Since September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated a number of wars in Muslim countries. These wars, which would be more correctly called massacres, have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Muslims.  In some cases, attempts have been made to present these aggressions in the guise of humanitarian efforts to promote democracy.  But the limited public support for U.S. military action around the world goes back to the U.S. government claim that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This claim is untrue and it is past time for people to recognize that fact.

There are many ways to see that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11.  Author David Ray Griffin has previously made arguments in this regard.[1] As time goes on, however, more facts lead people to realize that claims of Muslim responsibility for terrorism in the U.S. should be highly suspect. These facts include that the October 2001 anthrax attacks were blamed on Muslims only to be later traced to a U.S. military facility and to non-Muslim, U.S. scientists.  Moreover, a number of FBI-planned acts of terrorism since 2001 have been falsely attributed to young Muslims who were victims of appalling acts of entrapment by the FBI.[2]

According to the official account of 9/11, nineteen young Arab Muslims were responsible for the entirety of the mass murder that day. The FBI accused these young men within 72 hours of the attacks and, although the list changed slightly at first, it has remained the same since shortly after the attacks.  To support the accusations, U.S. authorities pointed to passports that were found under implausible circumstances, luggage containing unbelievably convenient documents, and other dubious evidence.

In October 2001, reporter Seymour Hersh wrote –

“Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, ‘Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.’”[3]

Years later, the 9/11 Commission Report (911CR) was written by a professional myth-maker, Phillip Zelikow, who was also a Bush Administration insider.  Oddly enough, the outline for the report was written by Zelikow and his colleague Ernest May even before the investigation began.  It is now widely accepted that the 9/11 Commission and the FBI did very poorly in terms of investigating most aspects of the attacks. In just one example, the FBI never even interviewed the people suspected of engaging in 9/11 insider trading.[4]

Despite the poor quality of the investigation, the 911CR used inflammatory language which focused on Muslims as “the enemy.”  The Commission told us that “the enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and our values is limitless.”  The Commission was being false and misleading when it made these statements, however, as the evidence shows that 9/11 was not a Muslim crime.

Muslims do not murder innocent people

The most obvious reason that the Commission was off-track is that Muslims do not murder innocent people.  Some people find this statement outrageous.  Of course Muslims murder innocent people, they say, that’s what al Qaeda does.

The problem is that, as a society, many of us have been trained to accept religion as a noncommittal affiliation or label.  For example, many of the current U.S. leaders have engaged in mass murder around the world over the last ten years yet they still call themselves Christians.  Anyone can see that they are not. Those who truly believe in God live by the laws of the religion they proclaim and Christians do not engage in wars of aggression or the torture and killing of other human beings.

The word “Muslim” is Arabic and literally means “one who submits (to God).”  But Webster’s Dictionary defines a “Muslim” as an adherent to Islam.  Being an adherent of Islam means to follow the teachings of the Holy Qu’ran.  And according to the Qur’an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being who has committed no fault:

• If someone kills another person – unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind. (Surat al-Ma’ida: 32)

Defenders of the official myth might say that the 9/11 attacks can be seen as retaliation for the corruption in U.S. financial (WTC) and military (Pentagon) activities.  Problems with that argument include the fact that it doesn’t absolve the 9/11 terrorists from having killed many innocent people, including children and dozens of Muslims.[5] It also doesn’t explain how many of the financial leaders in the WTC, and all of the top military leaders at the Pentagon, escaped with their lives.

Furthermore, polls in countries with large Muslim populations indicate that Muslims oppose the killing of civilians in warfare significantly more than non-Muslims do.  People in Muslim countries “roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries–usually overwhelming majorities–take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all.”[6]

To avoid this direct problem, some say that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were nominally Muslims. In other words, they were people who called themselves Muslims but who just didn’t follow this one requirement of the Qu’ran.  This article doesn’t delve into the carefully cultivated phenomenon called “radical Islam,” but the evidence we have indicates that the men accused of hijacking planes on 9/11 were either not involved at all, or were not even close to being adherents of Islam.

The men accused of hijacking the planes were either not involved or were not Muslims

In the weeks after 9/11, many mainstream news sources reported that the accused hijackers were still alive.  These claims were reported by major media sources like The Independent, the London Telegraph and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Although BBC attempted to retract the claims later, the Telegraph reported that it had interviewed some of these men, who the newspaper said had the same names, same dates of birth, same places of birth, and same occupations as the accused.[7]

No other media sources have successfully explained the discrepancies around the reports of the alleged hijackers still being alive.  One particularly weak attempt, cited as the primary source at Wikipedia, was an absurd hand-waving piece in Der Spiegel that used “U.S. Historian Daniel Pipes” as the authority.[8] Not mentioned is the fact that Pipes, a second-generation neocon and Project for the New American Century signatory, is arguably the world’s leading Islamophobe.[9]

Most importantly, the “hijackers alive” reports were not investigated by the FBI or the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, publicly expressed doubts about the identity of the hijackers.  Yet to this day there has been no official response to these contradictions despite their high relevance to the overall investigation.

However, we can imagine that these cases were probably the result of stolen identities and some follow-up media statements suggested just that. With the likelihood of stolen identities, and without an official investigation to clarify, we are left with the conclusion that some of the accused men were not involved.  It could be that there may have been other people involved who have never been identified, but without facts to go on we cannot say.

The men who appear to have been falsely accused include the brothers Wail and Waleed al Shehri, and Abdulaziz al Omari.[10] The language in the 911CR suggests that al Omari was the most devout of the accused men, in that he “often served as an imam at his mosque in Saudi Arabia.”  But since his identity was stolen and he was therefore not involved, we must look to the other accused men for Muslim connections.

Others who appear to be victims of identity theft include Mohand al Shehri, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi, and Ahmed al Nami.  Although the Commission’s report states that al Ghamdi “attended prayer services regularly,” he was also reported to have trained at the Lackland Air Force Base’s Defense Language Institute, which is a fact that does not support his being a religious fanatic with limitless hostility toward the United States. The report also says of al Hazmi that he was “unconcerned with religion.”   In any case, these four must be excluded from the oxymoronic label of “Muslim terrorist” because it appears they were falsely accused.

Another of the accused men who the Commission says was “unconcerned with religion” was Satam al Suqami.  This description appears to be correct because, according to The Boston Globe, al Saqami liked to sleep with prostitutes, which is a decidedly non-Muslim activity.[11] In Islam, prostitution and other forms of sexual deviancy are forbidden.  Therefore, although al Suqami was not reported to be still alive, he was not a Muslim.

In the months and days leading up to 9/11, the alleged hijackers were reported to have drank alcohol heavily in bars, purchased pornographic materials, watched strippers, and paid for lap dances.  Needless to say, people who follow the teachings of the Qu’ran (Muslims) do not do any of those things.

As Temple University professor of Islamic Studies, Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, said in relation to the alleged 9/11 hijackers  – “Islam does not condone killing innocent people in the name of God. Nor can a devout Muslim drink booze or party at a strip club and expect to reach heaven.”[12]

Two of the men were being watched by the CIA for at least twenty months prior to 9/11.  These were Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, and they did not follow the Qu’ran either.  As reported by the Los Angeles Times, these two were often seen at Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego.

The most glaring examples of non-Muslim behavior, however, were exhibited by the alleged hijacker pilots of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.  According to the 911CR, Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi piloted these airliners and crashed them into the WTC towers. Public knowledge about them indicates that they might have been trained at U.S. military facilities, but it is clear that they did not even try to follow the Qu’ran.  Frankly, Phillip Zelikow is more of a Muslim than they were.

For one thing, Atta and al Shehhi were known to dress in gaudy jewelry and clothes. Because of this, people thought they were mafia characters. As author Daniel Hopsicker wrote, they wore “Gold jewelry, expensive watches, and silk shirts” and were “Not exactly a description of Islamic fundamentalists.”[13] Additionally, their activities in Florida, in the years prior to 9/11, were closely aligned with those of gunrunners and drug smugglers, which also indicates that they were anything but Muslims.

Atta’s stripper girlfriend, Amanda Keller, said that Atta and al Shehhi “had massive supplies of cocaine” which they restocked whenever needed at one of the flight schools run by Dutch nationals in Florida.  Keller said that during the time she dated him, she saw Atta do cocaine himself on multiple occasions.[14] And, of course, Muslims don’t do cocaine or other illicit drugs.

Witnesses saw Al Shehhi and Atta drunk at a Hollywood, Florida sports bar.  On another occasion in Palm Beach, Atta and Alshehhi were seen spending $1,000 on champagne in only 45 minutes.  During the latter escapade, Atta was with a tall busty brunette and Alshehhi was with a short blonde woman. Both women were known locally as high-priced escorts.[15]

A stripper in Las Vegas, Nevada recalled that Marwan al Shehhi was “cheap,” because he paid only $20 for a lap dance. In the summer of 2001, Al Shehhi was apparently also seen in a nude bar in Pompado Beach, Florida.  Six exotic dancers who worked there testified to seeing him. At the same time, both al Shehhi and Hamza Alghamdi were witnessed purchasing pornographic video and sex toys from a Florida store.  The Wall Street Journal reported that Alghamdi watched a porn video in his hotel room, and others witnessed alleged hijacker Majed Moqed visiting a porn shop on several occasions in the months before 9/11.[16]

This same categorically non-Muslim behavior was also true for Ziad jarrah, the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 93, which was destroyed in a field in Pennsylvania.  Seven months before the attacks, it was noticed that Jarrah “frequented” a strip club in Jacksonville, Florida.[17]

The 911CR says that six of the alleged hijackers lived in Paterson, NJ for up to six months.  This included Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khalid al Mihdhar, the man mis-identified as Abdulaziz al Omari, and others.  Reports put Ziad Jarrah in Paterson as well.  The mayor of Paterson, Marty Barnes, certainly noticed them and he made the point of how non-Muslim they were, saying –“Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” [18]

Given that Atta and friends were so far from being Muslims, it actually makes sense that the U.S. government would try, in the days after 9/11, to bolster the political story by adding actual Muslims to their quickly drawn-up list.  The real al Omari, for example, was obviously not involved.  But the discrepancy between his being an imam and a go-go club aficionado who never went to the mosques would quickly be lost in the post-9/11 clamor for revenge.  And the public’s most banal and prejudiced tendencies could be better exploited with hints of Muslim connections, no matter how weak, just as they have been with the anthrax attacks and the ongoing FBI-planned terrorism.

In any case because the alleged hijacker pilots were clearly not Muslims, the deaths caused by the destruction of those planes cannot be attributed to Muslims. This includes the deaths of the airplane passengers and the people in the impact zones of the WTC.

The alleged hijackers were not responsible for most of the deaths on 9/11, if any

The 911CR says that Hani Hanjour, the accused hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, was the terrorist operation’s most experienced pilot. The official account tells us that he slammed the aircraft into the Pentagon at the first-floor level going over 500 mph.  But all the evidence indicates that he was a very poor pilot at best. He repeatedly failed his training courses on single engine aircraft and according to representatives of his flight training schools he had no fundamental pilot skills.[19] Due to these facts, we know that Hanjour could not have flown the plane as alleged.  So it doesn’t matter if he was a Muslim.

It is possible that all the planes were commandeered by way of existing remote control technology, which would explain a number of the unanswered questions.[20] Remote piloting could explain why the planes did not squawk the hijack code, why the auto-pilot stayed on during the hijacking process, and how these planes were flown with extreme precision at very high speeds regardless of the poor skills of the alleged pilots.  It would also explain how those who planned the attacks could have remained confident of their success, despite having employed unreliable, cocaine-snorting, alcoholic perverts as “hijackers.”

Regardless of who actually flew the planes, we know that most of the deaths on 9/11 were the result of actions which could not have been accomplished by the accused men.  Of course, the initial hijackings could be blamed on the alleged, non-Muslim hijackers and one might argue that some passengers and crew members were said to be killed during the hijackings.  But so little is known about how the hijackings occurred that it is difficult to know what really happened.  The 9/11 Commission could not even say how the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four planes, or why the hijack code was not squawked for any of them.

If we examine what was needed to facilitate the attacks, we see that most of the deaths on 9/11 were the result of many things that should not have happened.  And none of it could have been accomplished without the involvement of U.S. authorities.

1. Pre-9/11 investigations that would have caught the accused men were shut down.
2. All the levels of hijacking prevention failed four separate times.
3. For several hours, our leaders did nothing to protect the nation.
4. The planes should have been intercepted but they were not.[21]
5. The planes were flown like guided missiles.
6. Three WTC skyscrapers were completely destroyed, and all of them fell through what should have been the path of most resistance.[22]
7. Evidence for explosives at the Pentagon was discovered and not explained.
8. The debris damage in Pennsylvania indicates that Flight 93 was shot down.

An extensive examination of the people who had access to the WTC towers shows that the accused men were not among those who could have placed explosives in those highly-secure buildings, nor were any Muslims in such a position.[23] Therefore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the accused non-Muslims, or any unspecified Muslims, caused the deaths of the nearly 2,600 people who were killed in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

It is reasonable to say, without an extensive inquiry, that Muslims could not have shut down the pre-9/11 investigations. Similarly, they could not have caused the repeated failure of a hijacking prevention system that had been successful for over 20 years.  Muslims certainly could not have stopped U.S. leaders from doing their jobs on 9/11, nor could they have disabled the U.S. air defenses or shot down Flight 93.

Additionally, there is no doubt that Muslims were not to blame for delaying and obstructing the investigation into 9/11, during which time the U.S. and its allies had already initiated massacres in the Middle East. The official accounts that were finally generated, that ignored most of the important evidence and are transparently false, are not the work of Muslims either.  The murder of millions of people has been falsely justified by way of those official accounts.

Muslims could not have done any of these things. Not even the drug-abusing drunk called Mohammed Atta, who dated strippers, dressed like a gangster and hung out with drug runners, could have done those things.

Moving beyond Islamophobia

We do have clues about who might have been involved though. For example, Florida Governor Jeb Bush showed up at Rudi Dekkers’ flight school in Venice, Florida where Atta and several of the other accused men had trained, within 24-hours after the attacks, to confiscate all the school’s records.[24] Curiously, Jeb and his brother, the President of the United States, had three relatives working for companies within the impact zones of the WTC towers (Craig Stapleton, Jim Pierce, and Prescott Bush Jr).[25]

Dekkers was a pervert just like the accused, non-Muslim men and he was brought up on charges for sexual harassment. Another of the many weird facts about Dekkers was that he claimed to be a New York City cop, and had a plaque on his wall with words to that effect.[26] This might remind us that Bernard Kerik, the “9/11 hero” who led the New York City Police department when it was credited with providing some of the dubious evidence against the accused, not only dressed like a gangster, he was known to have associated with mafia characters.  Coincidentally, the same things were said about FBI agent and lead al Qaeda investigator, John O’Neill.

Kerik spent years working in Saudi Arabia, first for the Saudi royal family and then for one of the companies that later was located near the impact zone in the south tower.  Interestingly, Kerik was the first person to tell us that explosives were not involved in the destruction of the WTC.  Unfortunately, we can’t get follow-up comments from him because he’s now in prison.

There remain many avenues for further investigation into the accused hijackers and who they really were.  Could there be a connection between the porn shops and strip clubs that the accused men liked to visit, and covert activities or organized crime?  Could those connections lead from places like Las Vegas and Florida to New York City, and shed light on why so many mafia-linked companies were hired to clean-up the WTC site?

Could the links between Atta, Dekkers’ financier Wally Hilliard, and international drug-running have anything to do with creating a pretext for war in Afghanistan, the country that now leads the world in opium production?  That certainly would make sense given that the southwest Florida area near Venice, where Dekkers, Atta and the alleged hijackers spent so much time, was home to a long history of CIA and drug trafficking operations.

Two long-time law enforcement officers interviewed by Daniel Hopsicker said they had “witnessed a 40-year long history of CIA-connected covert operations in their area.”  They were describing Atta’s home port in early 2001, the Charlotte County Airport.  They added that “they believed that the CIA was somehow involved, if not responsible for, the World Trade Center attacks.”[27]

Forty years is not quite right, however, as the history of covert drug operations in that area went back at least 60 years.  The tiny Venice Airport, where most of the alleged hijackers trained, originated as the Venice Army Airfield and was the home of the operatives who worked for General Claire Chennault.[28] Civil Air Transport, the successor to Chennault’s Flying Tigers and the world’s largest heroin-trafficking operation at the time, transported the drugs that funded the early covert operations of the CIA, and those airmen worked closely with organized crime while doing so.[29]

For the 12 years prior to 9/11, drug trafficking and terrorist training in the Venice, Florida area was overlooked by the region’s congressional representative, former CIA operative Porter Goss, and its Senator, Bob Graham.  It might not be surprising then, to notice that Porter and Graham led the first official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t find much.

Unfortunately, these leads are not being investigated due to continued support for the false claim that the alleged hijackers were adherents of Islam.  Such support for the official conspiracy theory also promotes the ongoing Muslim genocide.  We don’t know where all this falsehood will lead in the future, but people who seek the truth about 9/11 should move beyond blaming Muslims and get back to useful investigative work.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Zapruder film FRAME BY FRAME (HIGH QUALITY)

Uploaded by ert94464isback on Dec 29, 2011
The Zapruder film slowed down frame by frame.
Film in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzHKAzvO4tY&feature=related
Just the headshot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCdTkYSiVaE&feature=related

JFK Zapruder Headshot FRAME BY FRAME (HIGH QUALITY)

Uploaded by ert94464isback on Nov 26, 2011
Full zapruder film frame by frame here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Lyv4wrJQU

Zapruder Film ** (Very Clear With Sprocket Holes Filled)**

Uploaded by EwanMcRobert on Jun 18, 2011
A very clear copy of the JFK assassination, (a.k.a. Zapruder Film).
This copy is good for studying the film frame for frame (by downloading it and using the space bar while playing)
My first YouTube upload
Enjoy

Introduction

The economic, political and social outlook for 2012 is profoundly negative. The almost universal consensus, even among mainstream orthodox economists is pessimistic regarding the world economy. Although, even here, their predictions understate the scope and depth of the crises, there are powerful reasons to believe that beginning in 2012, we are heading toward a steeper decline than what was experienced during the Great Recession of 2008 – 2009. With fewer resources, greater debt and increasing popular resistance to shouldering the burden of saving the capitalist system, the governments cannot bail out the system.

Many of the major institutions and economic relations which were cause and consequence of world and regional capitalist expansion over the past three decades are in the process of disintegration and disarray. The previous economic engines of global expansion, the US and the European Union, have exhausted their potentialities and are in open decline. The new centers of growth, China, India, Brazil, Russia, which for a ‘short decade’ provided a new impetus for world growth have run their course and are de-accelerating rapidly and will continue to do so throughout the new year.

The Collapse of the European Union

Specifically, the crises wracked European Union will break up and the de facto multi-tiered structure will turn into a series of bilateral/multi-lateral trade and investment agreements. Germany , France , the Low and Nordic countries will attempt to weather the downturn. England – namely the City of London, in splendid isolation, will sink into negative growth, its financiers scrambling to find new speculative opportunities among the Gulf petrol-states and other ‘niches’. Eastern and Central Europe, particularly Poland and the Czech Republic , will deepen their ties to Germany but will suffer the consequences of the general decline of world markets. Southern Europe ( Greece , Spain , Portugal and Italy ) will enter into a deep depression as the massive debt payments fueled by savage assaults on wages and social benefits will severely reduce consumer demand.

Depression level unemployment and under-employment running to one-third of the labor force will detonate year-long social conflicts, intensifying into popular uprisings. Eventually a break-up of the European Union is almost inevitable. The euro as a currency of choice will be replaced by or return to national issues accompanied by devaluations and protectionism. Nationalism will be the order of the day. Banks in Germany , France and Switzerland will suffer huge losses on their loans to the South. Major bailouts will become necessary, polarizing German and French societies, between the tax-paying majorities and the bankers. Trade union militancy and rightwing pseudo ‘populism’ (neo-fascism) will intensify the class and national struggles

A depressed, fragmented and polarized Europe will be less likely to join in any Zionist inspired US-Israeli military adventure against Iran (or even Syria ). Crises ridden Europe will oppose Washington ’s confrontationalist approach to Russia and China .

The US : The Recession Returns with a Vengeance

The US economy will suffer the consequences of its ballooning fiscal deficit and will not be able to spend its way out of the world recession of 2012. Nor can it count on ‘exporting’ its way out of negative growth by turning to previously dynamic Asia, as China, India and the rest of Asia are losing economic steam. China will grow far below its 9% moving average. India will decline from 8% to 5% or lower. Moreover, the Obama regime’s military policy of ‘encirclement’, its economic policy of exclusion and protectionism will preclude any new stimulus from China .

Militarism Exacerbates the Economic Downturn

The US and England will be the biggest losers from the Iraqi post war economic reconstruction. Of $186 billion dollars in infrastructure projects, US and UK corporations will gain less than 5% (Financial Times, 12/16/11, p 1 and 3). A similar outcome is likely in Libya and elsewhere. US imperial militarism destroys an adversary, plunging into debt to do so, and non-belligerents reap the lucrative post-war economic reconstruction contracts.

The US economy will fall into recession in 2012 and the “jobless recovery of 2011” will be replaced by a steep increase of unemployment in 2012. In fact, the entire labor force will shrink as people losing their unemployment benefits will fail to register.

Labor exploitation (“productivity”) will intensify as capitalists force workers to produce more, for less pay, thus widening the income gap between wages and profits.

The economic downturn and growth of unemployment will be accompanied by savage cuts in social programs to subsidize financially troubled banks and industries. The debates among the parties will be over how large the cuts to workers and retirees will be to secure the ‘confidence’ of the bondholders. Faced with equally limited political choices, the electorate will react by voting out incumbents, abstaining and via spontaneous and organized mass movements, such as the “occupy Wall Street” protest. Dissatisfaction, hostility and frustration will pervade the culture. Democratic Party demagogues will scapegoat China ; the Republican Party demagogues will blame the immigrants. Both will fulminate against “the Islamo-fascists” and especially against Iran .

