.
The police are calling this matter a horrible accident. Okay, fine. A man is still dead. There was no perception that Dr. Culosi was armed or that any of the police officers were in clear and present danger of being harmed by the doctor. The fact is, Mr. Bullock pointed his gun at Dr. Culosi absent any reasonable suspicion of threat. Anyone familiar with the proper handling of firearms knows that you don't point one at another person unless you intend to shoot that person. If you or I had done the exact same thing, we would be criminally charged -- either with second-degree murder or manslaughter. I expect no less for the people who are lawfully permitted to use deadly force against us. The sauce for the goose rule should apply.
Yet, according to the county's chief prosecutor, Mr. Bullock will not be charged with a crime. "From the start, Fairfax police declared that the killing of Salvatore J. Culosi, 37, was an accident and that the SWAT officer who fired had done so unintentionally. Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, 'they do not commit a crime.'" Additionally, "Horan said he thought the use of SWAT teams by Fairfax police was appropriate."
So the county attorney, who is supposed to bring cases on behalf of the People, supports the using of paramilitary troops against the People. That could be an interesting little tidbit for when he's up for reelection.
The fact is, when you point a loaded gun at someone, you are, or ought to be aware, that you could kill them. This should go double for police officers. It's almost better to have criminals running around with guns -- at least you can shoot them in self defense. What can you do about cops? If you fight back, you are committing a crime, even if you are innocent. Mr. Horan, in what is possibly a rhetorical defense of the decision not to charge Mr. Bullock, states that "[t]his is a good police officer. Fine record, almost 17 years. He's as shattered by this as any good police officer should be."
In Mr. Bullock's position, I would feel the same way. But if I, in my civilian capacity, had done the exact same thing, Mr. Bullock would arrest me and charge me with a crime with no regard to how badly I might feel. Mr. Bullock needs to be charged as an ordinary citizen would. He needs to pay civil damages to the family (the people in the department authorizing this use of SWAT forces being helf jointly and severably liable). He also needs to be charged criminally and sent to prison if found guilty. We the People are not allowed to make mistakes like this and get away with it, neither should the Government or its agents. But this is just one man's opinion.
As an afterthought, I would advise all travellers to avoid Fairfax County, Virginia. Apparently, their police can shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.
To the citizens of Fairfax County, you need to put pressure on your government to either fix this problem, or be tossed out of office.
Slobodan Milosevic found lifeless in cell at United Nations detention unit
"Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has died in the detention centre at The Hague tribunal.
The tribunal said he had been found dead in his cell on Saturday morning. The cause of death is not yet clear."
My stance on this will probably be very unpopular. Regardless of the veracity of the allegations against Mr. Milosevic, I disapprove in the absolute strongest terms of the proceedings against him because it sets a dangerous precedent. He should be tried by the People of former Yugoslavia or not at all.
This is an extremely complicated issue, and I am extremely busy with work this weekend. Expect a longer, in depth article within four days time. I need to do some research before I can clarify my position.
Well, I was going to do a sort of an in depth legal analysis, but working two jobs and running a (very) small business has left me with little time even to sleep. And there is so much more of import that you need to know about, I really can't devote any more than a philosophical analysis of the obvious features of the whole Serbia/Milosevic situation.
First of all, the NATO action against Milosevic (are US troops still stationed in former Yugoslavia due to our "humanitarian" intervention?). Was it justified? Is humanitarian intervention okay? Well, yes. If you witness an action that you know to be wrong, it is always okay to intervene if your aim is to improve the situation. An act by you in this way is a form of charity. Charity is always moral. The trouble is that the government is not you. I'm sorry, but the armed forces of these United States exist to protect Americans. Absent a real security threat to Americans (who pay for the armed forces), any use of the United States military amounts to a misappropriation (theft) of money from the People of the United States. Charitable actions cannot, by definition, be taken by a government. Governments compel people by, ultimately, the threat of death to give up money to the agents of said governments. The definition of charity is to give freely of one's own money or time; you cannot be charitable if you are giving freely of someone else's money. Since a government's money comes from the People, charity by government is impossible. What the government is doing is taking money form one group of people and using it to benefit an entirely unrelated group of people. This is not charity, it is theft. Humanitarian intervention amounts to theft if it is done by a government.
[Note: The Iraq war, under this view, is immoral if it is fought under humanitarian reasons. However, since the American People looked the other way while their government aided Saddam Hussein, it can be argued that the People are morally obligated to fix the problem.]
Second, the whole Milosevic trial. Is it a good idea? Ignore the fact that he was a socialist with tyrannical tendencies. Were his actions different from that of other world leaders in similar situations? UN troops are accused of sexually abusing locals in areas in which they are stationed. Are the UN leaders accused of ordering such behavior? While it would be nice to have a world body in which to try evil people (Castro, for example), is such an institution really a good idea? The very notion violates the sovereignty of nations. Remember, if we can arrest and try bad people, we can do it to good people too. Bad and good are, for some incomprehensible reason, subjective. Are we, as Americans, prepared to have our citizens tried by foreign powers for actions which, taken in context, would be justified and perfectly in line with their responsibilities? This is a very bad idea. In my opinion, Milosevic's trial is a violation of Serbia's sovereignty. There is no evidence that Serbia could be considered a pirate state. Milosevic's actions could be seen as a normal response by a leader to a perceived security threat. My point is that I am just plain uncomfortable with the precedent that the whole Kosovo/Serbia/Milosevic situation sets in the areas of humanitarian intervention and national sovereignty.
That's all I have to say on this subject for now, but I will be happy to answer any specific questions that people have.
I have no idea what the effect of this law would be outside of New Jersey, but I cannot imagine this being binding on any ISP or internet user outside the state. I am concerned that some Big Brother type in the U.S. Congress might think that this is a good idea.
I am opposed to any limitation on the freedom of speech. And yes, this is a limitation. Sure, making one identify one's self does not directly limit what one is officially allowed to say, but it does have a chilling effect. If someone very powerful were doing something wrong, do you think you would be more or less willing to be critical of them if they could easily find out who you were? You would probably be less willing. I think that the strength of discourse on the internet comes from anonymity. All of us are free to deal with each other as personalities, not as legal, real-world identities. As such, on the internet, we are much freer to advocate for unpopular positions than we might be in the real world where our relationships with our families, churches, and employers could be adversely affected by such advocacy. Anonymity on the internet provides, I think, the purest, truest, intellectual discourse. This law seeks to destroy that. The people of New Jersey should oppose this bill and kick Mr. Biondi out of office for daring to infringe upon their liberty.
In rememberence of Mr. Browne, here are some of his more thought-provoking quotes.
"Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free."
"The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice."
"You are where you are today because you have chosen to be there."
"When you know that you're capable of dealing with whatever comes, you have the only security the world has to offer."
"Everyone will experience the consequences of his own acts. If his act are right, he'll get good consequences; if they're not, he'll suffer for it."
"You can't give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad -- in fact, to do anything it wants."
"When the government tries to stop someone from ruining his life with drugs, it converts a personal tragedy into a national disaster."
Who is Giving Money to Our Presidents?
"A sheik from the United Arab Emirates [which owns Dubai Port Co.] contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station. . .
The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father. . .
The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans -- such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay -- and big Republican donors.
Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library."
This information does not indicate any corruption on its face, but it does raise the question of influence. How much influence do such donations give the donors over members of the Bush family? Maybe none. . . but are you going to risk not looking into it? I wouldn't.
"If you love wealth more than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest
lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