New Wars in the Midst of Crises: Zionists Pull the Trigger

The ‘52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations’ and their “Israel First” followers in the US Congress, State Department, Treasury and the Pentagon will push for war with Iran . If they are successful it will result in a regional conflagration and world depression. Given the extremist Israeli regime’s success in securing blind obedience to its war policies from the US Congress and White House, any doubts about the real possibility of a major catastrophic outcome can be set aside.

China: Compensatory Mechanisms in 2012

China will face the global recession of 2012 with several possibilities of ameliorating its impact. Beijing can shift toward producing goods and services for the 700 million domestic consumers currently out of the economic loop. By increasing wages, social services and environmental safety, China can compensate for the loss of overseas markets. China ’s economic growth, which is largely dependent on real estate speculation, will be adversely affected when the bubble is burst. A sharp downturn will result, leading to job losses, municipal bankruptcies and increased social and class conflicts. This can result in either greater repression or gradual democratization. The outcome will profoundly affect China ’s market – state relations. The economic crisis will likely strengthen state control over the market.

Russia Faces the Crises

Russia ’s election of President Putin will lead to less collaboration in backing US promoted uprisings and sanctions against Russian allies and trading partners. Putin will turn toward greater ties with China and will benefit from the break-up of the EU and the weakening of NATO.

The western media backed opposition will use its financial clout to erode Putin’s image and encourage investment boycotts though they will lose the Presidential elections by a big margin. The world recession will weaken the Russian economy and will force it to choose between greater public ownership or greater dependency on state funds to bail out prominent oligarchs.

The Transition 2011 – 2012: From Regional Stagnation and Recession to World Crises

The year 2011 laid the groundwork for the breakdown of the European Union. The crises began with the demise of the Euro, stagnation in the US and the outbreak of mass protests against the obscene inequalities on a world scale. The events of 2011 were a dress rehearsal for a new year of full scale trade wars between major powers, sharpening inter-imperialist struggles and the likelihood of popular rebellions turning into revolutions. Moreover, the escalation of Zionist orchestrated war fever against Iran in 2011 promises the biggest regional war since the US-Indo-Chinese conflict. The electoral campaigns and outcomes of Presidential elections in the US , Russia and France will deepen the global conflicts and economic crises.

During 2011 the Obama regime announced a policy of military confrontation with Russia and China and policies designed to undermine and degrade China ’s rise as a world economic power. In the face of a deepening economic recession and with the decline of overseas markets, especially in Europe , a major trade war will unfold. Washington will aggressively pursue policies limiting Chinese exports and investments. The White House will escalate its efforts to disrupt China ’s trade and investments in Asia, Africa and elsewhere. We can expect greater US efforts to exploit China ’s internal ethnic and popular conflicts and to increase its military presence off China ’s coastline. A major provocation or fabricated incident in this context is not to be excluded. The result in 2012 could lead to rabid chauvinist calls for a costly new ‘Cold War’. Obama has provided the framework and justification for a large-scale, long-term confrontation with China . This will be seen as a desperate effort to prop up US influence and strategic positions in Asia . The US military “quadrangle of power” – US-Japan-Australia-South Korea – with satellite support from the Philippines , will pit China ’s market ties against Washington ’s military build-up.

Europe: Deeper Austerity and Intensified Class Struggle

The austerity programs imposed in Europe, from England to Latvia to southern Europe will really take hold in 2012. Massive public sector firings and reduced private sector salaries and job opportunities will lead to a year of permanent class warfare and regime challenges. The ‘austerity policies’ in the South, will be accompanied by debt defaults resulting in bank failures in France and Germany . England ’s financial ruling class, isolated from Europe, but dominant in England , will insist that the Conservatives ‘repress’ labor and popular unrest. A new tough neo-Thatcherite style of autocratic rule will emerge; the Labor-trade union opposition will issue empty protests and tighten the leash on the rebellious populace. In a word, the regressive socio-economic policies put in place in 2011 have set the stage for new police-state regimes and more acute and possibly bloody confrontations with workers and unemployed youth with no future.

The Coming Wars that Ends America “As We Know It”

Within the US , Obama has laid the groundwork for a new and bigger war in the Middle East by relocating troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and concentrating them against Iran . To undermine Iran , Washington is expanding clandestine military and civilian operations against Iranian allies in Syria , Pakistan , Venezuela and China . The key to the US and Israeli bellicose strategy toward Iran is a series of wars in neighboring states, world- wide economic sanctions , cyber-attacks aimed at disabling vital industries and clandestine terrorist assassinations of scientists and military officials. The entire push, planning and execution of the US policies leading up to war with Iran can be empirically and without a doubt attributed to the Zionist power configuration occupying strategic positions in the US Administration, mass media and ‘civil society’.

A systematic analysis of American policymakers designing and implementing economic sanctions policy in Congress finds prominent roles for such mega-Zionists (Israel-Firsters) as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman; in the White House, Dennis Ross in the White House, Jeffrey Feltman in the State Department, and Stuart Levy, and his replacement David Cohen, in the Treasury. The White House is totally beholden to Zionist fund raisers and takes its cue from the ‘52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organization. The Israeli-Zionist strategy is to encircle Iran , weaken it economically and attack its military. The Iraq invasion was the US ’s first war for Israel ; the Libyan war the second; the current proxy war against Syria is the third. These wars have destroyed Israel ’s adversaries or are in the process of doing so.

During 2011, economic sanctions, which were designed to create domestic discontent in Iran , were the principle weapon of choice. The global sanctions campaign engaged the entire energies of the major Jewish-Zionist lobbies. They have faced no opposition from the mass media, Congress or the White Office. The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has been virtually exempt from criticism by any of the progressive, leftist and socialist journals, movements or grouplets – with a few notable exceptions. The past year’s re-positioning of US troops from Iraq to the borders of Iran , the sanctions and the rising Big Push from Israel ’s Fifth Column in the US means expanded war in the Middle East . This likely means a “surprise” aerial and maritime missile attack by US forces. This will be based on a concocted pretext of an “imminent nuclear attack” concocted by Israeli Mossad and faithfully transmitted by the ZPC to their lackeys US Congress and White House for consumption and transmission to the world. It will be a destructive, bloody, prolonged war for Israel ; the US will bear the direct military cost by itself and the rest of the world will pay a dear economic price. The Zionist-promoted US war will convert the recession of early 2012 into a major depression by the end of the year and probably provoke mass upheavals.

Conclusion

All indications point to 2012 being a turning point year of unrelenting economic crisis spreading outward from Europe and the US to Asia and its dependencies in Africa and Latin America . The crisis will be truly global. Inter-imperial confrontations and colonial wars will undermine any efforts to ameliorate this crisis. In response, mass movements will emerge moving over time from protests and rebellions, and hopefully to social revolutions and political power.
James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James Petras

READ FULL STORY HERE

It is amazing just how big and influential the 9/11 truth and justice movement has become. The New York Times, ABC, CNN, Time magazine, and other dinosaur media outlets cannot push back the political tsunami of truth and accountability that is heading towards Washington.

The official media organs of the totalitarian state are collapsing left and right. Newspaper circulation is declining across the West which is a highly positive development for freedom and democracy because that means less government propaganda is entering the minds of the people. And TV viewership is declining, too, as more people turn to the Internet for their news and entertainment.

Aaron Barnhart writes in The Kansas City Star that “For first time in 20 years, TV ownership declines.” Does that mean TV is dying? No. There are many great television shows and programs that teach, inspire, and entertain. As the former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Newton Minow said in his 1961 “vast wasteland” speech:

“When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines, or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse.”
Fifty years later, the cross-generational crusade to destroy TV as a mind control and cultural brainwashing tool continues. Reformers are aided with a more conscious and accountable tool – the Internet.

In September 2011, Minow and others participated in an event called “News and Entertainment in the Digital Age: A Vast Wasteland Revisited,” to discus the failure of the official media to serve the public interest and “to reflect upon the changed landscape of television and dramatic shifts in the broader media ecosystem, and identify lessons learned that may help to offer insight into the next 50 years of media and public discourse.” Watch the talk here. The event was covered by Katie Koch of the Harvard Gazette, who wrote:

Now, Minow acknowledged, his grandchildren don’t even own TV sets. The public has nearly limitless access to news and entertainment between cable television and the Internet. But the debate over what’s in the public’s best interest rages on, and reform is still needed, he said.

“Today’s politics are dominated by money,” Minow said. Candidates spend most of their time raising money “so they can buy radio and television ads. They’re raising money from the public to get access to something the public owns, the airwaves. That’s a crazy system.”

Compounding the problem today, said panelist Jonathan Alter, a historian and columnist for Bloomberg View, is the fact that struggling news outlets increasingly do not want to foot the costs of investigative reporting.

“Talk is cheap, and reporting is expensive,” Alter said. “The ‘vast wasteland’ now has this big ‘Tower of Babble’ on top of it.”

Other panelists were more optimistic about the new bottom-up model of news. Ethan Zuckerman, founder of the international blog network Global Voices, pointed out a recent hypothesis in the Columbia Journalism Review that says that cheaply produced, easy-to-distribute video is fast becoming “a universal human language.”

It is a great and beautiful thing that TV news is no longer trusted and watched by the vast majority of the public in North America. The cover up of 9/11 truth by television parrots and pundits has led to the unjust deaths of one million people, four trillions dollars wasted, the breakdown of the rule of law in the world, the transformation of America and other Western nations into a police state, and a world on the brink of world war III. As I wrote in the article, “The Misuse of The Power of Television In Wartime Is Itself A War Crime”:

Television has created a second dark age in Western civilization and undermined the freedom of thought, which is the basis for a free and open society.
Whereas traditional, arrogant, and obnoxious journalists have failed to challenge power-seeking traitors and psychopaths, new media journalists are serving the global public interest by telling the truth about 9/11 and raising the reality of state terrorism in the United States, Israel and the West to public consciousness.

The editors of the website the Daily Bell have popularized the idea of an “Internet Reformation,” and how it is changing power dynamics across the planet. Here is an excerpt from their larger article called “Internet Reformation”:

“The Internet Reformation is the culmination of the power and glory of Western civil society and free-market thinking. It is the apogee of all that is best in a sweep of history that began with the ancient Greeks and has culminated in the hearts and minds of millions of young men and women who industriously add to its impact every day via additional code, non-mainstream news or fundamental scientific commentary.

It is NOT an “Internet Revolution.” The Internet Revolution is a standard “pat” phrase of the powers-that-be about the so-called empowering effects of technology. The Internet Reformation is a much more deeply disruptive concept. It is truly a revolutionary one, affecting every aspect of human society and human relationships with modern elites. It is focused around the insights generated by the Internet itself.

This concept is based on what happened during the era of the Gutenberg press. Almost from the beginning, the Gutenberg press was a revolutionary technology. As soon as people used the press to print Bibles, readers began to discover that the Holy Word differed considerably from what they’d been taught by the Catholic Church.

Until then, Bibles had been fairly rare. They were printed in Latin or Greek, and copied down by hand with elaborate engravings. The Catholic Church and its important functionaries and bureaucrats possessed Bibles. Priests performed Mass with their back to the congregation. The ceremony was a highly Romanized one, as the West had come to conceive of Rome within its most corrupt and centralizing phase, and highly controlled.

But printing Bibles in moveable type changed the power relationship entirely. Now, anyone could own a Bible and they were easily reproduced and increasingly inexpensive. Almost immediately, then Bibles began to be translated into “vulgate” and eventually the King James Version (English) would become a dominant variant. But in the meantime, the damage was done. First came the Renaissance and then the Reformation and finally the Age of Enlightenment, three powerful rolling waves of free-thinking that transformed the face of human society, first in the West and then around the world.

The changes ushered in by the Gutenberg press were fundamental. The Renaissance began the reconfiguration by allowing for the rediscovery of the scientific orientation of Greece and Rome. This set in motion a series of events that has not yet ceased to reverberate.”

What the Internet has done for modern scholarship and learning cannot be fully grasped yet, as the editors of the Daily Bell point out. But we can already foresee major new works of history that will turn the conventional history of the 20th century on its head and change how we understand the political and economic developments of the last hundred years.

The positive consequences of truth-telling on the Internet for human society and global political affairs are limitless. An entire world of government psyops and corporate treason has been kept hidden from the global public. Matter of fact, entire advanced civilizations that exist beyond our planet have been shielded from public light by the U.S. shadow state, world governments and the world press.

Historian Richard Dolan, author of the widely acclaimed books, “UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973,” and, “The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973-1991 (UFOs and the National Security State, Vol. 2)” has uncovered the secret history of the last sixty five years in American history and world history without sounding either paranoid or conspiratorial, which tends to happen to a lot of people because of the nature of the dark era in which we live.

In an article written on January 20, 2011, called, “JFK, Secrecy, and UFOs,” Dolan acknowledged the murder of President John F. Kennedy by the shadow terrorists in the CIA as a critical step towards the construction and consolidation of totalitarian power inside Washington. Dolan wrote:
“Like many people who have reviewed the life and Presidency of JFK, it’s my feeling that we lost something very important on that dark day of his assassination. What we lost was the implicit bond of trust that existed between the American people and their government.
The system that had been evolved for a century and a half, which despite all imperfections had moved in fits and starts toward greater power to the people, had made a great transformation during the Second World War. That was when the American republican system government became increasingly swallowed up by a “national security state.” It did not take new boss very long before it decided to remove the President in what became for all intents and purposes a silent coup d’etat.

Thus for good reason are we unable to look back at JFK, at the era of Camelot, and avoid that feeling in the pit of our stomachs. That feeling of loss, and the conviction that his assassination was a criminal action yet to be punished, or even acknowledged.”

In his classic speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961, President Kennedy appealed to the better natures of journalists, and pleaded them to defend the public interest even at the cost of their careers. He called the press the keeper of mankind’s conscience, saying:

“It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”
After Kennedy’s assassination, American journalists turned mute. They not only let down their President, but their country and their readers. And this is understandable. Journalists in the United States who tell the truth about U.S. government policies like Gary Webb are killed.

A dark cloud of fear and death hangs over the journalism profession in the West. But that’s not the whole story. Most journalists just flat out don’t care about the common good, freedom, truth, or justice.

And so it is to the Internet – “to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with” the help of conspiracy theorists, truthers, birthers, and deathers, “man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”

The corrupt gatekeepers who bought all the printing presses and used their god-like power over the media to cover up state crimes against the American people, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the world by secret intelligence agencies cannot repress the big truths of modern history forever.

A global political reformation of shadow governments and criminal media institutions is inevitable.

“It is decentralization that the modern power elite fears most,” write the editors of the Daily Bell, “because decentralized spheres of influence are impossible to control. Unfortunately the Renaissance and Reformation were all about the decentralization of control built on the availability of real knowledge and a return to primary sources that undermined the “experts” of church and state.” They add: “The darkness is lifting as it lifted long ago during the Renaissance. An Internet Reformation is coming. It will have numerous unpredictable ramifications. In fact, its dawn is already here.”
POSTED BY SAMAN MOHAMMADI AT 10:26 PM

READ FULL STORY HERE

Professor Jones has developed a variation of the ‘Joule Thief’ circuit and has shown evidence that its output is eight times greater than the input as measured by a state-of-the-art oscilloscope. He is open sourcing his solid state design to help speed its development and implementation, as well as to answer the scientific question of where the energy is coming from.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

Retired Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones is working on a simple overunity circuit that he has seen go as high as 20 times overunity; documented on a state-of-the-art Tektronix 3032 oscilloscope at Brigham Young University producing eight times as much energy as was required to run the solid state circuit.  One of his friends, Les Kraut, has replicated the circuit and also achieved eight times overunity.

As a second and more simple test, Steve let the circuit run overnight, powering an LED bulb; and nine hours later, the input battery was still at the same measured voltage as it has been at the beginning, it used so little power.  Normally that would drain the AA battery quite a bit.

It’s just a small amount of power we’re talking about – in the hundreds of milliwatts range (just under a Watt), but it’s a start.

What is significant about this is 1) the credibility and reputation of Dr. Jones, being something that academic types won’t be able to ignore; 2) the rigor of the testing, given the measurement equipment he has access to; 3) the simplicity of the circuit, which is actually open source; 4) the low cost of the circuit components, making it easy to be replicated.

“I don’t know where the energy is coming from, but it’s coming from somewhere,” he said.

1) Steven E. Jones’ Credibility

Dr. Jones is the BYU professor who was racing neck-and-neck with Pons and Fleishmann of the rival University of Utah to the north, with his research in Cold Fusion, as mentioned on his profile page at BYU.edu.  He is even better known for his documenting in peer-reviewed journals the replete thermite found in the several dust samples from the World Trade Centers, proving that controlled demolition was the cause that those three buildings fell at free-fall and near-free-fall speeds.  In our news, we featured a very simple solar funnel that he and his students came up with to help indigent peoples be able to cook with solar power.  Obviously, he is not a mainstream professor but is pushing the envelope.  He sees the same kind of signs of corruption and oppression in the energy sector that he does in the U.S. government (which gave rise to the attacks on 9/11).

Steve and I are friends, having several interests in common, and living in the same valley.  I’ve known he’s been working on some free energy research, but he’s been hesitant to say anything about it until we talked the other night; and I was able to convince him to let me come document what he has done so far, even though he would have liked to have more data first.  Given that he will be mentioning his findings at a presentation he’s giving next week in California at the Conspiracy Conference, I was able to convince him that he might as well disclose his results now; breaking his cover that he’s held for the last several months on the forums under such usernames as “PhysicsProf” or “JouleSeeker“.  And, it would be a good opportunity to plug the conference to our audience.

I was able to visit with Steve and Les on May 26 at Kraut’s home to videotape Steve’s demonstration of this technology, as well as videotaping Kraut’s work with several other Bedini-related systems, including a 3-foot diameter version of Bedini’s Ferris Wheel.  He also explained an Energy Crystal that Bedini has been working on lately to bring to people’s attention as yet another free energy avenue.

Alex Loseman, who has been helping with the greenhouse project on our intentional community project, was with me in our visit with Steve and Les.  He is launching a research project that will include replicating, documenting, characterizing, and enlarging on this effect Steve has produced.  Though he doesn’t have a lot of funds now, with some good results, he has a couple of sources of getting additional investment.  After our visit, he was on his way to the airport to pick up another researcher who will be working on this with him.

2) Rigor of Testing

click image for enlarged image Tektronix shot showing 8x OU.

Only a minority of researchers in the free energy community have access to and knowledge of how to run an oscilloscope.  An even smaller subset have access to university equipment such as the Tektronix 3032 (at 300MHz) oscilloscope.  Some people try for years to get some professor to take enough of an interest to validate their findings.  In Steve’s case, he is a Professor, and he’s the researcher, so he’s in a very unique position here.  So when he says he’s documented 8x overunity, it holds a lot more credence than when someone else says the same thing.

In our filming, he said:
“My feeling is that the results with the Tektronix 3032 are quite compelling.  That doesn’t mean I understand where this energy is coming from.  I don’t.  It certain shows, repeatedly, that the output power is greater than the input power.”
3,4) Simplicity of the Circuit; Inexpensive

Here is the two-part video (1 | 2) of Steve explaining his circuit and measurement results as well as ideas for scaling it up.  Note how simple the circuit is.  I’m guessing we’re looking at less than $50 in components and three hours to build this one-off proof of concept circuit.

Part I

Part II

Here is a schematic image Steve sent me, saying, “there are small but important changes in the resistors and capacitors in the few variations we are studying.”

Instructions for the toroid winding. More info here:

The circuit is a derivation of the “Joule Thief” circuit or a “blocking oscillator”.  His variation has an LC-circuit feeding into the base of the transistor (which is unusual) which regulates the resonant frequency of the device.   He calls this circuit a “boost resonator” because it resonates at a certain frequency, and since the evidence shows that it somehow boosts the input power.  “I also found a way to ‘tune’ the efficiency, n, and to reduce the net input power to nearly zero.”

He continues:
With my particular toroid (which was hand-wound), I had excellent results with these conditions:

Vin 2.5 V AA’s
Rb 2K ohms
Ro 9.8K
Rr 3.1ohm
MPS2222 transistor
C-B  151 pF
D = red LED
L-B, L-O bifilar 9turns, ferrite toroid 1″OD, 1/2″ID, 7/16″ tall;   ~90uH each

I(t) by V over 1ohm CSR’s (current-sensing resistor)
Open Source:

We’ll be posting a PESWiki feature page about this open source project soon.

If you happen to get involved in a commercial version of this open source project, selling plans, kits, components, finished systems, licensing, etc., please remit at least a 5% royalty to Steve’s team who is helping disseminate this information.

Hopefully it wont be long before practical iterations of this device are powering endless lighting fixtures, beginning with single LED bulbs; then small electronics; then appliances; then vehicles.

# # #

This story is also published at BeforeItsNews.

Links

• http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=122.0 – OU Research “bench”
• http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.0 – “There you will find the schematic of my little contribution, attached are two versions (there are small but important changes in the resistors and capacitors in the few variations we are studying).”  Data also given.
• http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.0 – Thread commenced May 20, 2011.

What You Can Do

1. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
2. Get involved in replicating this.
3. Get involved in commercializing this.
4. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
5. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
6. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology.

See also

Resources at PESWiki.com

• Directory:Electromagnetic
• Directory:Solid_State_Generators
• Directory:Les_Kraut
• More stories by Sterling D. Allan

• PESN (Pure Energy Systems News) – Feature stories on cutting-edge, clean energy technology.
• Free Energy News (.com) – Daily cutting-edge, clean energy technology news from around the world
• PESWiki Latest – Newest feature pages in the publicly-editable energy directory.
• This Week in Free Energy™ – Ten-minute recap each Sunday, 7:50 – 8:00 pm Mountain.
• Free Energy Now (.net) – in-depth interviews

READ FULL STORY HERE

“Propaganda Steers our Opinion Exactly where it is Intended to Go.”

By its own definition it is media’s job to tell us about ourselves and the world around us, to enable us to make informed decisions in a democratic society. That’s the theory.

Now, let’s look at reality:

Media has become a mirror of the disconnected state that humanity finds itself in. News, current affairs, even the dramas and reality TV shows that entertain us serve to exacerbate the religion of polarity being reflected back to us in all its forms – materialism, hatred, killing, idolization and separation. Almost all television, be it sagas and melodramas or daily news, is as addictive as any drug. This single dimensional ‘pulpit’ from which media preaches to us (often in the centre of our living rooms) actually seeds many of our negative behavior patterns in day-to-day life.

Dramas and melodramas aside, we have been led to believe that the news and current affairs programs we watch are true, unbiased, fair. Often this is anything but the case. News is provided, increasingly, by a select few. Those who have views outside what the owners of global media want us to hear and see have found themselves without a platform from which to present their knowledge and opinions.

Governments ensure that only the very powerful are able to access our living rooms by staking ownership and guardianship of the airwaves through licensing priced well outside the reach of ordinary people. As a result the news we see in all developed countries, particularly those of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, is exactly the same, word for word, picture for picture. There is purpose behind this; it ensures that the now global corporate empires of media become bigger and more powerful, gobbling up any small players along the way. A select few controlling interests effectively distort democracy by shaping public opinion through deception on a grand scale.

The news we watch steers our attention in the direction needed to affect the outcome desired by this greedy, inhumane elite. It perpetuates polarity and provides the momentum necessary for its growth. Our feelings of vengeance and self-righteousness, seeded by lack of balance and distortion of truth reported to us in our news, is the fuel needed for us to supply ‘boy-power’ for the wars we are about to wage (or are already waging). In the few years since television made its debut into society, people who would be dictators have found the perfect uninterrupted medium through which to shape opinion every night of the week – they do it from behind the scenes by filtering the news and programming we watch. It is interesting that the first ever public television broadcast was of Adolph Hitler opening the Olympic games in Munich – he understood the immense potential of this new communication medium. Media can be the most powerful tool of freedom for a people but it can also be the most powerful instrument of propaganda.

It is considered good reporting to present a news story that shows as much violence as can be tolerated by the average family during or shortly after dinner time. Almost always this violence is aimed at promoting law and order, or steering our opinion regarding some conflict abroad. If we were shown the degree of violence which our nations have unleashed on millions of people the world over, on our behalf, we would be horrified and would quickly rise up against those governing us. But, alas, we are not shown these revealing images. Propaganda steers our opinion exactly where it is intended to go. Disturbing, angry, fear-invoking images are the norm, always biased to keep us on side.

It is our spiritual starvation, our endless wanting, that has grown media into what it has become. For many of us the most exciting dreams we have are to possess whatever product we have seen that we most want. For some of us the most exciting event of the day is the color brochure that arrives in our mail, full of dreams in the form of things we can purchase. Whole programs are presented where we watch the best ads. Whole channels exist where all programming is advertising. Media is actually supplying the information that sells and is in demand. As ego-selves in denial of the common thread linking each of us through creator-self, we do not realize the true implications of this demand. We have not yet come to understand the impact it has upon our world. Media is much more than a vehicle for supplying us with information to make decisions – it gives us the very raw materials with which we create even more misery.

One of the most basic factors determining whether or not a story is newsworthy is the level of interest the story will generate. The more interesting the story, the more people tune in, the greater the advertising revenue for the television station. Because we are raised to believe almost exclusively in competition, excitement is generated by seeing the suffering of another individual – by taking a side and watching our side win. Stories of co-operation are rare and much less popular than those showing competition. When co-operation is shown it is usually in the form of one team against another, one army against another, etc. This is not co-operation in the true sense. True co-operation would mean one team, one humanity, one earth – why would any aspect of the whole wish to attack one of its parts?

Even our nature shows teach us that co-operation in the natural world is all but non-existent and that animals are just like we should be – in a perpetual state of war, heterosexual, and in many cases mating (‘married’) for life. We have imposed our subjective evaluation on them, turning a blind eye to the reality of the animal kingdom. When we see a nature program showing animals in the wild, we are led to believe that life is war – a perpetual state of hunting and being hunted. Those who have actually experienced the real natural world, now a minority of humans, know this is clearly a deception. Film crews spend months, sometimes years waiting patiently for these exciting scenes. While on the lookout for their safety, animals generally enjoy freedom and peace the likes of which we have forgotten to even dream about. Predators only hunt what they need, usually taking out the weak or the excess. Furthermore, sexuality and its expression in the animal kingdom is anything but what we have been led to believe. It is colorful, diverse and natural. While well meaning, those who interpret animal behavior for us are often biased by their societal belief systems, subjectivity seeded by religion – all too often Christianity and Judaism.

Most media outlets are commercial ventures designed primarily for the purposes of creating wealth. They need to sell program content (product) that is desirable, their commercial interests paramount at all times. Of the few media outlets that are not constrained in this way, most are government funded. These outlets, contrary to what we would like to believe, also have to satisfy their funders. This media sector tends to attract players of a particular political bent whose self-preservation (job, financial future and retirement benefits) rely on the illusion that we need more and more governing; more controls and restrictions placed on us.

We have a politically left-leaning bias in the publicly owned media and a right-leaning bias in the privately owned media. Polarity, once again. It is not the direction of leaning that matters but the leaning itself. This leaning results in people being pitted against one another. (Needless to say, the bias of religiously sponsored media speaks for itself and we need hardly waste our time re-iterating its methods.)

Media does report on the problems and challenges of our world, but in a way that is largely superficial. All too often media actually misinforms us by providing the illusion that we are being properly informed. We hear stories about terrorism, earthquakes, floods and famines. We hear of our frailty against an ever-increasing array of attacks commissioned by the invisible world of bacteria and viruses, frailty that can be counterattacked by mega-corporations behind the medical industry. With only ego, without spiritual grounding in and through ourselves, these reports succeed in invoking even more fear.

It is all about us and them, whether they are another tribe, another religion, another country, another animal, another ‘dumb’ piece of rock crumbling into the ocean, or a disease that we should all fear. All they have to do is tell us something is bad for us and we believe them. ‘They’ have become our father-figure who we trust and look to for guidance. This is a grave error on our behalf because many of these people are completely irresponsible and utterly selfish. We have allowed ourselves to become disempowered, cowering and fearful, ready to be herded through any gate and into any trap. Nothing is our enemy if and when we decide to believe in ourselves. Believing in ourselves awakens us to the reality that our earth is alive, intelligent. As with our bodies, earth ‘speaks’ to us, not in words but in feelings – feelings we should be listening to.

Our current paradigm is primitive, patriotic, and dangerous. Our respective countries’ national sport is a case in point. It all seems like a load of fun – beer swilling, flag waving, drunken crowds, rowdy cheering in grandstands and dingy bars, fights and riots after the game.  A national sport is designed to promote patriotism; it is an extended and continuous war game in which many of us are unwitting contributors. Through competitive spectator sport we have created an activity that is the domain of a minority of physically-suited individuals. For the majority of people who are either unable to achieve such high standards of performance or simply don’t desire the activity enough to partake, participation is reduced to that of mere spectator. We are entertained just like the ancient crowds watching gladiators in the Roman coliseum; the only thing that pulls a crowd to its feet faster than a goal is a fight. The result is that the overall fitness level of our media-orientated society continues to reach new lows.

It is during commercial breaks that we are targeted on an even more personal level. The best way to sell something to an unconscious self is to tap into one of the many fears associated with that disconnection. We are promised extended youth, greater beauty, power, success – all these can be ours for the right price. The only effort required is a little shopping.  The need for more stuff is never-ending. We experience a short term high when we bag the latest product on the shelf, but the unwritten guarantee is that, if we follow the rules of this game, we will come to the same end as everyone else. That is, we will eventually become old, diseased, and finally die. Why, advertisements even allow us to pre-pay for our own funeral!

If this is not a dark enough picture, there is another side to it – one that is almost completely hidden from us. Our ever-increasing need to consume more is the fuel that feeds the global engine churning greater material imbalance and misery by the day. You may already know this, but if you are able to afford power, television, even this book, you are part of a privileged minority of humanity at this time. Most inhabitants of the earth have no such luxury; many cannot even read (not because they are stupid, but because they did not have the opportunity of learning to read). The greater percentage of humans has only one concern and that is whether they are going to be able to eat today. For many this dire situation is directly related to our imperialism, our greed, our soullessness. Each of us in the richest nations is destined to consume 15 to 150 times what one of these people consumes in a lifetime! If we in the west have just two children, it is equivalent to giving birth to a small to medium sized village in many parts of the Third World!

Our cheap luxuries more often than not come from the places where this ‘other half’ lives. To produce our cheap products, not just Nike and The Gap, but almost all our products, many people work an entire month for a wage that is less than what the average Westerner earns in a day. This is the only way they can put food on their tables. The profits for our cheap products stay in the hands of greedy Westerners and oligarchs.

Maybe, instead of merely pointing our soiled fingers at pariah companies brought to our attention by sensational programs targeting just a handful, we should look at what we really need as individuals. Instead of feeling guilty about what we buy, maybe we should look after what we own instead of throwing it out when the look changes. Maybe we should learn to maintain and fix things with our own hands, or be prepared to pay others who have taken the time to learn these valuable skills fairly and proportionately for their time. We have lost respect for some of the most important people in society and it is at our peril because young people are not being encouraged to learn practical, hands-on vocations. A kitchen full of managers cannot cook a meal. A community full of government workers, councilors and inspectors, inventing and enforcing more and more regulations, cannot make for a functional, creative, productive or self-sustaining society. Practical skills will become invaluable in a real-world sustainable situation.

As individuals we certainly have enough challenges to deal with ourselves. Most of us feel that we have little or no control over what happens on the other side, in the so-called ‘Third World.’ By stepping one by one off the treadmill we actually provide the only real opportunity for these people to begin reassessing their needs. Because we cannot know anyone else’s plight we are wise indeed to allow them to proceed without hindrance. Social revolution is beginning to take place in many significant parts of the developing world, most notably South America. It is in our best interests to allow and observe these revolutions, not judge or interfere with them.

Although we are economically better off than many in the world today, we are not in any way more independent than the poverty-stricken masses in developing nations. Most of us do not even know where our food comes from or how it is grown. If we were to lose our infrastructure for more than a few days we would be in far worse shape than many people in the Third World. Our infrastructure, contrary to what we might like to believe, is weak and fragile. It needs constant maintenance and repair to keep it running. The day will come when we will once again need to face the reality that co-operation with the natural world is the only way to put food on our tables. Cell phones, high tech devices, flashy vehicles and silk suits are quite inedible.

Time and again we become convinced of the benefits of buying some product, only to find out later that the same product invokes disease. ‘Smoke these cigarettes for vitality,’ ‘Pay for that tanning session so that you may have a younger, healthier look’ – just a few short years ago these were our mantras. Now that statistics have been gathered to tell us that smoking is bad, that tanning chambers can damage our skin, the loop of disconnection is complete – we buy into what they say.

Lack of self-esteem, desire to conform; these are the true reasons we took up our habits in the first place. The addictions mask our fears. Our creator-self tries but ego wins. Tobacco, like sun, can be medicine. It is us that have turned dis-ease into disease. Knowing our guilt, governments are now free to tax us whatever they like; smokers are reminded every time they light up how bad they are. Others, piously confronting them for their bad habits, accusing smokers of affecting their health, fly to far away places, use the same environmentally harmful products (including a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs that end up in the water system), drive their cars and generate dangerous microwave fields with their cell-phones, not to mention wobbling around with tens, sometimes hundreds of pounds of extra fat. We dare not point out the oxymoron – they have the weight of current public phobia on their side. But this is just the beginning. A new doorway into judging and mistreating others has been opened and tested. A whole sector of society has been openly branded as inconsiderate, unhealthy, stupid – a burden. Who, we should ask, might be next?

Media at our collective behest is the tool that is used to spread so many false ideologies into our culture. We have been lulled into believing exactly what media wants us to believe. Allowing media into our homes and heads is a privilege, not for us, but for them. We, once fully conscious, will filter out the polarity being channeled to us. Self-empowered, we will observe and steer ourselves on our individual journey towards full awakening. Using the most powerful tool we have, our contemplative minds, we will once again have time to think for ourselves.

Media and its message can be our ally, confirming the insights that come from assimilation with our creator-selves. It need not serve as a torturous guide into the world of fear and loss, victims and martyrs, hatred and blame, servitude and slavery. From a newly empowered position outside the pendulum of polarity, media can provide stark evidence of the intensifying circle that has been cast, one from which there is no way out except recognition of the obvious. It cannot be squashed, fought to death, protested into oblivion – no action taken from within the circle will bring it down. Taking sides will always set into motion some form of opposition, thereby granting the quandary a life of its own. One last climactic time, this time involving all humanity, history seems destined to repeat. Afterwards, the survivors will have no choice but to address the fundamental question, using logic to proceed on a sustainable path of evolution with each other and all other life – with cooperation, compassion and honesty.
Global Research Articles by Steven J. M. Jones

READ FULL STORY HERE

Introduction

On May 29, 2011, President Obama visited Joplin, Missouri , the site of a devastating tornado that killed 140 and pronounced it a terrible “tragedy”. But were the deaths the inevitable result of ‘natural events’ beyond the human intervention?

Coincidentally the same week Afghan President Karzai condemned the killing of a family of 14 by a NATO fighter bomber, running the total to several hundred civilians killed so far this year and thousands over the decade.

The relation between the civilian deaths in Joplin and Afghanistan raises fundamental questions about the priorities, character and direction of the US Empire and the future of the American republic.

Geography of Tornados

Every year at least 20 major violent tornadoes – with winds exceeding 200 mph – hit “tornado alley” and beyond, including central Texas, northern Iowa, central Kansas, Nebraska, western Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. Each and every year at least sixty are killed and several hundred are maimed and injured. This year, through May 2011, over 519 have been killed, 25% of whom were in mobile homes, almost three times as many as those in standard houses.

In other words, these tornado-related deaths are predictable, annual, and region-specific and have a higher incidence among low income households. Government agencies and academics have compiled data banks and time series information mapping the route, frequency and impact of tornadoes.

Information about the nature of killer tornadoes is plentiful. Nevertheless deaths mount from year to year. Fear and insecurity stalks the region’s most susceptible to the violent whirlwinds, even as the Congress and White House have increased personnel and funding for ‘Homeland Security’ twenty fold over the decade .The current budget is over $180 billion. If we add the deaths caused by other ‘natural’ disasters like the flooding of New Orleans , the numbers of deaths are staggering. What explains this perverse relation between huge public funding for ‘homeland security’ and the increased insecurity of vulnerable Americans in clearly identified danger zones?

The reason is clear: ‘Homeland Security’ (HS) is an Orwellian misnomer. The agency is not concerned with domestic, civilian, American security. HS is part of a military-police response to imagined overseas threats, which have not materialized or at least have not produced deaths comparable to tornadoes and floods in the last 11 years.

HS spends billions and employs thousands to investigate, spy and harass citizens engaged in legal-constitutional activities. HS and the Pentagon spend tens of billions on overseas infrastructures – buildings, bases, camps -and over 900 billion in arms. HS and the Defense Department forcefully intervene militarily throughout the world via overt and clandestine operations.

To be precise HS intervenes offensively overseas, attacking civilian targets, while it fails to engage domestically to protect American civilians who are left defenseless in the face of predictable natural disasters.

HS and the Pentagon’s sustained violent overseas operations are rejected and regarded as a hostile imperial intervention by the civilians in those countries adversely affected. In contrast, defenseless citizens in the US would welcome large-scale intervention in the form of community shelters, which would provide survival, security, life-saving protection and financial aid for rebuilding their lives. Moreover, Pentagon and HS spending on overseas infrastructure, bases and bombs results in deficits, whereas investments in tornado and flood shelters would stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the US .

The current activity of HS destroys lives abroad and neglects survival at home: It has nothing to do with our “homeland” and even less with our “security”. Five percent of HS budget would have prevented many of Joplin ’s ‘tragedy’ (and saved us from Obama’s gaseous oratory!) and the other 400 deaths from this year’s crop of tornadoes.

Systemic Bases of Perpetual Domestic Neglect

Death from ‘natural’ events raises a fundamental POLITICAL question: Why is the budget of Homeland Security and the Pentagon directed overseas, toward destructive, offensive, military activity rather than to domestic, constructive, defensive activity to protect American lives and productive economic activity?

The problem is systemic not due to some personal flaw or political idiosyncrasy of the moment. The structures of the US economy and military institutions are oriented ‘outwardly’ to conquering foreign financial markets and building a military empire. The ideology which informs strategic policymakers is imperial-centered not republican: They do not speak of developing and deepening the economy and security of ‘ middle America ’. Every member of the political and corporate elite talks of ‘world’ or ‘global’ leadership – a thinly veiled euphemism for the drive to sustain world dominance. Within the imperial framework the entire ‘security’ budget is directed toward maintaining offensive military supremacy. No wonder there is a steep decline in all spheres of domestic security – natural, social, personal, health and employment –a phenomenon that proceeds with little public debate. The only exception is when threats to security impinge most directly and forcefully on a significant sector of the population. For example, witness the storm of protest from those directly affected when the politicians moved to privatize social security and Medicare.

Nevertheless, the entire political spectrum, the two parties, the Congress and the White House over the past 30 years, have created an artificial consensus in which overseas wars, foreign aid to patrons (Israel) and clients (Pakistan and Egypt) absorbs the greatest percentage of budgetary spending. No political or economic leadership has stepped forward to articulate the obvious connection between global expansion and domestic decay; to forcefully state that the deterioration of the republic is a direct product of the vast resources channeled into military and economic empire building. Who on New York City ’s Wall Street or Washington ’s Pentagon is going to even look at or consider a ‘security plan’ with regard to the geography of catastrophes – tornado alley covering a dozen states and the floods and deaths that overwhelm the lowlands from Montana to Louisiana ?

Listen America

Their message is loud and clear:

Small towns and trailer parks do not count! You have your 2nd amendment (the ‘right to bear arms’), you have your ‘small government’, and you have your flags: ‘Wav ‘em and weep’ as tornadoes blow down your houses and your sons and daughters return wrapped in flags to the Battle Hymn of the Empire!

Conclusion

One might argue that community storm shelters won’t break the Treasury or reverse the empire. More to the point, their absence, from the federal, state and local political agenda, is emblematic of the total subordination of domestic America to imperial Washington . The ‘cost’ of building community shelters at the strip malls and trailer parks in Joplin , Missouri is less than a regional training outpost in Kandahar , Afghanistan . It is not a question of money.

Conquering Afghanistan villages enhances the prestige of the Generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and NATO officials. Can saving 145 lives in Joplin , Missouri match that in terms of world politics or the politics of imperial leadership? For Afghanistan , Washington builds a thousand military shelters and bomb proof bunkers .For the Americans living in tornado alley and the flood plains of the Mississippi people must make do.

When you hear the tornado warning, it’s up to you. As a proud, free American you can find a rock to crawl under and say your prayer: the Federal government and Homeland Security have the Endless, World-wide War against Terror to fight and cannot be bothered by a Joplin , Missouri nursing home in the path of a tornado.

We exaggerate: Obama will jet in and speak before the cameras in solemn terms of the ‘tragedy’ and ‘courage’ of the people of Joplin … But will any local politician stand up and speak truth to power? Most of these deaths and (many more to come) are avoidable; under a democratic American republic, the government ‘intervenes’ to provide protection, health and employment for its people.

In the meantime, as the empire continues to grow it destroys its own people, just like the sow that devours its offspring.
James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James Petras

READ FULL STORY HERE

NATO’s Afrika Korps Escalates War Of Attrition Against Libya
Rick Rozoff

The relentless and intensifying Western air war against Libya will soon enter its fourth month. For the first thirteen days starting on March 19 under the control of U.S. Africa Command and Operation Odyssey Dawn and thereafter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led Operation Unified Protector, the air assaults represent the second longest armed aggression in NATO’s history, already surpassing by a week the 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Only the now nearly decade-long war in Afghanistan exceeds the current campaign in length.

The U.S.-dominated military bloc not only acknowledges but fairly boasts of conducting almost 11,000 air missions and over 4,000 combat sorties since March 31. Preceding that, hundreds of air strikes and over 160 cruise missile attacks were launched by the U.S., Britain, France and other NATO powers.

Altogether, following in the North African footsteps of Napoleon Bonaparte’s France, imperial Britain, Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Adolf Hitler’s Germany, Western nations are engaged in the longest war against an African country in modern times and the most intensive armed aggression against one ever.

At the end of last month a Libyan government spokesman announced that NATO air attacks had killed 718 civilians and wounded 4,067 more between March 19 and May 26. In the interim the North Atlantic military alliance has intensified bombing of the nation’s capital and other parts of the country to an unprecedented level and introduced British and French helicopter gunship and U.S. Hellfire missile-wielding Predator unmanned aerial vehicles operations.

On June 1 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared that the Alliance had authorized continuation of the war for three more months, until the end of September, and a week later he confirmed that the defense chiefs of NATO’s 28 member states, including the Pentagon’s Robert Gates, endorsed the decision to extend so-called Operation Unified Protector for another 90 days during a defense ministerial meeting at NATO Headquarters in Belgium.

In addition to the deployment of British Apache and French Gazelle and Tiger attack helicopters – the first equipped with what the Daily Mirror described as “a deadly missile dubbed ‘the mincer’” a “­gruesome anti-personnel missile containing 80 5in-long steel darts called flechettes,” the U.S. has dispatched the mammoth USS George H.W. Bush nuclear supercarrier with an accompanying strike group to the Mediterranean Sea for what portends a military endgame for the North African state of slightly over six million people.

The above-cited British newspaper recently referred to the George H.W. Bush, now on its maiden deployment and at the time engaged in war games, Exercise Saxon Warrior, with the Royal Navy’s HMS Dauntless and HMS Gloucester, as the “world’s most powerful warship,” adding that “The 97,000-ton Bush carries in excess of 70 aircraft from eight squadrons and 5,300 sailors and aircrew.”

On June 6 it anchored off the coast of the Spanish Mediterranean city of Cartagena; as the U.S. Navy disclosed, marking the first time “the nation’s newest Nimitz-class aircraft carrier has visited mainland Europe.”

The George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group is en route to the headquarters of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet in Naples in the south of Italy, within easy striking distance of Libya.

After 85 days of constant bombardment, which constitute the longest daily bombing campaign since the Vietnam War, have left smoke clouds rising over Tripoli every night and increasingly during the day as well, the Western destruction of government assets and infrastructure, military and civilian, has only begun.

As has the war waged against the civilian population by NATO powers, including Libya’s former colonial master Italy, without pause even in the face of African Union peace proposals accepted by the Libyan government.

Almost immediately exceeding even the broadest interpretation of the mandate granted by United Nations Resolution 1973 to protect Libyan civilians, NATO is deliberately and mercilessly executing a campaign to comprehensively impair the Libyan government’s ability to function in any capacity – including providing safety and services to its citizens – in a brutal attempt to convince the population that any alternatives, even the fragmentation of the country and foreign domination and occupation, are superior to continuing to resist an endless reign of terror from the skies.

For the West, the cost of defiance, even of not outright capitulating or merely maintaining a semblance of independence, is death, destruction and the fatal wounding of the nation itself. Examples abound – the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq – with surely more to follow.

READ FULL STORY HERE

by Dean Henderson
Global Research, June 8, 2011

Part two of a four-part series
See Part I here.

In 1789 Alexander Hamilton became the first Treasury Secretary of the United States.  Hamilton was one of many Founding Fathers who were Freemasons.  He had close relations with the Rothschild family which owns the Bank of England and leads the European Freemason movement.  George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Ethan Allen, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Brown and Roger Sherman were all Masons.

Andrew Hamilton

Roger Livingston helped Sherman and Franklin write the Declaration of Independence.  He gave George Washington his oaths of office while he was Grand Master of the New York Grand Lodge of Freemasons.  Washington himself was Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge.  Of the General Officers in the Revolutionary Army, thirty-three were Masons.  This was highly symbolic since 33rd Degree Masons become Illuminated. [1]

Populist founding fathers led by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine- none of whom were Masons- wanted to completely severe ties with the British Crown, but were overruled by the Masonic faction led by Washington, Hamilton and Grand Master of the St. Andrews Lodge in Boston General Joseph Warren, who wanted to “defy Parliament but remain loyal to the Crown”.  St. Andrews Lodge was the hub of New World Masonry and began issuing Knights Templar Degrees in 1769. [2]

General Joseph Warren

All US Masonic lodges are to this day warranted by the British Crown, whom they serve as a global intelligence and counterrevolutionary subversion network.  Their most recent initiative is the Masonic Child Identification Program (CHIP).  According to Wikipedia, the CHIP programs allow parents the opportunity to create a kit of identifying materials for their child, free of charge. The kit contains a fingerprint card, a physical description, a video, computer disk, or DVD of the child, a dental imprint, and a DNA sample.

The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774 under the Presidency of Peyton Randolph, who succeeded Washington as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodge.  The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775 under the Presidency of Freemason John Hancock.  Peyton’s brother William succeeded him as Virginia Lodge Grand Master and became the leading proponent of centralization and federalism at the First Constitutional Convention in 1787.  The federalism at the heart of the US Constitution is identical to the federalism laid out in the Freemason’s Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723.  William Randolph became the nation’s first Attorney General and Secretary of State under George Washington.  His family returned to England loyal to the Crown.  John Marshall, the nation’s first Supreme Court Justice, was also a Mason. [3]

When Benjamin Franklin journeyed to France to seek financial help for American revolutionaries, his meetings took place at Rothschild banks.  He brokered arms sales via German Mason Baron von Steuben.  His Committees of Correspondence operated through Freemason channels and paralleled a British spy network.  In 1776 Franklin became de facto Ambassador to France.  In 1779 he became Grand Master of the French Neuf Soeurs (Nine Sisters) Lodge, to which John Paul Jones and Voltaire belonged.  Franklin was also a member of the more secretive Royal Lodge of Commanders of the Temple West of Carcasonne, whose members included Frederick Prince of Whales.  While Franklin preached temperance in the US, he cavorted wildly with his Lodge brothers in Europe.  Franklin served as Postmaster General from the 1750’s to 1775 – a role traditionally relegated to British spies. [4]

With Rothschild financing Alexander Hamilton founded two New York banks, including Bank of New York. [5]  He died in a gun battle with Aaron Burr, who founded Bank of Manhattan with Kuhn Loeb financing.  Hamilton exemplified the contempt which the Eight Families hold towards common people, once stating, “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many.  The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right.  Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government.  They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”[6]

Hamilton was only the first in a series of Eight Families cronies to hold the key position of Treasury Secretary.  In recent times Kennedy Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon came from Dillon Read (now part of UBS Warburg).  Nixon Treasury Secretaries David Kennedy and William Simon came from Continental Illinois Bank (now part of Bank of America) and Salomon Brothers (now part of Citigroup), respectively.  Carter Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal came from Goldman Sachs, Reagan Treasury Secretary Donald Regan came from Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America), Bush Sr. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady came from Dillon Read (UBS Warburg) and both Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Bush Jr. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs.  Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner worked at Kissinger Associates and the New York Fed.

Thomas Jefferson argued that the United States needed a publicly-owned central bank so that European monarchs and aristocrats could not use the printing of money to control the affairs of the new nation.  Jefferson extolled, “A country which expects to remain ignorant and free…expects that which has never been and that which will never be.  There is scarcely a King in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh – get first all the people’s money, then all their lands and then make them and their children servants forever…banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.  Already they have raised up a money aristocracy.”  Jefferson watched as the Euro-banking conspiracy to control the United States unfolded, weighing in, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery”. [7[

But the Rothschild-sponsored Hamilton’s arguments for a private US central bank carried the day.  In 1791 the Bank of the United States (BUS) was founded, with the Rothschilds as main owners.  The bank’s charter was to run out in 1811.  Public opinion ran in favor of revoking the charter and replacing it with a Jeffersonian public central bank.  The debate was postponed as the nation was plunged by the Euro-bankers into the War of 1812.  Amidst a climate of fear and economic hardship, Hamilton’s bank got its charter renewed in 1816.

Old Hickory, Honest Abe & Camelot

In 1828 Andrew Jackson took a run at the US Presidency.  Throughout his campaign he railed against the international bankers who controlled the BUS.  Jackson ranted, “You are a den of vipers.  I intend to expose you and by Eternal God I will rout you out.  If the people understood the rank injustices of our money and banking system there would be a revolution before morning.”

Jackson won the election and revoked the bank’s charter stating, “The Act seems to be predicated on an erroneous idea that the present shareholders have a prescriptive right to not only the favor, but the bounty of the government...for their benefit does this Act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly.  Present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with government.  Should its influence be concentrated under the operation of such an Act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the independence of our country in war...controlling our currency, receiving our public monies and holding thousands of our citizens independence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.  It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government for selfish purposes...to make the rich richer and more powerful.  Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress.  I have done my duty to this country.”[8]

Populism prevailed and Jackson was re-elected.  In 1835 he was the target of an assassination attempt.  The gunman was Richard Lawrence, who confessed that he was, “in touch with the powers in Europe”. [9]

Still, in 1836 Jackson refused to renew the BUS charter.  Under his watch the US national debt went to zero for the first and last time in our nation’s history.  This angered the international bankers, whose primary income is derived from interest payments on debt.  BUS President Nicholas Biddle cut off funding to the US government in 1842, plunging the US into a depression.  Biddle was an agent for the Paris-based Jacob Rothschild. [10]

The Mexican War was simultaneously sprung on Jackson.  A few years later the Civil War was unleashed, with London bankers backing the Union and French bankers backing the South. The Lehman family made a fortune smuggling arms to the south and cotton to the north.  By 1861 the US was $100 million in debt.  New President Abraham Lincoln snubbed the Euro-bankers again, issuing Lincoln Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills.

The Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote, “If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost.  It will pay off its debts and be without debt.  It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.  It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world.  The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America.  That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” [11]

The Euro-banker-written Hazard Circular was exposed and circulated throughout the country by angry populists.  It stated, “The great debt that capitalists will see is made out of the war and must be used to control the valve of money.  To accomplish this government bonds must be used as a banking basis.  We are now awaiting Secretary of Treasury Salmon Chase to make that recommendation.  It will not allow Greenbacks to circulate as money as we cannot control that.  We control bonds and through them banking issues”.

The 1863 National Banking Act reinstated a private US central bank and Chase’s war bonds were issued.  Lincoln was re-elected the next year, vowing to repeal the act after he took his January 1865 oaths of office.  Before he could act, he was assassinated at the Ford Theatre by John Wilkes Booth.  Booth had major connections to the international bankers.  His granddaughter wrote This One Mad Act, which details Booth’s contact with “mysterious Europeans” just before the Lincoln assassination.

Following the Lincoln hit, Booth was whisked away by members of a secret society known as Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC).  KGC had close ties to the French Society of Seasons, which produced Karl Marx.  KGC had fomented much of the tension that caused the Civil War and President Lincoln had specifically targeted the group.  Booth was a KGC member and was connected through Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin to the House of Rothschild.  Benjamin fled to England after the Civil War. [12]

Nearly a century after Lincoln was assassinated for issuing Greenbacks, President John F. Kennedy found himself in the Eight Families’ crosshairs.  Kennedy had announced a crackdown on off-shore tax havens and proposed increases in tax rates on large oil and mining companies.  He supported eliminating tax loopholes which benefit the super-rich.  His economic policies were publicly attacked by Fortune magazine, the Wall Street Journal and both David and Nelson Rockefeller.  Even Kennedy’s own Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, who came from the UBS Warburg-controlled Dillon Read investment bank, voiced opposition to the JFK proposals. [13]

Kennedy’s fate was sealed in June 1963 when he authorized the issuance of more than $4 billion in United States Notes by his Treasury Department in an attempt to circumvent the high interest rate usury of the private Federal Reserve international banker crowd.  The wife of Lee Harvey Oswald, who was conveniently gunned down by Jack Ruby before Ruby himself was shot, told author A. J. Weberman in 1994, “The answer to the Kennedy assassination is with the Federal Reserve Bank.  Don’t underestimate that.  It’s wrong to blame it on Angleton and the CIA per se only.  This is only one finger on the same hand.  The people who supply the money are above the CIA”. [14]

Fueled by incoming President Lyndon Johnson’s immediate escalation of the Vietnam War, the US sank further into debt.  Its citizens were terrorized into silence.  If they could kill the President they could kill anyone.

The House of Rothschild

The Dutch House of Orange founded the Bank of Amsterdam in 1609 as the world’s first central bank.  Prince William of Orange married into the English House of Windsor, taking King James II’s daughter Mary as his bride.  The Orange Order Brotherhood, which recently fomented Northern Ireland Protestant violence, put William III on the English throne where he ruled both Holland and Britain.  In 1694 William III teamed up with the UK aristocracy to launch the private Bank of England.

The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street- as the Bank of England is known- is surrounded by thirty foot walls.  Three floors beneath it the third largest stock of gold bullion in the world is stored. [15]

The Rothschilds and their inbred Eight Families partners gradually came to control the Bank of England.  The daily London gold “fixing” occurred at the N. M. Rothschild Bank until 2004.  As Bank of England Deputy Governor George Blunden put it, “Fear is what makes the bank’s powers so acceptable.  The bank is able to exert its influence when people are dependent on us and fear losing their privileges or when they are frightened.”[16]

Mayer Amschel Rothschild sold the British government German Hessian mercenaries to fight against American Revolutionaries, diverting the proceeds to his brother Nathan in London, where N.M. (Nathan and Mayer) Rothschild & Sons was established.  Mayer was a serious student of Cabala and launched his fortune on money embezzled from William IX- royal administrator of the Hesse-Kassel region and a prominent Freemason.

Rothschild-controlled Barings bankrolled the Chinese opium and African slave trades.  It financed the Louisiana Purchase.  When several states defaulted on its loans, Barings bribed Daniel Webster to make speeches stressing the virtues of loan repayment.  The states held their ground, so the House of Rothschild cut off the money spigot in 1842, plunging the US into a deep depression.  It was often said that the wealth of the Rothschilds depended on the bankruptcy of nations.  Mayer Amschel Rothschild once said, “I care not who controls a nation’s political affairs, so long as I control her currency”.

War didn’t hurt the family fortune either.  The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French.  Nathan Rothschild made a huge financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon.  Both the Mexican War and the Civil War were goldmines for the family.

Nathan Rothschild

One Rothschild family biography mentions a London meeting where an “International Banking Syndicate” decided to pit the American North against the South as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy.  German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck once stated, “The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War.  These bankers were afraid that the United States…would upset their financial domination over the world.  The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed.”  Rothschild biographer Derek Wilson says the family was the official European banker to the US government and strong supporters of the Bank of the United States. [17]

Family biographer Niall Ferguson notes a “substantial and unexplained gap” in private Rothschild correspondence between 1854-1860.  He says all copies of outgoing letters written by the London Rothschilds during this Civil War period “were destroyed at the orders of successive partners”. [18]

French and British troops had, at the height of the Civil War, encircled the US.  The British sent 11,000 troops to Crown-controlled Canada, which gave safe harbor to Confederate agents.  France’s Napoleon III installed Austrian Hapsburg family member Archduke Maximilian as his puppet emperor in Mexico, where French troops massed on the Texas border.  Only an 11th-hour deployment of two Russian warship fleets by US ally Czar Alexander II in 1863 saved the United States from re-colonization. [19]

That same year the Chicago Tribune blasted, “Belmont (August Belmont was a US Rothschild agent and had a Triple Crown horse race named in his honor) and the Rothschilds…who have been buying up Confederate war bonds.”

Salmon Rothschild said of a deceased President Lincoln, “He rejects all forms of compromise.  He has the appearance of a peasant and can only tell barroom stories.”  Baron Jacob Rothschild was equally flattering towards the US citizenry.  He once commented to US Minister to Belgium Henry Sanford on the over half a million Americans who died during the Civil War, “When your patient is desperately sick, you try desperate measures, even to bloodletting.”  Salmon and Jacob were merely carrying forth a family tradition.  A few generations earlier Mayer Amschel Rothschild bragged of his investment strategy, “When the streets of Paris are running in blood, I buy”. [20]

Mayer Rothschild’s sons were known as the Frankfurt Five.  The eldest – Amschel – ran the family’s Frankfurt bank with his father, while Nathan ran London operations.  Youngest son Jacob set up shop in Paris, while Salomon ran the Vienna branch and Karl was off to Naples.  Author Frederick Morton estimates that by 1850 the Rothschilds were worth over $10 billion. [21]  Some researchers believe that their fortune today exceeds $100 trillion.

The Warburgs, Kuhn Loebs, Goldman Sachs, Schiffs and Rothschilds have intermarried into one big happy banking family.  The Warburg family- which controls Deutsche Bank and BNP- tied up with the Rothschilds in 1814 in Hamburg, while Kuhn Loeb powerhouse Jacob Schiff shared quarters with Rothschilds in 1785.  Schiff immigrated to America in 1865.  He joined forces with Abraham Kuhn and married Solomon Loeb’s daughter.  Loeb and Kuhn married each others sisters and the Kuhn Loeb dynasty was consummated.  Felix Warburg married Jacob Schiff’s daughter.  Two Goldman daughters married two sons of the Sachs family, creating Goldman Sachs.  In 1806 Nathan Rothschild married the oldest daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, a leading financier in London. [22]  Thus, Merrill Lynch super-bull Abby Joseph Cohen and Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen are likely descended from Rothschilds.

Today the Rothschild’s control a far-flung financial empire, which includes majority stakes in most world central banks.  The Edmond de Rothschild clan owns the Banque Privee SA in Lugano, Switzerland and the Rothschild Bank AG of Zurich.  The family of Jacob Lord Rothschild owns the powerful Rothschild Italia in Milan.  They are founding members of the exclusive $10 trillion Club of the Isles – which controls corporate giants Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Barclays, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, BHP Billiton and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials. [23]

The Club of the Isles provides capital for George Soros’ Quantum Fund NV – which made substantial financial gains in 1998-99 following the collapse of currencies of Thailand, Indonesia and Russia.  Soros was a major shareholder at George W. Bush’s Harken Energy.  The Club of Isles is led by the Rothschilds and includes Queen Elizabeth II and other wealthy European aristocrats and Nobility.[24]

Perhaps the largest repository for Rothschild wealth today is Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG – a secretive Swiss-based bank holding company.  By the late 1990s scions of the Rothschild global empire were Barons Guy and Elie de Rothschild in France and Lord Jacob and Sir Evelyn Rothschild in Britain. [25]

Evelyn was chairman of the Economist and a director at DeBeers and IBM UK.

Jacob backed Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California gubernatorial campaign.  He took control of Khodorkovsky’s YUKOS oil shares just before the Russian government arrested him.  In 2010 Jacob joined Rupert Murdoch in a shale oil extraction partnership in Israel through Genie Energy – a subsidiary of IDT Corporation. [26]

Within months, Sarah Palin had hired former IDT executive Michael Glassner as her chief of staff. [27]  Is Palin the Rothschild choice in 2012?

Next Week: Part III: Knights of the Roundtable and The Illuminati

Notes

[1] The Temple & the Lodge. Michael Bagent & Richard Leigh. Arcade Publishing. New York. 1989. p.259

[2] Ibid. p.219

[3] Ibid. p.253

[4] Ibid. p.233

[5] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.156

[6] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.51

[7] Fourth Reich of the Rich. Des Griffin. Emissary Publications. Pasadena, CA. 1978. p.171

[8] Ibid. p.173

[9] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.68

[10] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[11] Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More. David Icke. David Icke Books Ltd. Isle of Wight. UK. 2010. p.92

[12] Marrs. p.212

[13] Idid. p.139

[14] Ibid p.141

[15] Icke. The Robot’s Rebellion. p.114

[16] Ibid. p.181

[17] Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty. Derek Wilson. Charles Schribner’s Sons. New York. 1988. p.178

[18] The House of Rothschild. Niall Ferguson. Viking Press New York 1998 p.28

[19] Marrs. p.215

[20] Ibid

[21] “What You Didn’t Know about Taxes and the Crown”. Mark Owen. Paranoia. #41. Spring 2006. p.66

[22] Marrs. p.63

[23] “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor”. The New Federalist. 1994

[24] “The Secret Financial Network Behind ‘Wizard’ George Soros”. William Engdahl. Executive Intelligence Review. 11-1-96

[25] Marrs. p.86

[26] “Murdoch, Rothschild Invest in Israeli Oil Shale”. Jerusalem Post. November 22, 2010

[27] “Sarah Palin hires chief of staff for PAC”, Huffington Post. February 2011

Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network and The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries. His Left Hook blog is at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

Iraq: Let us not forget what “humanitarian intervention” looks like.

Libya: Let us not be confused as to why Libya alone has been singled out for “humanitarian intervention”.

On April 9, Condoleezza Rice delivered a talk in San Francisco. Or tried to. The former Secretary of State was interrupted repeatedly by cries from the audience of “war criminal” and “torturer”. (For which we can thank our comrades in Code Pink and World Can’t Wait.) As one of the protesters was being taken away by security guards, Rice made the kind of statement that has now become standard for high American officials under such circumstances: “Aren’t you glad this lady lives in a democracy where she can express her opinion?” She also threw in another line that’s become de rigueur since the US overthrew Saddam Hussein, an argument that’s used when all other arguments fail: “The children of Iraq are actually not living under Saddam Hussein, thank God.” ¹

My response to such a line is this: If you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone then remarked to you how nice it was that “you actually no longer have a knee problem, thank God.” … The people of Iraq no longer have a Saddam problem.

Unfortunately, they’ve lost just about everything else as well. Twenty years of American bombing, invasion, occupation and torture have led to the people of that unhappy land losing their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives … more than half the population either dead, disabled, in prison, or in foreign exile … the air, soil, water, blood and genes drenched with depleted uranium … the most awful birth defects … unexploded cluster bombs lie in wait for children … a river of blood runs alongside the Euphrates and Tigris … through a country that may never be put back together again.

In 2006, the UN special investigator on torture declared that reports from Iraq indicated that torture “is totally out of hand. The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein.” Another UN report of the same time disclosed a rise in “honor killings” of women. ²

“It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003,” reported the Washington Post on May 5, 2007.

“I am not a political person, but I know that under Saddam Hussein, we had electricity, clean drinking water, a healthcare system that was the envy of the Arab world and free education through college,” Iraqi pharmacist Dr. Entisar Al-Arabi told American peace activist Medea Benjamin in 2010. “I have five children and every time I had a baby, I was entitled to a year of paid maternity leave. I owned a pharmacy and I could close up shop as late as I chose because the streets were safe. Today there is no security and Iraqis have terrible shortages of everything — electricity, food, water, medicines, even gasoline. Most of the educated people have fled the country, and those who remain look back longingly to the days of Saddam Hussein.” ³

And this from two months ago:

“Protesters, human rights workers and security officials say the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has responded to Iraq’s demonstrations in much the same way as many of its more authoritarian neighbors: with force. Witnesses in Baghdad and as far north as Kirkuk described watching last week as security forces in black uniforms, tracksuits and T-shirts roared up in trucks and Humvees, attacked protesters, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers. Entire neighborhoods … were blockaded to prevent residents from joining the demonstrations. Journalists were beaten.” ⁴

So … can we expect the United States and its fellow thugs in NATO to intervene militarily in Iraq as they’re doing in Libya? To protect the protesters in Iraq as they tell us they’re doing in Libya? To effect regime change in Iraq as they’re conspiring, but not admitting, in Libya?

Similarly Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria … all have been bursting with protest and vicious government crackdown in recent months, even to a degree in Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive societies in the world. Not one of these governments has been assaulted by the United States, the UK, or France as Libya has been assaulted; not one of these countries’ opposition is receiving military, financial, legal and moral support from the Western powers as the Libyan rebels are — despite the Libyan rebels’ brutal behavior, racist murders, and the clear jihadist ties of some of them. ⁵ The Libyan rebels are reminiscent of the Kosovo rebels — mafiosos famous for their trafficking in body parts and women, also unquestioningly supported by the Western powers against an Officially Designated Enemy, Serbia.

So why is only Libya the target for US/NATO missiles? Is there some principled or moral reason? Are the Libyans the worst abusers of their people in the region? In actuality, Libya offers its citizens a higher standard of living. (The 2010 UN Human Development Index, a composite measure of health, education and income ranked Libya first in Africa.) None of the other countries has a more secular government than Libya. (In contrast some of the Libyan rebels are in the habit of chanting that phrase we all know only too well: “Allah Akbar”.) None of the others has a human-rights record better than that of Libya, however imperfect that may be — in Egypt a government fact-finding mission has announced that during the recent uprising at least 846 protesters were killed as police forces shot them in the head and chest with live ammunition. ⁶ Similar horror stories have been reported in Syria, Yemen and other countries of the region during this period.

It should be noted that the ultra-conservative Fox News reported on February 28: “As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body’s Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya’s human rights record. The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a “priority” and for bettering its “constitutional” framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens — who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal.”

Of all the accusations made against Gaddafi perhaps the most meaningless is the oft-repeated “He’s killing his own people.” It’s true, but that’s what happens in civil wars. Abraham Lincoln also killed his own people.

Muammar Gaddafi has been an Officially Designated Enemy of the US longer than any living world leader except Fidel Castro. The animosity began in 1970, one year after Gaddafi took power in a coup, when he closed down a US air force base. He then embarked on a career of supporting what he regarded as revolutionary groups. During the 1970s and ’80s, Gaddafi was accused of using his large oil revenues to support — with funds, arms, training, havens, diplomacy, etc — a wide array of radical/insurgent/terrorist organizations, particularly certain Palestinian factions and Muslim dissident and minority movements in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia; the IRA and Basque and Corsican separatists in Europe; several groups engaged in struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa; various opposition groups and politicians in Latin America; the Japanese Red Army, the Italian Red Brigades, and Germany’s Baader-Meinhof gang.

It was claimed as well that Libya was behind, or at least somehow linked to, an attempt to blow up the US Embassy in Cairo, various plane hijackings, a bomb explosion on an American airliner over Greece, the blowing up of a French airliner over Africa, blowing up a synagogue in Istanbul, and blowing up a disco in Berlin which killed some American soldiers. ⁷

In 1990, when the United States needed a country to (falsely) blame for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Libya was the easy choice.

Gaddafi’s principal crime in the eyes of US President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) was not that he supported terrorist groups, but that he supported the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Gaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Washington was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, and the US military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan.

And if all this wasn’t enough to make Gaddafi Public Enemy Number One in Washington (Reagan referred to him as the “mad dog of the Middle East”), Gaddafi has been a frequent critic of US foreign policy, a serious anti-Zionist, pan-Africanist, and pan-Arabist (until the hypocrisy and conservatism of Arab governments proved a barrier). He also calls his government socialist. How much tolerance and patience can The Empire be expected to have? When widespread protests broke out in Tunisia and Egypt, could Washington have resisted instigating the same in the country sandwiched between those two? The CIA has been very busy supplying the rebels with arms, bombing support, money, and personnel.

It may well happen that the Western allies will succeed in forcing Gaddafi out of power. Then the world will look on innocently as the new Libyan government gives Washington what it has long sought: a host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: “We’ve got a big image problem down there. … Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don’t trust the US.” ⁸ Another thing scarcely any African country would tolerate is an American military base. There’s only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It’ll be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.

And remember — in the context of recent history concerning Iraq, North Korea, and Iran — if Libya had nuclear weapons the United States would not be attacking it.

Or the United States could realize that Gaddafi is no radical threat simply because of his love for Condoleezza Rice. Here is the Libyan leader in a March 27, 2007 interview on al-Jazeera TV: “Leezza, Leezza, Leezza … I love her very much. I admire her, and I’m proud of her, because she’s a black woman of African origin.”

Over the years, the American government and media have fed us all a constant diet of scandalous Gaddafi stories: He took various drugs, was an extreme womanizer, was bisexual, dressed in women’s clothing, wore makeup, carried a teddy bear, had epileptic fits, and much more; some part of it may have been true. And now we have the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, telling us that Gaddafi’s forces are increasingly engaging in sexual violence and that they have been issued the impotency drug Viagra, presumably to enhance their ability to rape. ⁹ Remarkable. Who would have believed that the Libyan Army had so many men in their 60s and 70s?

As I write this, US/NATO missiles have slammed into a Libyan home killing a son and three young grandchildren of Gaddafi, this after repeated rejections of Gaddafi’s call for negotiations — another heartwarming milestone in the glorious history of humanitarian intervention, as well as a reminder of the US bombing of Libya in 1986 which killed a young daughter of Gaddafi.

Two more examples, if needed, of why capitalism can not be reformed

Transocean, the owner of the drilling rig that exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago, killing 11 workers and sending two hundred (200) million gallons of oil cascading over the shoreline of six American states, has announced that (through using some kind of arcane statistical method) it had “recorded the best year in safety performance in our Company’s history.” Accordingly, the company awarded obscene bonuses on top of obscene salaries to its top executives. ¹⁰

In Japan, even as it struggles to contain one of history’s worst nuclear disasters, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has proposed building two new nuclear reactors at its radiation-spewing power plant. The plan had taken shape before the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and TEPCO officials see no reason to change it. The Japanese government agency in charge of approving such a project has reacted in shocked horror. “It was just unbelievable,” said the director of the agency. ¹¹

Which leads us to A.W. Clausen, president of Bank of America, speaking to the Greater Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, in 1970:

“It may sound heretical to some in this room to say that business enterprise is not an absolute necessity to human culture … Ancient Egypt functioned more than 3000 years without anything resembling what we today understand by the term ‘corporate enterprise’ or even ‘money’. Within our span of years, we have witnessed the rise of the Soviet Socialist empire. It survives without anything you or I would call a private corporation and little that approaches our own monetary mechanism. It survives and is far stronger than anyone might have expected from watching its turbulent beginnings in 1917 … It is easy to mislead ourselves into thinking that there is something preordained about our profit-motivated, free-market, private-enterprise system — that is, as they used to say of gold, universal and immutable.”

Items of interest from a journal I’ve kept for 40 years, part III

• Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez memoir, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story, pages 349-350: April 6, 2004. Sanchez was in Iraq in video teleconference with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. One major American offensive was in operation, another about to be launched. According to Sanchez, Powell was talking tough that day: “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly, “Powell said. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” Then Bush spoke: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone. At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out. Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal. … There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!”
• Noam Chomsky: “If there is really authentic popular participation in the decision-making and the free association of communities, yeah, that could be tremendously important. In fact that’s essentially the traditional anarchist ideal. That’s what was realized the only time for about a year in Spain in 1936 before it was crushed by outside forces, in fact all outside forces, Stalinist Russia, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini’s fascism and the Western democracies cooperated in crushing it. They were all afraid of it.”
• To Hitler, America was both the enemy and a role model, inspiring in its imperial seizure of great territories by force, its use of slave labor, its eradication of native populations.
• NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, made clear in a speech to the Brookings Institution in Washington in 2008 that western interests in Afghanistan went well beyond good governance to the strategic interest in having a permanent military presence in a state that borders central Asia, China, Iran and Pakistan.
• CIA Special Collections of documents; “Instances Of the Use of US Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 – 2010“
• Michael Collon: “Let’s replace the word ‘democratic’ by ‘with us’, and the word ‘terrorist’ by ‘against us’.”
• Ron Paul: “Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a ‘cake-walk’.”
• Spc. Alex Horton, 22, writing in a blog while a marine in Iraq in 2007: “In the future, I want my children to grow up with the belief that what I did here was wrong, in a society that doesn’t deem that idea unpatriotic.”
• Henry Kissinger in a 1970 memo to Nixon: “The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on –– and even precedent value for –– other parts of the world, especially in Italy; the imitative spread of similar phenomena elsewhere would in turn significantly affect the world balance and our own position in it.”
• Paul Craig Roberts: “International polls show that the rest of the world regard the US and Israel as the greatest dangers to world peace. Americans claim that they are fighting wars against terrorism, but it is US and Israeli terrorism that worries everyone else.”
• Chris Hedges: “If you are a young Muslim American and head off to the Middle East for a spell in a fundamentalist ‘madrassa,’ or religious school, Homeland Security will probably greet you at the airport when you return. But if you are an American Jew and you join hundreds of teenagers from Europe and Mexico for an eight-week training course run by the Israel Defense Forces, you can post your picture wearing an Israeli army uniform and holding an automatic weapon on MySpace.”
• “The US has never had a ‘foreign policy’ but a fanatical domestic policy which, once it had bled through to the Pacific, sought new hosts on which to feed.” Patrick Wilkinson
• C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1956): “The only seriously accepted plan for ‘peace’ is a fully loaded pistol. In short, war or a high state of war preparedness is felt to be the normal and seemingly permanent condition of the United States.”
• The United States goes around the world sprinkling democracy dust.
• Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it.
• “Iran hit back at US allegations that it has failed to crack down on fugitive al-Qaeda members, calling on Washington to apologize to the world for its own past support of the network. ‘The Americans should present a full apology to the international community for the support they gave to al-Qaeda,’ said the foreign ministry, referring to a period in the 1980s when millions of dollars of covert US aid was channeled — through the Pakistani secret service — to Islamist groups battling the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.” (Agence France Presse, June 2, 2003)
• Tom Hayden: They believe that the exposure of the generals to a civilian academic atmosphere may humanize the process of war-making, not worrying that the actual danger may be the militarizing of the university.
• Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, in his 2007 book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World”: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”After an avalanche of commentary, Greenspan backpedaled and obfuscated in his comments. He insisted he was talking about “oil security” and “the global economy”. But this was just proving his own point that mentioning oil as a motivation for war is “politically inconvenient”. It’s no way to get young men to kill other young men who’ve never done them any harm.
• The American people have no more authentic control over their government than do people in countries that we call dictatorships, particularly on issues of foreign policy.

Notes

1. Video of Rice talk ^?
2. Associated Press, September 21, 2006 ^?
3. Common Dreams, August 20, 2010 ^?
4. Washington Post, March 4, 2011^?
5. Washington Times, February 24, 2011; The Telegraph (London), March 25, 2011; Alexander Cockburn, “Libya, Oh What a Stupid War; Fukushima, Cover-Up Amid Catastrophe”; “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq” (PDF), Combating Terrorism Center, US Military Academy, West Point, NY, December 2007 ^?
6. Associated Press, April 20, 2011 ^?
7. Gaddafi’s history of supporting terrorism, real and alleged: William Blum, Killing Hope, chapter 48 ^?
8. The Guardian (London), June 25, 2007 ^?
9. Reuters news agency, April 29, 2011 ^?
10. Washington Post, April 1, 2011 ^?
11. Washington Post, April 6, 2011 ^?

–

William Blum is the author of:

• Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
• West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
• Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an “article of faith” points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea. On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books – 9/11 Contradictions1 and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,2 no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it. Colin Powell’s Withdrawn Promise Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”3 Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, “most of it is classified.”4 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a “lack of solid information.”5 This was the week that Bush, after demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, refused their request for evidence that bin Laden had been behind the attacks.6 A senior Taliban official, after the US attack on Afghanistan had begun, said: “We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?”7 Hersh’s answer was that they had no proof. Tony Blair’s Weak Document The task of providing such proof was taken up by Bush’s chief ally in the “war on terror,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On October 4, 2001, Blair made public a document entitled: “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States.” Listing “clear conclusions reached by the government,” it stated: “Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001.” Blair’s report, however, began by saying: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.”8 Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war. The weakness in Blair’s report, in any event, was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial.”9 The FBI’s Surprising Statement What does our own FBI say? Here is a surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media: The FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on “Usama bin Laden” does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which he is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”11 After this story started flying around the Internet and was even covered by a TV station in Louisiana,12 Dan Eggen tried to downplay its significance in an August 2006 Washington Post article entitled “Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?”13 Complaining about “conspiracy theorists” who claimed that “the lack of a Sept. 11 reference [on the FBI's "Most Wanted" webpage for bin Laden] suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain,” Eggen quoted the explanation offered by a former US attorney, who said that the FBI could not appropriately “put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed.” But that explanation, while true, simply pushes the issue back a step to this question: Why have such charges not been filed? Rex Tomb’s fuller statement, which Eggen failed to mention, had answered this question the previous June, saying: The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.14 The 9/11 Commission What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. But the Commission’s co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: “The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.”15 (I discussed this book at length in Chapter 2 of my 2007 book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.16) As the endnotes for The 9/11 Commission Report reveal, whenever the Commission referred to evidence of bin Ladin’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Commission was always referring to CIA-provided information, which had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, generally called simply “KSM,” who has been called the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote: Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta – whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group – met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.17 The note for each of these statements says: “interrogation of KSM.”18 Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in “obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”19 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, Commission members were not even permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or to talk to the interrogators.20 Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained: “We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?”21 An NBC “deep background” report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. “At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report,” NBC pointed out, “have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’” NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: “Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect.”22 The “Bin Laden Confession Tapes” As we have seen, neither the 9/11 Commission, the Bush-Cheney White House, the FBI, the British government, nor the 9/11 Commission provided good evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Many people, however, have assumed that the question of his responsibility was settled by the existence of videotapes and audiotapes in which he himself confessed to the attacks. There are, however, good reasons to believe that these so-called confession tapes are fakes. I will illustrate this point in terms of the two best-known videotapes of this nature. The “Jalalabad Video” Released December 13, 2001: The first and most famous of the “Osama bin Laden confession video tapes” was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. It had purportedly been made on November 9, 2001, after which it was allegedly found by US forces in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In this video, an Osama bin Laden figure is seen talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting sheikh. During the course of the conversation, the bin Laden figure boasts about the success of the attacks, saying that he had planned them.23 Both US and British officials claimed that this tape left no doubt about bin Laden’s guilt.24 Stories in both the Canadian and British media, however, raised questions about the tape’s authenticity. These stories, besides pointing out the existence of the technical ability to create fake video tapes, also mentioned the suspicion of some people that the bin Laden figure was not Osama bin Laden himself. A BBC News report said: “Washington calls it the ‘smoking gun’ that puts Bin Laden’s guilt beyond doubt, but many in the Arab world believe the home video of the al-Qaeda chief is a fake.”25 This report was, in fact, entitled, “Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?” This question was also raised in Canada by CBC News, which pointed out that some people had “suggested the Americans hired someone to pretend to be the exiled Saudi.”26 This question was raised even more insistently in a Guardian story with the title, “US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape.” Reporting “growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film,” writer Steven Morris said: The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks.27 Morris, pointing out that the White House had provided no details about how the Pentagon came to be in possession of the tape, added: According to US officials the tape was found in a house in Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, and handed to the Pentagon by an unnamed person or group. . . . But for many the explanation is too convenient. Some opponents of the war theorise that the Bin Laden in the film was a look-alike. Morris then quoted one such opponent in Pakistan, who said: “This videotape is not authentic. The Americans made it up after failing to get any evidence against Osama.” Morris also cited Bob Crabtree, the editor of Computer Video magazine, who explained that it was impossible to determine whether the video was authentic without more details of its source, adding: “The US seems simply to have asked the world to trust them that it is genuine.”28 This skepticism about the authenticity of this “Jalalabad video” was based on sound reasons. For one thing, this video’s bin Laden figure appeared too heavy and healthy, compared with the bin Laden who made the last of the undoubtedly authentic bin Laden videos, which was made sometime in 2001 between November 16 (on which occurred an event mentioned on the tape) and December 27 (the date on which the tape was released). In this post-November 16 video, bin Laden’s beard was white, he had a “gaunt, frail appearance,” and his “left arm hung limply by his side while he gesticulated with his right.”29 This immobile left arm, Dr. Sanjay Gupta observed on CNN, suggested that bin Laden had suffered a stroke, adding that this plus a “frosting of the appearance” suggested that bin Laden was in the final stages of kidney failure.30 But in the “Jalalabad video,” which was reportedly made at about the same time (being dated November 9 and released December 13), the bin Laden figure was heavier and also darker, in both skin and beard color; his nose had a different shape;31 and his hands were shorter and heavier than those of Osama bin Laden as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos.32 Still another problem is that, whereas bin Laden was left-handed, the man in the “Jalalabad video” wrote with his right hand. Although it might be thought that this was because his left arm was immobile, the bin Laden figure in this video was easily able to lift his left arm above his head.33 If this video was made on November 9, as claimed, then it would have been made at most only a few weeks before the post-November 16 video. It is very hard to believe that the heavy, dark-skinned, healthy-looking man with a dark beard could have, within two or three weeks, turned into the pale, gaunt, white-bearded, man seen in the post-November 16 video. If one accepts the Jalalabad video as authentic, one not only has to accept these radical changes in bin Laden’s physical appearance; one must also accept a complete change in his statements about 9/11. In the previous weeks, he had repeatedly – on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 – stated that he had had nothing to do with the attacks.34 In the September 28 statement, he had even declared: I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.35 Is it likely that he would have made such statements if he himself had authorized the attacks and thereby the killing of innocents? Whatever be one’s opinion about that, the bin Laden figure in the “Jalalabad video” made other statements that Osama bin Laden himself would surely not have made. For example, he said: [W]e calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. . . . [D]ue to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.36 But in light of the real bin Laden’s “experience in the field” as a building contractor, he would have known that high-rise buildings are framed with steel, not iron. Even more important, he would have known that the buildings’ support columns – whether made of steel or iron – would not have been melted by the “fire from the gas in the plane.” Why? Because he would have known, on the one hand, that a building fire, even if fed by jet-fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not, even under the most ideal conditions, have risen above 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius). And he would have known, on the other hand, that iron and steel do not begin to melt until they are heated to a temperature far higher than that: to almost 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,540 degrees Celsius). The real bin Laden, therefore, would not have expected any iron or steel to melt. A final reason to consider the “Jalalabad video” a fake is that bin Laden experts have declared it to such. When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country’s leading academic bin Laden expert,37 was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: “It’s bogus.” Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work “on the 24/7 bin Laden clock,” he added, “also know it’s bogus.”38 General Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), suggested that the man in the video was an “Osama bin Laden lookalike.”39 Former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla, after saying “[t]he guy just does not look like Osama,” added: “The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except perhaps to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicion.”40 A fourth expert opinion has been issued implicitly, it would seem, by the Department of Justice and its FBI. If they considered this “confession video” authentic, would they not consider it “hard evidence” of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11? They say, however, that they have no such evidence, so they must not consider this video authentic. The “October Surprise Video of 2004: The other most famous of the “bin Laden confession tapes” is the video tape that was released on October 29, 2004, just before the presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, leading to its being called “the October Surprise video.” In this one, for the first time, a bin Laden figure directly addressed the American people. The Associated Press, focusing on the most important aspect of the speaker’s message, entitled its story: “Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks.”41 However, although the AP accepted the authenticity of the tape, there are serious reasons to doubt it. A reason to be at least suspicious is the very fact that it appeared just four days before the presidential election and seemed designed to help Bush’s reelection – an assessment that was made even by CIA analysts.42 The video, moreover, evidently did help: Bush’s lead over Kerry in national polls increased right after it appeared,43 and both Bush and Kerry said that this tape was significantly responsible for Bush’s victory.44 Given the fact that this video would quite predictably help Bush win reelection, it would seem to have been issued by his friends, not his enemies. There are also substantive reasons to doubt this tape’s authenticity, one of which is the speaker’s language. The clearly authentic bin Laden messages were filled with religious language. A bin Laden video released October 7, 2001, for example, began thus: Praise be to God and we beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge with the Lord of our bad and evildoing. He whom God guides is rightly guided . . . . I witness that there is no God but God and Mohammed is His slave and Prophet.45 Even though this talk as a whole had only 725 words, bin Laden referred to God (Allah) 20 times and to the prophet Mohammed 3 times. Likewise, his message of November 3, 2001, which contained 2,333 words, referred to God 35 times and to the prophet Mohammed 8 times.46 By contrast, the 2004 October Surprise video, which had almost the same number of words as the November 3 video, referred to God only 12 times. The only “Mohammad” mentioned, moreover, was Mohamed Atta. Another substantive difference involved the type of causal analysis provided. Bin Laden’s clearly authentic messages had portrayed historical events as occurring only because they were caused, or at least allowed, by God. In his message of October 7, 2001, for example, he said: “God Almighty hit the United States. . . . He destroyed its greatest buildings.” Human agents were involved, to be sure, but they were successful only because “Almighty God . . . allowed them to destroy the United States.”47 In his message of November 3, likewise, bin Laden said that, if people are helped or harmed, it is always by “something that God has already preordained for [them].”48 The message on the 2004 confession video, however, reflected a worldview in which events can be understood through a causal analysis based on secular rationalism. “One of the most important things rational people do when calamities occur,” the lecturer asserted, “is to look for their causes so as to avoid them.” He himself, in analyzing “the [Iraq] war, its causes and consequences,” provided a causal analysis involving purely human actors: Bush, al-Qaeda, and the American people. Far from suggesting that everything is finally in the hands of God, he said to the American people: “Your security is in your own hands” – a statement that a devout Wahabi Muslim such as Osama bin Laden would surely have considered blasphemous. Still another reason to doubt the authenticity of this 2004 video is that, although the speaker was addressing the American public, he spoke Arabic rather than English. This is strange, because Osama bin Laden was reportedly fluent in English, which he had started studying when he was 11 years old.49 A British journalist reported that, when he and bin Laden met in 1989, they conversed in English for 45 minutes.50 General Hamid Gul, speaking to United Press International in 2001, said: “I know bin Laden and his associates. They are graduates of the best universities and . . . speak impeccable English.51 If bin Laden spoke impeccable English, would he not have used it when speaking directly to the American people?52 Accordingly, this video does not, any more than the “Jalalabad video,” provide evidence that Osama bin Laden himself confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks. Conclusion I showed in a previous essay that, according to the best evidence presently available, Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years.53 In the present essay, I have shown that there is not even any good evidence for the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, insofar as the justification for the continuation of the AfPak war is based on the fact that bin Laden in the region both before and after the 9/11 attacks, that justification would seem to be doubly baseless. David Ray Griffin is the author of 36 books, nine of which are about 9/11. His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Olive Branch, 2009). In 2008, he put out two books: The New Pearl Harbor: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (which was named a “Pick of the Week” by Publishers Weekly) and Osama bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? (which has generated considerable media coverage in England). David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He is the author of The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 ,  The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions — A Critique of the Kean-Zelikow Report as well as Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive? Notes 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), Chap. 18, “Does the Government Have Hard Evidence of Bin Laden’s Responsibility?” The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). This book was named Publishers Weekly’s “Pick of the Week” on November 24, 2008 (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159). “Meet the Press,” NBC, September 23, 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext092301.html). “Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order,” White House, September 24, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-4.html). Seymour M. Hersh, “What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence,” New Yorker, October 1, 2001 (http://cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hersch_OCT_01.htm). “White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’” CNN, September 21, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban). Kathy Gannon, “Taliban Willing to Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect,” Associated Press, November 1, 2001 (http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2001nn/0111nn/011101nn.htm#300). Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm). “The Investigation and the Evidence,” BBC News, October 5, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm). Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Most Wanted Terrorists: Usama bin Laden” (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm). Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11′” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006 (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html). “Bin Laden’s FBI Poster Omits Any 9/11 Connection,” KSLA 12 in Shreveport, Louisiana (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6443576002087829136). “Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?” Washington Post, August 28, 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html) Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.’” Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006). David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised and updated edition (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007). This book won a bronze medal in the 2008 Independent Publishers Book Awards. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 149, 155, 166; henceforth 9/11CR. See 9/11CR Ch. 5, notes 16, 41, and 92. Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedent, 118. Ibid., 122-24. Ibid., 119. I have discussed this issue at greater length in Ch. 8, “9/11 Commission Falsehoods about Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Pakistanis, and Saudis,” of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco, “The 9/11 Commission Controversy,” Deep Background: NBC News Investigations, January 30, 2008 http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx). “U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden,” Department of Defense, December 13, 2001 (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3184); “Pentagon Releases Bin Laden Videotape: U.S. Officials Say Tape Links Him to Sept. 11 Attacks,” National Public Radio, December 13, 2001 http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html). The entire video can be viewed at this NPR Web page. See my book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009), 23-26. “Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?” BBC News, December 14, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1711288.stm). “‘Feeble’ to Claim Bin Laden Tape Fake: Bush,” CBC, December 14, 2001 (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/14/bush_osama011214.html). Steven Morris, “US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape,” Guardian, December 15, 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/15/september11.afghanistan). Ibid. Toby Harnden, “US Casts Doubt on Bin Laden’s Latest Message,” Telegraph, December 27, 2001 “Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden Would Need Help if on Dialysis,” CNN, January 21, 2002 (http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21/gupta.otsc/index.html). For the tape, see “”Osama Bin Laden Tape Dezember [sic] 2001″ (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/3760193/Osama_Bin_Laden_Tape_Dezember_2001). For a nose comparison, see “Osama bin Laden Gets a Nose Job” (http://www.awitness.org/news/december_2001/osama_nose_job.html), or “Bruce Lawrence,” Radio Du Jour (http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce). Compare his hands with bin Laden’s hand as shown in the post-November 16 video (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1729882.stm). This can be seen in a portion of the Jalalabad video placed on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVeqCX6z8). For documentation and discussion, see Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? 27-29. “Interview with Usama bin Laden,” Ummat (Karachi), September 28, 2001 http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm). Bin Laden’s statement about innocents repeated what he had said in an interview with John Miller of ABC News in 1998: “Our religion forbids us from killing innocent people such as women and children” “Transcript of Usama bin Laden Video Tape,” Department of Defense, December 13, 2001 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf). Bruce Lawrence is the editor of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (London and New York: Verso, 2005). Lawrence made these statements on February 16, 2007, during a radio interview conducted by Kevin Barrett of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. It can be heard at Radio Du Jour (http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce). BBC News, “Tape ‘Proves Bin Laden’s Guilt,’” December 14, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1708091.stm). Angelo M. Codevilla, “Osama bin Elvis,” American Spectator, March 2009 (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis/print). Maggie Michael, “Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks,” Associated Press, October 29, 2004 (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20041029-1423-binladentape.html). Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 336. Philip Sherwell, “Bush Takes a Six-Point Lead After New Bin Laden Tape,” Telegraph, November 1, 2004 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1475515/Bush-takes-a-six-point-lead-after-new-bin-Laden-tape.html). “Kerry Blames Defeat on Bin Laden,” BBC News, January 31, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4222647.stm); “Bush Says Bin Laden Tape Aided Re-Election: Report,” Reuters, February 28, 2006 http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/408991/bush_says_bin_laden_tape_aided_reelection_report/). “Bin Laden’s Warning: Full Text,” BBC News, October 7, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1585636.stm). “BBC Transcript Of Osama Bin Laden Statement,” November 7, 2001 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0111/S00049.htm). “Bin Laden’s Warning: Full Text.” “BBC Transcript Of Osama Bin Laden Statement.” See “In the Footsteps of Bin Laden,” CNN, August 23, 2006 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/23/cp.01.html), and Steve Coll, “Young Osama,” New Yorker, December 12, 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/12/051212fa_fact). “In the Footsteps of Bin Laden.” “Arnaud de Borchgrave Interviews Hameed Gul, Former Chief of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence,” UPI, September 26, 2001 (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/594-499.aspx; also available at(http://www.robert-fisk.com/hamid_gul_interview_sept26_2001.htm). I have given a more thorough analysis of the problems in these two “confession videos” in my book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books, 2009). “Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?” Veterans Today, October 22, 2009 (http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9079).

David Ray Griffin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Sunday 27 March 2011 02.25 BST

Turnout for generally good-natured rally exceeds organisers’ expectations, but mood marred by violent minority

Read entire article here

Short film about the translation of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

Source www.youtube.com

READ FULL STORY HERE

FOR SOURCE AND MORE RELATED DOCUMENTS CLICK HERE
(source: www.usconstitution.net)

Have you ever wondered what would happen if a nuclear bomb goes off in your city??

Insert your city in the search box and press Search.
Then slide the weapons selector to choose your type of nuclear weapon.
You also can change the wind direction which will affect fallout radius.
Then press the Nuke It Button.

source

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
December 14, 2010

NewsWithViews.com

Recently, one of the General Government’s District Court Judges dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the purported authority of the President to order the assassination overseas of American citizens whom someone in the Executive Branch has categorized as a dangerous “terrorist”. The Judge ruled that the plaintiff, being only the father of the threatened victim, rather than the victim himself, lacked “standing” to prosecute the suit, and that in any event the issue involved a “political question” that could not be adjudicated in court. So the underlying claim was not decided, one way or the other.

The judicial dodge of denying “standing” to people who raise contentions that are extremely embarrassing to rogue officials in the General Government has become all-too-familiar these days—particularly in lawsuits and other proceedings that raise challenges to the qualifications of Barak Obama for the office of President. But in this case, not merely usurpation, but nothing less than murder is the ultimate issue. Which, one might have imagined, should have given even the most legally dim-witted and morally obtuse judge serious cause for concern that perhaps the matter was not just a “political question”.

Rather than analyzing the some eighty-three pages of this particular Judge’s opinion, though, I shall simply lay out some of the principles on which any honest and competent jurist would not only find “standing” in a case such as this, but also declare the claims of the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional.

1. The basic assertion from the Executive Branch is that the President, in his capacity as “Commander in Chief” during “the war on terror”, enjoys the inherent power, by himself or through his subordinates, to identify certain American citizens as extremely dangerous “terrorists”, and on the basis of that determination to order operatives of the General Government to assassinate those Americans wherever they may be found in foreign venues. Furthermore, the exercise of this purported power: (i) is not dependent upon any prior judicial determination that an individual targeted for execution is guilty of any crime punishable by death, or that the individual could not be apprehended and made to stand trial in some court; and (ii) is not subject to any other kind of judicial review, either before or after the execution takes place. Indeed, because many of the supposed facts on which a determination of an individual’s status as a “terrorist” certainly will be claimed to be “state secrets”, meaningful judicial review either ex ante or ex post would routinely be impossible as a matter of practice. In addition, inasmuch as the Constitution does not limit the exercise of the powers of the “Commander in Chief” (whatever they may be) to foreign venues only, no reason can be found why the supposed authority to execute certain Americans outside of any judicial process, if it does exist at all, cannot be exercised within the United States proper, even on the lawn of the White House itself. After all, if an American “terrorist” who might be apprehended in Afghanistan may nonetheless simply be assassinated there, because some bureaucrat in the Executive Branch considers the latter course of action more efficient than the former, then why should not an American “terrorist” operating within the United States also simply be executed out of hand, for the same eminently practical reason? So, in its fullest statement, the President’s contention is that he enjoys judicially unreviewable discretion—acting either by his own hand or by the hands of his minions—to assassinate, anywhere in the world and presumably by whatever means may prove effective, any American citizen whom someone in the Executive Branch, whose identity may never be disclosed, has identified as a dangerous “terrorist” by some process and on the basis of some purported evidence that in its most important particulars may forever remain secret.

2. This stark statement of the issue settles the question of “standing”. For, on this statement, any American—and certainly every American who, for whatever reason, may run politically afoul of the Executive Branch or of some subversive private organization with malign influence over the Executive Branch—is potentially the victim of an “official” assassination, the real reason for which can easily be disguised behind some fictional, or perhaps merely erroneous, assertion that the victim is a “terrorist”. Because the process and criteria for selection of an individual for “official” assassination are largely secret, one cannot predict who these victims will be, until they are killed and someone from the Executive Branch admits to complicity in the deed. But, self-evidently, once a victim has been executed, an injury irreparable by judicial process will have occurred. So, if the courts are to enforce the constitutional mandate of the Fifth Amendment that “[n]o person shall * * * be deprived of life * * * without due process of law”—with proper emphasis on the word “[n]o”—then they must entertain at least one suit by one American to determine the legality of the power the President claims, before that individual—or anyone else—is actually assassinated. Which means that the very first lawsuit meeting the standard requirements for personal jurisdiction and venue should be heard on the merits. (Of course, this would not guarantee that the issue would be decided correctly, the Bench being overrun by one Judge Flapdoodle after another in every jurisdiction throughout the federal system. But at least it would move the process of inquiry ahead under public scrutiny.)

Prudential considerations compel the same result. The doctrine of “standing” is mostly the bastard contrivance of individual judges, in the formulation and application of which the personality on the Bench rather than any fixed and certain legal principle usually decides the outcome. As such, the doctrine of “standing” is wholly nonscientific—being both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Yet, in this case, that is no demerit. Rather, it is an advantage. Because, here, a clever judicial wordsmith could easily concoct out of bits and snippets extracted from hundreds of other judicial opinions his own decision in favor of “standing”. And although other jurists and lawyers might disagree with his conclusion, who could declare him to be wrong in any objective sense? No one. He would, as well, be quite right morally. Because, having found “standing”, he could at least temporarily enjoin the continuation of the program of “official” assassinations, until the Judiciary could pass on the question after plenary consideration, thereby preventing who could predict how many irretrievable violations of the Fifth Amendment. Eventually, higher courts might overrule him, licensing the assassins to proceed. But then the blood would encarnadine those judges’ hands, not his.

If they were honest in their claim of constitutional authority, the President and his agents in the General Government, too, would themselves encourage this result, so as to find out exactly where they stand legally. For if “official” assassinations committed anywhere within the United States are unconstitutional, then both the assassins and their principals are criminals for whose transgressions the penalty may be death. For just one example, Title 18 of the United States Code provides as follows:

Moreover, the victims of attempted unconstitutional “official” assassinations would, in the exercise of their natural right of self-defense, be entitled to resist their assailants with deadly force. Which means that, in an environment in which any agent of the General Government might secretly be engaged in an “official” assassination on American soil, against which the Judiciary refused to protect the citizenry, any American—and certainly any political dissident—could reasonably and justifiably resist any government agent with deadly force at any time, because the victim would have no way of knowing whether that particular agent’s assault was actually a “hit” disguised as some kind of supposedly valid “law enforcement”. Too many contemporary Americans may be sheep willing to be shorn; but it is unlikely that more than a few of them are sheep willing to be slaughtered after they finally realize that such is the shepherd’s intention, and are exposed to some examples of his bloody handiwork. And having publicly espoused the position that they may with impunity kill any American for secret (and judicially unreviewable) reasons at any time, agents of the General Government could hardly complain if every American took them at their word, and defended himself accordingly.

Obviously, to allow a situation of this kind to degenerate into widespread violence would verge on madness. So, any judge’s invocation of the “standing” ruse to derail timely litigation of this issue is more than merely intellectually indefensible and morally irresponsible. Unless the judge can successfully invoke the defense of insanity on his own behalf, his misuse of the “standing” doctrine amounts as well to his complicity in—and at least equal culpability for—whatever crimes may be perpetrated in the course of any attempted “official” assassinations.

3. And crimes they will be. For “official” assassinations are blatantly unconstitutional. That being so, the matter cannot possibly raise a “political question”. As everyone knows, the doctrine of “political question” derives from Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803), in which he wrote:

Of course, though, if the Constitution withholds some power from the President, then he cannot possibly make any claim under color of such a power to “perform duties in which [he has] a discretion”. The President has no “discretion” to violate the Constitution. So a judge cannot decide that a “political question” exists until he has first determined that the Constitution and laws do in fact rightfully empower the President to act in a certain manner.

Now, the theory of the Executive Branch in this case is that, as “Commander in Chief” engaged in fighting a supposed “war on terror”, the President may authorize assassinations of specifically identified “terrorists”. Yet, as the Constitution makes as plain as day, the President is not a “Commander in Chief” in general, ruling over every one and every thing imaginable within the United States, in the manner of a German Führer or an Italian Duce. Neither is he a “Commander in Chief” specifically with respect to “death squads”, in the manner of a Caudillo of some Central American banana republic. Rather, the powers of the President as “Commander in Chief” are narrowly defined, and therefore limited: to wit,

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 (emphasis supplied). The President is “Commander in Chief” of nothing else, and for no other purposes.

“[T]he Army and Navy of the United States” are entirely constructs of Congress, which alone exercises the powers “[t]o raise and support Armies” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy”. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13. Absent Congressional legislation, no “Army and Navy of the United States” exist as to which the President can function as “Commander in Chief”. Furthermore, “the Army and Navy of the United States” that do exist are always subject to—indeed, are uniquely defined in their organization and operations by—the power of Congress “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. Article I, Section 8, Clause 14. The President can exercise no control over “the Army and Navy of the United States” that ventures even one Angstrom Unit beyond the bounds of these “Rules”, because “the Army and Navy of the United States” do not exist outside of these “Rules”.

Similarly for “the Militia of the several States”. Except that, with respect to the Militia, the President’s authority is even narrower, because he enjoys the status of “Commander in Chief” of the Militia only when the Militia are “called into the actual Service of the United States”. And that can be for three purposes alone: namely, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. Furthermore, even then, the President cannot exercise untrammeled command, but must abide by whatever rules Congress has “provide[d] * * * for governing such Part of the[ Militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. When the Militia have not been “called into the actual Service of the United States”, they remain State institutions, governed by State officers, and are not subject to the orders of the President at all. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

So, if as “Commander in Chief” the President dares to claim any power to order “official” assassinations, that power must be proven to derive from some exercise of Congress’s powers to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” and to “provide * * * for governing * * * Part” of the Militia. Where, though, does any legislation, purportedly enacted by Congress under color of those powers, and authorizing anyone to order or to commit “official” assassinations of anyone, appear in the Statutes at Large? Nowhere of which I am aware.

And what if it did? A purported “law” of Congress, identifying a specific individual and condemning that individual to death, would be a “Bill of Attainder”. As Justice Joseph Story explained,

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown, and Company, 5th Edition, 1891), Volume II, § 1344, at 216-217 (footnotes omitted).

For these reasons, the Constitution explicitly, unequivocally, and without exception outlaws all “Bills of Attainder”, both for Congress—“[n]o Bill of Attainder * * * shall be passed”; and for the States—“[n]o State shall * * * pass any Bill of Attainder”. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (emphases supplied). These prohibitions of “Bills of Attainder”, it should be noted, reach all statutes or regulations, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertained members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial”. United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946). See also United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).

So Congress constitutionally cannot, in the guise of promulgating rules for the governance of the Army, the Navy, or the Militia, authorize the “official” assassination of anyone, whether directly by name or indirectly by reference to membership in some particular group. Thus, to draw a picture that should be familiar to all, in prosecution of “the war on crime” (which has been going on far longer than “the war on terror”), Congress is absolutely powerless to enact a statute providing for the assassination of “Don Corleone” by name, or of “any member of the Corleone Family” by general attribution.

And if Congress cannot constitutionally promulgate rules for the governance of the Army, Navy, and Militia that amount to “Bills of Attainder”, then the President cannot constitutionally purport to enforce such rules in the guise of the “Commander in Chief”.

Neither can Congress delegate a nonexistent power to put out “Bills of Attainder” to the President, for him to employ at his discretion. Nor can the States license their Militia to exercise such a forbidden power, or command their Militia to obey a Presidential order to do so. And inasmuch as the substance of the President’s authority as “Commander in Chief” depends in the first instance upon Congressional legislation, and ultimately upon the existence of the Militia as permanent State institutions, he cannot possibly even claim, let alone put into practice, such a power by himself alone.

And, of course, the President cannot invoke any supposed authority as “Commander in Chief” to require or allow various civilian agencies of the General Government—such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency—to engage in “official” assassinations, because the President is not in any way a “Commander in Chief” with respect those agencies, by constitutional definition. What those agencies are allowed to do, Congress alone determines—except, interestingly enough, that even Congress cannot constitutionally subordinate them to the President as “Commander in Chief”, because the Constitution itself extends that status only to the Army, Navy, and Militia. And Congress cannot constitutionally promulgate any rules for those civilian agencies that amount to, or require or allow them to execute, “Bills of Attainder”. So, inasmuch as agencies such as the DHS and the CIA constitutionally can have nothing whatsoever to do with “Bills of Attainder”, then in and through his administration of them neither can the President.

Finally, the President labors under an explicit constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Article II, Section 3. Other than the Declaration of Independence, the most important of these “Laws” is the Constitution itself. The Constitution prohibits any and every “Bill of Attainder”. Therefore, the President can take no action that purports to create, enforce, or countenance in any way a “Bill of Attainder”. Rather, he must bend every effort to stop any “Bill of Attainder” from being prepared, passed, or enforced. In particular, he must prevent everyone in the Army, the Navy, the Militia, the Department of Homeland Security, civilian intelligence agencies such as the CIA, law-enforcement agencies such as the FBI, and all other agencies in the Executive Branch from even proposing, let alone preparing and putting into effect, plans for “official” assassinations. And he must take effective steps swiftly, surely, and severely to punish everyone in any way involved in such schemes. Indeed, if he fails to do so, while aware that “official” assassinations are being plotted within (and perhaps actually being carried out by) the Armed Forces, the Militia, or agencies in the Executive Branch, the President should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office for a “high Crime[ ]” sine die. Article II, Section 4.

So much the Constitution commands on its face, in explicit, unmistakable language. Well, “unmistakable” to anyone who reads it intelligently and in good faith. Apparently, though, no one in high office in the General Government today is able or willing to do so—or “death squads” would not be in the works in the Executive Branch, and their operations would not be excused as a “political question” by the Judiciary. (I leave aside the failure of Congress to impeach and convict Mr. Obama on this ground, because it is arguable that, not being qualified for the office of President at all, he cannot constitutionally be removed by that method from a position he can not, does not, and never did hold.)

Subsc

READ FULL STORY HERE

February 4, 2011

The tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11^th, 2001 continues to affect many thousands of first responders who sacrificed their own health while restoring lower Manhattan and attempting to recover survivors and victims’ remains.  Recently, H.R. 847, otherwise known as the James Zadroga Bill, was signed by President Obama in an effort to provide services and compensation for those whose health was compromised through exposure to the toxic dust and gases at Ground Zero.  However, these first responders also need help to understand how their illnesses originated so that improvements in treatment can be made.  In response to this need, concerned citizens should consider the possible correlation between evidence for energetic materials at the WTC and the environmental exposures which appear to have caused so many illnesses in the first responders.

The 9/11 first responders suffer from a range of different illnesses, some of which are rare in the general population.  Some of the illnesses can be attributed to the high pH of the WTC dust.  We know the extent of the pH problem thanks to EPA whistleblower, Dr. Cate Jenkins.[1] The very high pH of the dust inhaled by 9/11 first responders is a probable cause for the general deterioration of lungs and their function, due to the dust’s corrosive state.  As Dr. Jenkins wrote, “Corrosivity would have acted directly to cause respiratory chemical burns, and also would have increased the toxic properties of other pollutants from the WTC by facilitating their entry into the body through the respiratory system.”

Commonly observed conditions among first responders include reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), caused by exposure to high concentrations of irritants such as caustic and metallic dusts; upper respiratory illnesses such as sinusitis and laryngitis; and lower respiratory disorders such as asthma and what is known as World Trade Center cough.

Less understood, and requiring further study, are unusual illnesses of the immune system commonly observed in the WTC first responders.  These include various types of interstitial lung disease, such as eosinophilic pneumonia, granulomatous pneumonitis, and bronchial obliterans.  Environmental triggers for these illnesses include aluminum silicates, which have been found in the lungs of WTC first responders at high levels in “unusual platy configurations.” [2]

Other common WTC lung ailments include sarcoidosis, which is known to be caused by aluminum dust[3], and pulmonary fibrosis, which can be caused by aluminum oxide.[4]

These findings have, until now, lacked an adequate scientific explanation.  But recent research suggests a correlation with the causes of the destruction of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7.  Aluminum oxide – a potential cause of the observed pulmonary fibrosis – is a product of the thermite reaction, and there is now considerable evidence for the use of thermite in the destruction of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7.[5] Additionally, aluminum and silicates – potential causes of the observed illnesses of the immune system – are components of nanothermite formulations.

Thermite is a mixture of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that, when ignited, exhibits an extremely exothermic reaction producing aluminum oxide and the metal in molten form.  The thermite reaction has been utilized for welding railroads ties and for cutting metal as with anti-tank grenades.  Thermite has also been used to develop patented devices for the demolition of structures.  One such device allows for demolition of a concrete structure “at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.”[6] A recent experiment shows that thermite can cut structural steel efficiently.[7]

Sulfur is often added to thermite mixtures to improve the burn qualities and it is then called thermate.  Nanothermite, or superthermite, is a more recently developed variation on thermite in which the aluminum and metal oxide are mixed on the nanometer scale, allowing for more rapid energy release.  Nanothermite can be a simple mixture of nanometer-scale powders or it can be made in a silicon matrix, through a solution-based technique, resulting in “sol-gel” nanothermite.  The sol-gel process allows for the use of organic materials which expand during the reaction, providing more explosive power.

In 2009, an international team of researchers discovered what appear to be sol-gel nanothermite formulations in every WTC dust sample tested.[8] Additionally, similar to the findings of aluminum silicates in the lungs of first responders, the aluminum found in the nanothermite of WTC dust samples was present, along with silicon, in plate-like (platy) configurations.[9] Whether or not the platy configurations of aluminum silicates in the lungs of WTC workers are related to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in WTC dust samples is a question that should be answered through further investigation.

Environmental factors

A review of WTC environmental testing results produced by EPA and the University of California was published in 2008.[10] That review showed that air and aerosol emissions of sulfur and silicon compounds at Ground Zero provided evidence that energetic materials such as thermite and nanothermite were present.  The silicon compounds (i.e. silicates) were indicative of the sol-gel variety of nanothermites, and the sulfur compounds suggested the presence of thermate, a sulfur containing derivative of thermite.

EPA also found very high levels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) that, like the aluminum, sulfur and silicon compounds, were discovered to be present in unusual spiking patterns.  These spiking patterns suggest that extremely violent, explosive or incendiary events were occurring within the pile at Ground Zero over a period of months.  If fires were the cause of these events, they would have had to have been fires that were driven by an agent that contained its own oxidant, as a thermite or nanothermite mixture does.  This is because extensive efforts were made to put out the fires at the WTC site, including the use of millions of gallons of water and chemical fire suppressants, with little or no effect.  In addition to the tons of dust from the buildings’ destruction and the rainfall events that occurred, these firefighting efforts ensured that normal fires would not have continued.

The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them.  In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires.  In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

The pattern of energetic events at Ground Zero, indicated by the spikes in emissions, was different than the expected trend of emissions from a typical structure fire.  As was the case for other structure fires, particulate matter (PM) emissions at Ground Zero were high at first and then died down completely.  However, PM emissions occurred for a longer duration, and the extreme, spiking emissions of VOCs, and components typical of thermitic mixtures, continued for many months after the particulate matter had died down.

Other unusual results from EPA monitoring included a compound called 1,3-diphenylpropane (1,3-DPP), which had never been seen before in any EPA studies yet was said to be abundant and pervasive at the WTC.  Further investigation is called for due to the fact that 1,3-DPP is used to functionalize nanostructured silicas that are similar to nanothermite materials.[11]

Related to these environmental findings is the fact that first responders have been getting cancers at elevated rates.  Many types of cancers have been reported including leukemia and the rare disease called multiple myeloma.  The most prominent environmental cause of leukemia is benzene, which is one of the VOCs seen prominently in energetic spikes of emissions at Ground Zero.  Benzene was detected at the WTC at levels that were dramatically higher than ever seen before in structure fires; even higher than what was seen at a large fire in a plastics factory.[12]

As for multiple myeloma, researchers associated with the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine examined many sick first responders.  One result was that they found eight times the expected level of multiple myeloma in people below the age of 45.[13]

Environmental factors that cause multiple myeloma include phenoxyacetic acids, which are compounds that are structurally similar to 1,3-DPP.  Another causal factor is DDT, a highly chlorinated diphenylethane.[14] Diphenylethane is structurally very similar to diphenylpropane (DPP).  This suggests that the observed presence of 1,3-DPP could be a causal factor of the multiple myeloma seen in WTC first responders, in that derivatives of 1,3-DPP might be responsible for the illnesses.

Carbon nanotubes

In 2010, researchers reported the presence of carbon nanotubes in the lungs of WTC first responders.[15] Carbon nanotubes are high-tech nanostructured materials, which exhibit unique properties like ballistic conduction.  The health effects of carbon nanotubes have been shown to be similar to the health effects produced by exposure to asbestos.[16]

Carbon nanotube formation requires three basic components: a source of carbon, a source of heat, and the presence of certain metals.  In particular, formation of the single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) found in the lungs of first responders requires that the metals be present.[17] All of these requirements were met at the WTC site on, and for months after, September 11, 2001.

The three most effective metals for the synthesis of SWCNTs are iron, nickel and cobalt.  Both iron and nickel were present in high concentrations near Ground Zero, as shown by aerosol testing done by a team from the University of California, Davis.[18] Iron oxide and nickel oxide are common oxidants in thermite mixtures.

Airborne carbon compounds were certainly present in abundance at Ground Zero in the form of particulate matter resulting from the fires.  Heat was also in abundance, as extremely high temperatures were present on 9/11 and afterward at Ground Zero.  These temperatures were at least 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than first reported by government scientists, and were far higher than temperatures seen in a normal structure fire.

The molten metal and vaporized silicates that have been reported in the WTC dust can only be explained by the presence of an exothermic reaction like the thermite reaction.[19] Large quantities of carbon nanotubes might have been formed at Ground Zero due to the high temperature environments created by the thermite reaction and the airborne metal catalysts that were also present.

A second possible explanation for the carbon nanotubes in the lung tissue of the first responders is that the carbon nanotubes were components of actual energetic materials that were used in the destruction of the buildings.  Carbon nanotubes have been used as energetic modifiers,[20] to improve stabilization of explosives,[21] and to enhance ignition properties.[22]

Conclusion

Some of the illnesses suffered by the WTC first responders might be explained by the existing evidence of energetic materials, like thermite, at Ground Zero.  For example aluminum, aluminum oxide and aluminum silicates are known causal factors for some of the common illnesses seen, such as sarcoidosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and the as-yet-unexplained immune system diseases.  Furthermore, the rare cancers found in some first responders could be the result of environmental factors such as the unusually high levels of benzene and derivatives of 1,3-DPP which suggest the presence of energetic materials like thermite and nanothermite.

Analysis of the lung tissue of first responders has also indicated that energetic materials might be involved.  The unusual platy configurations of aluminum silicates found in those lung tissue samples seem similar to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in the nanothermite that has been discovered in WTC dust samples.

The finding of carbon nanotubes in the lungs of first responders suggests two possible explanations.  The nanotubes might have been formed in the unusual environment at Ground Zero, where extremely high temperatures and the presence of airborne metallic species gives yet more evidence for the presence of thermitic materials.  Alternatively, the nanotubes might have been components of energetic materials.  In either case, the presence of carbon nanotubes in the lungs of WTC first responders suggests the use of energetic materials and should be studied in more depth.

These facts and research findings warrant further study of the correlation between environmental testing results, first responder health study results, and the use of energetic materials at the WTC.

Notes

[1] Jenkins C. 2007.  Complaint and Additional Evidence of pH Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists.  Journal of 9/11 Studies 12.  Available: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf [accessed 19 January 2011].

[2] Wu M, Gordon RE, Herbert R, Padilla M, Moline J, Mendelson D, Litle V, Travis WD, Gil J. 2010.  Case Report: Lung disease in World Trade Center responders exposed to dust and smoke: Carbon nanotubes found in the lungs of World Trade Center patients and dust samples, Environmental Health Perspectives 118 (4).

[3] Cai H, Cao M, Meng F, Wei J. 2007.  Pulmonary sarcoid-like granulomatosis induced by aluminum dust: report of a case and literature review.  Chinese Medical Journal 120 (17) : 1556-1560.   Available: http://cmj.org/Periodical/PaperList.asp?id=LW200794512467004596 [accessed 19 January 2011].

[4] Jederlinic PJ, Abraham JL, Churg A, Himmelstein JS, Epler GR, Gaensler EA. 1990.  Pulmonary fibrosis in aluminum oxide workers. Investigation of nine workers, with pathologic examination and microanalysis in three of them.  Am Rev Respir Dis. 142(5):1179-84.

[5] Jones SE, Farrer J, Jenkins GS, Legge F, Gourley J, Ryan K, Farnsworth D, Grabbe C. 2008.  Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies 19.   Available: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf [accessed 19 January 2011].

[6] Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 – Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete, http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

[7] Cole, J.  2010.  9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate.  911Blogger.com. Available:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g [accessed 19 January 2011].

[8] Harrit NH, Farrer J, Jones SE, Ryan KR, Legge FM, Farnsworth D, Roberts G, Gourley JR, Larsen BR. 2009.  Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.  The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2:7-31;  doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007 [Online April 2005]

[9] Ibid

[10] Ryan KR, Gourley JR, Jones SE. 2009.  Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials. The Environmentalist 29 (1):56-63; doi: 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 [Online 4 August 2008]

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Moline JM, Herbert R, Crowley L, Troy K, Hodgman E, Shukla G, Udasin I, Luft B, Wallenstein S, Landrigan P, Savitz DA.  2009.  Multiple Myeloma in World Trade Center Responders: A Case Series.  Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 51(8): 896-902.

[14] Eriksson M, Karlsson M. 1992.  Occupational and other environmental factors and multiple myeloma: a population based case-control study. Br J Ind Med 49(2): 95–103.

[15] Maoxin Wu, et al.

[16] Van Noorden R. 2008.  Carbon nanotubes behave like asbestos. Chemistry World.  Available: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/May/20050802.asp [accessed 19 January 2011].

[17] Height JH.  2003.  Flame synthesis of carbon nanotubes and metallic nanomaterials.  Dissertation submission to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering.

[18] Ryan KR, et al.

[19] Jones SE, et al.

[20] Ramaswamy AL, Kaste P.  2003.  Combustion modifiers for energetic materials.  34th International Annual Conference of ICT; Karlsruhe; Germany; 24-27 June 2003. 1-13.

[21] Patent issued to Raytheon Company, WO/2008/082724.  Improved Explosive Materials by Stabilization in Nanotubes.  World Intellectual Property organization. Available:  http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008/082724 [accessed 19 January 2011].

[22] Manaa MR, Mitchell AR, Garza RG, Pagoria PF, Watkins BE. 2005.  Flash Ignition and Initiation of Explosives?Nanotubes Mixture.  J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127(40):13786–13787.

READ FULL STORY HERE

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination… The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening… That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing… The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches…

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well… Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious “tertiary level” educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million “college” students. Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred…

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[1]

- Zbigniew Brzezinski

Former U.S. National Security Advisor

Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission

Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies

An uprising in Tunisia led to the overthrow of the country’s 23-year long dictatorship of President Ben Ali. A new ‘transitional’ government was formed, but the protests continued demanding a totally new government without the relics of the previous tyranny. Protests in Algeria have continued for weeks, as rage mounts against rising food prices, corruption and state oppression. Protests in Jordan forced the King to call on the military to surround cities with tanks and set up checkpoints. Tens of thousands of protesters marched on Cairo demanding an end to the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Thousands of activists, opposition leaders and students rallied in the capitol of Yemen against the corrupt dictatorship of President Saleh, in power since 1978. Saleh has been, with U.S. military assistance, attempting to crush a rebel movement in the north and a massive secessionist movement growing in the south, called the “Southern Movement.” Protests in Bolivia against rising food prices forced the populist government of Evo Morales to backtrack on plans to cut subsidies. Chile erupted in protests as demonstrators railed against rising fuel prices. Anti-government demonstrations broke out in Albania, resulting in the deaths of several protesters.

It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is materializing in different regions, different nations and under different circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a turning point. The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged. Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes around the world. Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political Awakening? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of American foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the ‘Global Political Awakening’ are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global hierarchy. As such, we must view the ‘Awakening’ as the greatest hope for humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and regressions; but the ‘Awakening’ has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.

The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen). The alterantive is to undertake a strategy of “democratization” in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of “democratization” implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, “independent” media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.
It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to such measures. In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.

Part 1 of this essay focuses on the emergence of these protest movements and uprisings, placing it in the context of the Global Political Awakening. Part 2 will examine the West’s strategy of “democratic imperialism” as a method of co-opting the ‘Awakening’ and installing “friendly” governments.

The Tunisian Spark

A July 2009 diplomatic cable from America’s Embassy in Tunisia reported that, “many Tunisians are frustrated by the lack of political freedom and angered by First Family corruption, high unemployment and regional inequities. Extremism poses a continuing threat,” and that, “the risks to the regime’s long-term stability are increasing.”[2]

On Friday, 14 January 2011, the U.S.-supported 23-year long dictatorship of Tunisian president Ben Ali ended. For several weeks prior to this, the Tunisian people had risen in protest against rising food prices, stoked on by an immense and growing dissatisfaction with the political repression, and prodded by the WikiLeaks cables confirming the popular Tunisian perception of gross corruption on the part of the ruling family. The spark, it seems, was when a 26-year old unemployed youth set himself on fire in protest on December 17.

With the wave of protests sparked by the death of the 26-year old who set himself on fire on December 17, the government of Tunisia responded by cracking down on the protesters. Estimates vary, but roughly 100 people were killed in the clashes. Half of Tunisia’s 10 million people are under the age of 25, meaning that they have never known a life in Tunisia outside of living under this one dictator. Since Independence from the French empire in 1956, Tunisia has had only two leaders: Habib Bourguiba and Ben Ali.[3] The Tunisian people were rising up against a great many things: an oppressive dictatorship which has employed extensive information and internet censorship, rising food prices and inflation, a corrupt ruling family, lack of jobs for the educated youth, and a general sense and experience of exploitation, subjugation and disrespect for human dignity.

Following the ouster of Ben Ali, Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi assumed presidential power and declared a “transitional government.” Yet, this just spurred more protests demanding his resignation and the resignation of the entire government. Significantly, the trade union movement had a large mobilizing role in the protests, with a lawyers union being particularly active during the initial protests.[4]

Protests in Tunisia

Social media and the Internet did play a large part in mobilizing people within Tunisia for the uprising, but it was ultimately the result of direct protests and action which led to the resignation of Ben Ali. Thus, referring to Tunisia as a “Twitter Revolution” is disingenuous.

Twitter, WikiLeaks, Facebook, Youtube, forums and blogs did have a part to play. They reflect the ability “to collectively transform the Arab information environment and shatter the ability of authoritarian regimes to control the flow of information, images, ideas and opinions.”[5] [Editors Note: The US based foundation Freedom House was involved in promoting and training some Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter bloggers (See also Freedom House), M. C.].

We must also keep in mind that social media has not only become an important source of mobilization of activism and information at the grassroots level, but it has also become an effective means for governments and various power structures to seek to manipulate the flow of information. This was evident in the 2009 protests in Iran, where social media became an important avenue through which the Western nations were able to advance their strategy of supporting the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ in destabilizing the Iranian government. Thus, social media has presented a new form of power, neither black nor white, in which it can be used to either advance the process of the ‘Awakening’ or control its direction.

Whereas America was publicly denouncing Iran for blocking (or attempting to block) social media in the summer of 2009, during the first several weeks of Tunisian protests (which were largely being ignored by Western media), America and the West were silent about censorship.[6] Steven Cook, writing for the elite U.S. think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, commented on the lack of attention being paid to the Tunisian protests in the early weeks of resistance prior to the resignation of Ben Ali. He explained that while many assume that the Arab “strongmen” regimes will simply maintain power as they always have, this could be mistaken. He stated that, “it may not be the last days of Ben Ali or Mubarak or any other Middle Eastern strongman, but there is clearly something going on in the region.” However, it was the end of Ben Ali, and indeed, “there is clearly something going on in the region.”[7]

France’s President Sarkozy has even had to admit that, “he had underestimated the anger of the Tunisian people and the protest movement that ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.” During the first few weeks of protests in Tunisia, several French government officials were publicly supporting the dictatorship, with the French Foreign Minister saying that France would lend its police “knowhow” to help Ben Ali in maintaining order.[8]

Days before the ouster of Ben Ali, Hillary Clinton gave an interview in which she explained how America was worried “about the unrest and the instability,” and that, “we are not taking sides, but we are saying we hope that there can be a peaceful resolution. And I hope that the Tunisian Government can bring that about.” Clinton further lamented, “One of my biggest concerns in this entire region are the many young people without economic opportunities in their home countries.”[9] Her concern, of course, does not spur from any humanitarian considerations, but rather from inherent imperial considerations: it is simply harder to control a region of the world erupting in activism, uprisings and revolution.

The Spark Lights a Flame

Tunisia has raised the bar for the people across the Arab world to demand justice, democracy, accountability, economic stability, and freedom. Just as Tunisia’s protests were in full-swing, Algeria was experiencing mass protests, rising up largely as a result of the increasing international food prices, but also in reaction to many of the concerns of the Tunisian protesters, such as democratic accountability, corruption and freedom. A former Algerian diplomat told Al-Jazeera in early January that, “It is a revolt, and probably a revolution, of an oppressed people who have, for 50 years, been waiting for housing, employment, and a proper and decent life in a very rich country.”[10]

In mid-January, similar protests erupted in Jordan, as thousands took to the streets to protest against rising food prices and unemployment, chanting anti-government slogans. Jordan’s King Abdullah II had “set up a special task force in his palace that included military and intelligence officials to try to prevent the unrest from escalating further,” which had tanks surrounding major cities, with barriers and checkpoints established.[11]

In Yemen, the poorest nation in the Arab world, engulfed in a U.S. sponsored war against its own people, ruled by a dictator who has been in power since 1978, thousands of people protested against the government, demanding the dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. In the capitol city of Sanaa, thousands of students, activists and opposition groups chanted slogans such as, “Get out get out, Ali. Join your friend Ben Ali.”[12] Yemen has been experiencing much turmoil in recent years, with a rebel movement in the North fighting against the government, formed in 2004; as well as a massive secessionist movement in the south, called the “Southern Movement,” fighting for liberation since 2007. As the Financial Times explained:

Many Yemen observers consider the anger and secessionist sentiment now erupting in the south to be a greater threat to the country’s stability than its better publicised struggle with al-Qaeda, and the deteriorating economy is making the tension worse.

Unemployment, particularly among the young, is soaring. Even the government statistics office in Aden puts it at nearly 40 per cent among men aged 20 to 24.[13]

Protest of the Southern Movement in Yemen

On January 21, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Albania, mobilized by the socialist opposition, ending with violent clashes between the police and protesters, leading to the deaths of three demonstrators. The protests have been sporadic in Albania since the widely contested 2009 elections, but took on new levels inspired by Tunisia.[14]

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom stressed concern over the revolutionary sentiments within the Arab world, saying that, “I fear that we now stand before a new and very critical phase in the Arab world.” He fears Tunisia would “set a precedent that could be repeated in other countries, possibly affecting directly the stability of our system.”[15] Israel’s leadership fears democracy in the Arab world, as they have a security alliance with the major Arab nations, who, along with Israel itself, are American proxy states in the region. Israel maintains civil – if not quiet – relationships with the Arab monarchs and dictators. While the Arab states publicly criticize Israel, behind closed doors they are forced to quietly accept Israel’s militarism and war-mongering, lest they stand up against the superpower, America. Yet, public opinion in the Arab world is extremely anti-Israel, anti-American and pro-Iran.

In July of 2010, the results of a major international poll were released regarding public opinion in the Arab world, polling from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. Among some of the notable findings: while Obama was well received upon entering the Presidency, with 51% expressing optimism about U.S. policy in the region in the Spring of 2009, by Summer 2010, 16% were expressing optimism. In 2009, 29% of those polled said a nuclear-armed Iran would be positive for the region; in 2010, that spiked to 57%, reflecting a very different stance from that of their governments.[16]

While America, Israel and the leaders of the Arab nations claim that Iran is the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, the Arab people do not agree. In an open question asking which two countries pose the greatest threat to the region, 88% responded with Israel, 77% with America, and 10% with Iran.[17]

At the Arab economic summit shortly following the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia, who was for the first time absent from the meetings, the Tunisian uprising hung heavy in the air. Arab League leader Amr Moussa said in his opening remarks at the summit, “The Tunisian revolution is not far from us,” and that, “the Arab citizen entered an unprecedented state of anger and frustration,” noting that “the Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment and general recession.” The significance of this ‘threat’ to the Arab leaders cannot be understated. Out of roughly 352 million Arabs, 190 million are under the age of 24, with nearly three-quarters of them unemployed. Often, “the education these young people receive doesn’t do them any good because there are no jobs in the fields they trained for.”[18]

There was even an article in the Israeli intellectual newspaper, Ha’aretz, which posited that, “Israel may be on the eve of revolution.” Explaining, the author wrote that:

Israeli civil society organizations have amassed considerable power over the years; not only the so-called leftist organizations, but ones dealing with issues like poverty, workers’ rights and violence against women and children. All of them were created in order to fill the gaps left by the state, which for its part was all too happy to continue walking away from problems that someone else was there to take on. The neglect is so great that Israel’s third sector – NGOs, charities and volunteer organizations – is among the biggest in the world. As such, it has quite a bit of power.[19]

Now the Israeli Knesset and cabinet want that power back; yet, posits the author, they “have chosen to ignore the reasons these groups became powerful,” namely:

The source of their power is the vacuum, the criminal policies of Israel’s governments over the last 40 years. The source of their power is a government that is evading its duties to care for all of its citizens and to end the occupation, and a Knesset that supports the government instead of putting it in its place.[20]

The Israeli Knesset opened investigations into the funding of Israeli human rights organizations in a political maneuver against them. However, as one article in Ha’aretz by an Israeli professor explained, these groups actually – inadvertently – play a role in “entrenching the occupation.” As the author explained:

Even if the leftist groups’ intention is to ensure upholding Palestinian rights, though, the unintentional result of their activity is preserving the occupation. Moderating and restraining the army’s activity gives it a more human and legal facade. Reducing the pressure of international organizations, alongside moderating the Palestinian population’s resistance potential, enable the army to continue to maintain this control model over a prolonged period of time.[21]

Thus, if the Israeli Knesset succeeds in getting rid of these powerful NGOs, they sow the seeds for the pressure valve in the occupied territories to be removed. The potential for massive internal protests within Israel from the left, as well as the possibility of another Intifada – uprising – in the occupied territories themselves would seem dramatically increased. Israel and the West have expressed how much distaste they hold for democracy in the region. When Gaza held a democratic election in 2006 and elected Hamas, which was viewed as the ‘wrong’ choice by Israel and America, Israel imposed a ruthless blockade of Gaza. Richard Falk, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian territories, wrote an article for Al Jazeera in which he explained that the blockade:

unlawfully restricted to subsistence levels, or below, the flow of food, medicine, and fuel. This blockade continues to this day, leaving the entire Gazan population locked within the world’s largest open-air prison, and victimized by one of the cruelest forms of belligerent occupation in the history of warfare.[22]

The situation in the occupied territories is made increasingly tense with the recent leaking of the “Palestinian Papers,” which consist of two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords, revealing the weak negotiating position of the Palestinian Authority. The documents consist largely of major concessions the Palestinian Authority was willing to make “on the issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, territorial concessions, and the recognition of Israel.” Among the leaks, Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to concede nearly all of East Jerusalem to Israel. Further, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (favoured by Israel and America over Hamas), was personally informed by a senior Israeli official the night before Operation Cast Lead, the December 2008 and January 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians: “Israeli and Palestinian officials reportedly discussed targeted assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in Gaza.”[23]

Hamas has subsequently called on Palestinian refugees to protest over the concessions regarding the ‘right of return’ for refugees, of which the negotiators conceded to allowing only 100,000 of 5 million to return to Israel.[24] A former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt lamented that, “The concern will be that this might cause further problems in moving forward.”[25] However, while being blamed for possibly preventing the “peace process” from moving forward, what the papers reveal is that the “peace process” itself is a joke. The Palestinian Authority’s power is derivative of the power Israel allows it to have, and was propped up as a method of dealing with an internal Palestinian elite, thus doing what all colonial powers have done. The papers, then, reveal how the so-called Palestinian ‘Authority’ does not truly speak or work for the interests of the Palestinian people. And while this certainly will divide the PA from Hamas, they were already deeply divided as it was. Certainly, this will pose problems for the “peace process,” but that’s assuming it is a ‘peaceful’ process in the first part.

Is Egypt on the Edge of Revolution?

Unrest is even spreading to Egypt, personal playground of U.S.-supported and armed dictator, Hosni Mubarak, in power since 1981. Egypt is the main U.S. ally in North Africa, and has for centuries been one of the most important imperial jewels first for the Ottomans, then the British, and later for the Americans. With a population of 80 million, 60% of which are under the age of 30, who make up 90% of Egypt’s unemployed, the conditions are ripe for a repeat in Egypt of what happened in Tunisia.[26]

On January 25, 2011, Egypt experienced its “day of wrath,” in which tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to protest against rising food prices, corruption, and the oppression of living under a 30-year dictatorship. The demonstrations were organized through the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook. When the protests emerged, the government closed access to these social media sites, just as the Tunisian government did in the early days of the protests that led to the collapse of the dictatorship. As one commentator wrote in the Guardian:

Egypt is not Tunisia. It’s much bigger. Eighty million people, compared with 10 million. Geographically, politically, strategically, it’s in a different league – the Arab world’s natural leader and its most populous nation. But many of the grievances on the street are the same. Tunis and Cairo differ only in size. If Egypt explodes, the explosion will be much bigger, too.[27]

In Egypt, “an ad hoc coalition of students, unemployed youths, industrial workers, intellectuals, football fans and women, connected by social media such as Twitter and Facebook, instigated a series of fast-moving, rapidly shifting demos across half a dozen or more Egyptian cities.” The police responded with violence, and three protesters were killed. With tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, Egypt saw the largest protests in decades, if not under the entire 30-year reign of President Mubarak. Is Egypt on the verge of revolution? It seems too soon to tell. Egypt, it must be remembered, is the second major recipient of U.S. military assistance in the world (following Israel), and thus, its police state and military apparatus are far more advanced and secure than Tunisia’s. Clearly, however, something is stirring. As Hilary Clinton said on the night of the protests, “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”[28] In other words: “We continue to support tyranny and dictatorship over democracy and liberation.” So what else is new?

Egyptian Protest, 25 January 2011

According to some estimates, as many as 50,000 protesters turned out in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and other Egyptian cities.[29] The protests were met with the usual brutality: beating protesters, firing tear gas and using water cannons to attempt to disperse the protesters. As images and videos started emerging out of Egypt, “television footage showed demonstrators chasing police down side streets. One protester climbed into a fire engine and drove it away.”[30] Late on the night of the protests, rumours and unconfirmed reports were spreading that the first lady of Egypt, Suzanne Mubarak, may have fled Egypt to London, following on the heels of rumours that Mubarak’s son, and presumed successor, had also fled to London.[31]

Are We Headed for a Global Revolution?

During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008, the IMF warned governments of the prospect of “violent unrest on the streets.” The head of the IMF warned that, “violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.”[32]

In January of 2009, Obama’s then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the greatest threat to the National Security of the U.S. was not terrorism, but the global economic crisis:

I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries … Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- or two-year period… And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.[33]

In 2007, a British Defence Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years. In assessing “Global Inequality”, the report stated that over the next 30 years:

[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge… Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.  Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency. They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[34]

Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx.  The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states.  The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.  Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.[35]

We have now reached the point where the global economic crisis has continued beyond the two-year mark. The social repercussions are starting to be felt – globally – as a result of the crisis and the coordinated responses to it. Since the global economic crisis hit the ‘Third World’ the hardest, the social and political ramifications will be felt there first. In the context of the current record-breaking hikes in the cost of food, food riots will spread around the world as they did in 2007 and 2008, just prior to the outbreak of the economic crisis. This time, however, things are much worse economically, much more desperate socially, and much more oppressive politically.

This rising discontent will spread from the developing world to the comfort of our own homes in the West. Once the harsh realization sets in that the economy is not in ‘recovery,’ but rather in a Depression, and once our governments in the West continue on their path of closing down the democratic façade and continue dismantling rights and freedoms, increasing surveillance and ‘control,’ while pushing increasingly militaristic and war-mongering foreign policies around the world (mostly in an effort to quell or crush the global awakening being experienced around the world), we in the West will come to realize that ‘We are all Tunisians.’

In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., said in his famous speech “Beyond Vietnam”:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[36]

This was Part 1 of “North Africa and the Global Political Awakening,” focusing on the emergence of the protest movements primarily in North Africa and the Arab world, but placing it in the context of a wider ‘Global Awakening.’
Part 2 will focus on the West’s reaction to the ‘Awakening’ in this region; namely, the two-pronged strategy of supporting oppressive regimes while promoting “democratization” in a grand new project of “democratic imperialism.”

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on ’Global Government’.

Notes

[1]        Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Global Political Awakening. The New York Times: December 16, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16iht-YEbrzezinski.1.18730411.html; “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President,” International Affairs, 85: 1, (2009); The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign. The American Interest Magazine, Autumn 2005: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=56; The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Speech at the Carnegie Council: March 25, 2004: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4424.html; America’s Geopolitical Dilemmas. Speech at the Canadian International Council and Montreal Council on Foreign Relations: April 23, 2010: http://www.onlinecic.org/resourcece/multimedia/americasgeopoliticaldilemmas

[2]        Embassy Tunis, TROUBLED TUNISIA:  WHAT SHOULD WE DO?, WikiLeaks Cables, 17 July 2009: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09TUNIS492.html

[3]        Mona Eltahawy, Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution, The Washington Post, 15 January 2011: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011405084.html

[4]        Eileen Byrne, Protesters make the case for peaceful change, The Financial Times, 15 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82293e38-20ae-11e0-a877-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

[5]        Marc Lynch, Tunisia and the New Arab Media Space, Foreign Policy, 15 January 2011: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/15/tunisia_and_the_new_arab_media_space

[6]        Jillian York, Activist crackdown: Tunisia vs Iran, Al-Jazeera, 9 January 2011: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111981222719974.html

[7]        Steven Cook, The Last Days of Ben Ali? The Council on Foreign Relations, 6 January 2011: http://blogs.cfr.org/cook/2011/01/06/the-last-days-of-ben-ali/

[8]        Angelique Chrisafis, Sarkozy admits France made mistakes over Tunisia, The Guardian, 24 January 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/nicolas-sarkozy-tunisia-protests

[9]        Hillary Rodham Clinton, Interview With Taher Barake of Al Arabiya, U.S. Department of State, 11 January 2011: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154295.htm

[10]      Algeria set for crisis talks, Al-Jazeera, 8 January 2011: http://aljazeera.co.uk/news/africa/2011/01/2011187476735721.html

[11]      Alexandra Sandels, JORDAN: Thousands of demonstrators protest food prices, denounce government, Los Angeles Times Blog, 15 January 2011: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/jordan-protests-food-prices-muslim-brotherhood-tunisia-strike-thousands-government.html

[12]      AP, Thousands demand ouster of Yemen’s president, Associated Press, 22 January 2011: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3b2emEy39Bn52Z_haypKxNPGMSw?docId=d324160638a74e84b874baeada16bb4c

[13]      Abigail Fielding-Smith, North-south divide strains Yemen union, The Financial Times, 12 January 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7c59322-1e80-11e0-87d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1C08RDtxu

[14]      EurActiv, ‘Jasmine’ revolt wave reaches Albania, 24 January 2011: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/jasmine-revolt-wave-reaches-albania-news-501529

[15]      Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html

[16]      Shibley Telhami, Results of Arab Opinion Survey Conducted June 29-July 20, 2010, 5 August 2010: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

[17]      Shibley Telhami, A shift in Arab views of Iran, Los Angeles Times, 14 August 2010: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/opinion/la-oe-telhami-arab-opinions-20100814

[18]      Clemens Höges, Bernhard Zand and Helene Zuber, Arab Rulers Fear Spread of Democracy Fever, Der Spiegel, 25 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,741545,00.html

[19]      Merav Michaeli, Israel may be on the eve of revolution, Ha’aretz, 17 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-may-be-on-the-eve-of-revolution-1.337445

[20]      Ibid.

[21]      Yagil Levy, Israeli NGOs are entrenching the occupation, Ha’aretz, 11 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israeli-ngos-are-entrenching-the-occupation-1.336331?localLinksEnabled=false

[22]      Richard Falk, Ben Ali Tunisia was model US client, Al-Jazeera, 25 January 2011: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112314530411972.html

[23]      Jack Khoury and Haaretz Service, Two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords leaked to media worldwide, Ha’arets, 23 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/two-decades-of-secret-israeli-palestinian-accords-leaked-to-media-worldwide-1.338768

[24]      Haaretz Service and The Associated Press, Hamas urges Palestinian refugees to protest over concessions on right of return, Ha’aretz, 25 January 2011: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-urges-palestinian-refugees-to-protest-over-concessions-on-right-of-return-1.339120

[25]      Alan Greenblatt, Palestinian Papers May Be Blow To Peace Process, NPR, 24 January 2011: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133181412/palestinian-papers-may-cause-blow-to-peace-process?ps=cprs

[26]      Johannes Stern, Egyptian regime fears mass protests, World Socialist Web Site, 15 January 2011: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/egyp-j15.shtml

[27]      Simon Tisdall, Egypt protests are breaking new ground, The Guardian, 25 January 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/25/egypt-protests

[28]      Ibid.

[29]      MATT BRADLEY, Rioters Jolt Egyptian Regime, The Wall Street Journal, 26 January 2011: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104112320465414.html

[30]      Catrina Stewart, Violence on the streets of Cairo as unrest grows, The Independent, 26 January 2011: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/violence-on-the-streets-of-cairo-as-unrest-grows-2194484.html

[31]      IBT, Suzanne Mubarak of Egypt has fled to Heathrow airport in London: unconfirmed reports, International Business Times, 25 January 2011: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104960/20110125/suzanne-mubarak-of-egypt-has-fled-to-heathrow-airport-in-london-unconfirmed-reports.htm

[32]      Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis

[33]      Stephen C. Webster, US intel chief: Economic crisis a greater threat than terrorism. Raw Story: February 13, 2009: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_intel_chief_Economic_crisis_greater_0213.html

[34]      DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme, 2007-2036, 3rd ed. The Ministry of Defence, January 2007: page 3

[35]      Ibid, page 81.

[36]      Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew Gavin Marshall

READ FULL STORY HERE

14 January 2011 From Brussels (Belgium) voltairenet.org

Jean-Claude Trichet (European Central Bank) and Ben Bernanke (US Federal Reserve): the interests of the capitalist elites align, this time to the detriment of the European people. A phrase attributed to Marx has taught us that if history does not repeat itself, it has a tendency to falter. This diagnosis illustrates perfectly the new attack on the euro. On the occasion of the Irish crisis, the financial markets have orchestrated a scenario comparable to that of the offensive against Greece [1]. Again, the same external cause is involved: the expansionist monetary policy of the US Federal Reserve. In a similar manner, the market offensive will also be endorsed by Germany. As already witnessed in April-May 2010, rather than lowering the value of the dollar, the announcement of an intended massive injection of liquidity by the Fed has had the effect of renewing the speculative assault against the euro zone. In part, Germany has also been responsible for the surge in interest rates on Irish bonds, as well as on Portugese and Spanish bonds. While purely formal, Angela Merkel’s recent declarations calling for the involvement of private creditors in the debt restructuring of certain Euro zone countries has reinforced the market’s distrust of the weakest among them. The objective of the Fed: an uninterrupted creation of financial bubbles The wisecrack made by John Connally, Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon in 1971, “The dollar is our currency, but it is your problem”, is as relevant as ever. To date, the monetisation of American debt has posed less of a problem for the US than for its satellites. The bush of Greece’s financial decay has already sufficed to hide the forest of U.S. deficits. Likewise, this year’s end [2010] has seen the Irish debt eclipse the announcement of a new programme of a massive Treasury bonds purchase by the US Fed. This manoeuvre of ‘quantitative easing’ boils down to printing money in order to lower the interest rates on government bonds. It should allow, at the rate of 75 billions per month, for an injection of $600 billion into the U.S. economy. The Fed had already introduced a sum of $1,700 billion into circulation. This latest injection of liquidity is an indication that this monetary policy has largely failed, since a new phase of bond purchases turned out to be necessary. Above all, it shows that the ‘quantitative easing’ is no longer an exceptional policy. It is in for the long term and thus becomes a normal procedure [2] Contrary to U.S. Treasury declarations, the purpose behind the money creation spawned has nothing to do with permitting the extension of bank credit to individuals and enterprises. Given the economic conjuncture, credit demand is actually weak and the financial institutions have at their disposal significant reserves. There is already an abundance of liquidity, and adding to it is not going to solve the problem which is linked to the distrust of the banks vis-à-vis the credit worthiness of potential borrowers, that is to say on the profitability of their investments. What is then the point of this permanent injection of liquidity into an already saturated market? To answer this question, suffice it to observe the effects of this policy: formation of speculative bubbles and surge in shareholder value, capital inflow in the countries experiencing strong growth, such as China or India, and speculative attacks, notably against the euro zone. The U.S. policy of public debt monetisation is actually not very inflationary because much capital leaves the United States for emergent markets and thus does not fuel internal demand. Neither does it provoke a pronounced fall of the dollar, considering that the hike in commodities purchases it generates – gold, raw materials and oil, which do influence the dollar because denominated in that currency – act to underpin its rate. U.S. speculators buy in their national currency, whereas foreign ‘investors’, encouraged to follow the upward movement induced by this policy, exchange their national currencies against dollars to buy U.S. assets. The objective of the ECB: the transfer of income from the workers to the banks Regarding the European Union, the ECB has announced the continuation of its policy of buying sovereign debt. It has also decided to prolong its bank refinancing plan, unlimited at a fixed rate, for an additional period of at least four months. Here also, one notes a change of stance: this policy is no longer presented as exceptional, but as permanent [3]. What has changed in ECB policy is the duration of its commitment. “In normal times, the ECB buys short term securities: three weeks, a month, more rarely three months, but since the crisis, the ECB has been buying 12 month securities – previously unheard of.” [4] This change overturns the role of the central bank from lender of last resort into front line lender. The central bank thus functions as a full-fledged financial lending institution. So far, the ECB has acquired government bonds for a total of €67 billion [5], essentially securities of troubled states, such as Greece and Ireland. We are thus very far from the $600 billion of repurchased securities effected by the Fed. The policy of the European central bank differs not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively, as it has chosen to sterilise its cash injection by reducing as much the loans made to the private banks. The objective of the European central bank is to defer as much as possible a restructuring of the Greek, Irish, Portugese … debt; the big European banks being heavily involved in their financing. It is above all a matter of saving the financial institutions and making wage-earners and savers foot the bill. To do this the European Union and its member states have transferred to the financial markets the key to deficit financing. The states must borrow from the financial institutions which themselves obtain liquidity at cheap rates from the European central bank. While deficits of EU member states, averaging 7%, are clearly receding by comparison with the 11% of the U.S. federal government [6], the European Union, by contrast with the U.S., is committed to a brutal reduction of public expenditure. The Commission wants to impose on countries a long diet of austerity to return to a total public debt less than 60% of GDP and has set up procedures to curb excessive deficits by the member states. By the first half of 2010, practically all the member states had submitted to it. The Commission has also called for the states to return under the bar of 3% [the yearly deficit as a percentage of GDP] before 2014 regardless of the domestic economic situation. The means proposed to realise these objectives do not consist in taxation of high incomes or of financial transactions, but rather in a reduction of wages, both direct and indirect – in other words to implement wage restriction policies, and to call into question the publicly-funded retirement and health systems. Complementarity of the Fed and ECB policies The strongly expansionary monetary policy of the U.S. consists in buying medium- and long-term sovereign debt (2 to 10 years), on the secondary market, so that the new issues of the Fed will be able to find borrowers at a low interest rate, more tolerable for American public finances. This policy not only matches the interests of American capital, but is in line with the interests of multinational capitalism. It is the principal tool for keeping interest rates very low, beneath the real level of inflation. It is a matter of allowing, not only the U.S., but also Europe and Japan, to cope with their mountain of debt while offering minimal rates. Any bond yield increase [on public debt] could lead these states to bankruptcy. Moreover, in the medium term, this lax practice will have an inflationary effect which will devalue the public debt and reduce, in real terms, the financing burden. Given the particular role of the dollar in the global economy the U.S. Federal Reserve is the only central bank that can afford to pursue such a policy, now practised on an elevated scale. Any other national currency would be attacked by the markets and heavily devalued. The Fed is the only central bank that is able to print money and to have this additional money accepted by foreign economic agents. The monetisation of the U.S. debt, in fueling financial markets, facilitates the launching of speculative operations against the euro zone at little cost. It is in line with the EU’s objectives, for it allows the market to rally and to exert pressure on European populations, to make them accept a drastic reduction in their living standards. The fiscal policies instituted by the member states will prevent any economic recovery, further undermine the public finances and lay claim for further transfers of income from wage-earners to banks and businesses. The stuttering of the Euro crisis is far from over. The heralded intention to discount anew the grading of Spanish government debt by the U.S. ratings agency Moody’s [7], owing to its heavy refinancing needs in 2011, does not contradict this diagnostic. Jean-Claude Paye Belgian sociologist and essayist. His latest published works are La Fin de l’État de droit, La Dispute 2004; and Global War on Liberty, Telos Press 2007. This author’s articles To send a message Translated by Evan Jones. [1] “The EU and the Hedge Funds: regulation or the relinquishment of European sovereignty?”, by Jean-Claude Paye, Voltaire Network, 22 November 2010. [2] “La FED va injecter 600 milliards de dollars dans l’économie américaine”, by Audrey Fournier, Le Monde, 4 November 2010. [3] “La Banque centrale européenne prolonge ses mesures exceptionnelles de soutien”, by Mathilde Farine, Le Temps, 3 December 2010. [4] “La BCE poursuit son programme de rachat d’obligations publiques”, by Audrey Fournier, Le Monde, 2 December 2010. [5] “Les Etats-Unis à l’origine des tensions au sein de la zone euro”, by Sébastien Dubas, Le Temps, 3 December 2010. [6] Manifeste des économistes atterrés. Crise et dette en Europe : 10 fausses évidences, 22 mesures en débat pour sortir de l’impasse, 14 September 2010. [7] “Moody’s envisage une nouvelle dégradation de la note de l’Espagne”, Le Monde with AFP, 15 December 2010.

READ FULL STORY HERE

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
Global Research Articles by Albert Einstein

READ FULL STORY HERE

by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

Global Research, January 1, 2011
TheNewAmericanEmpire.com

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790), American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman (1775)

“Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.”Norman Vincent Peale (1898 –1993), American Christian preacher and author

“A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. …At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration.” George Orwell (1903-1950) (Eric Arthur Blair), (book: 1984)

“Since information gives power, access to personal files can lead to unreasonable pressures, even blackmail, especially against those with the least resources, people who depend upon public programs, for example. Big Brother isn’t a camera. Big Brother is a computer.” C.J. Howard, political novel “Cybercash”

In 2049, when the 100th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell political novel “1984” will be celebrated, it will be recalled that the immediate post September 11, 2001 period marked the beginning of a gradual decline in personal liberty and freedom, especially in the United States but also elsewhere, and the emergence of a great information-obsessed Leviathan. Freedom rarely disappears in one fell swoop. Its disappearance is rather the end result of a thousand encroachments.

Pushed to the extreme and without clear democratic oversight, it becomes the mark of a totalitarian state, when authorities feel that they never have enough information on the people. It is because information is power and state bureaucrats and politicians naturally like to be in control; on the one hand, releasing as little information about their own actions through an imposed secrecy, and on the other, accumulating as much information as possible about the citizens.

And today, modern governments have all the tools to transform their country into a creeping police state, more so now then ever before, in this electronic age. They have access to information technology that previous full-fledged “police state” governments could only have dreamed about.

Nowadays, with super computers and revolutionary new models to gather information and build databases, governments, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians, are in a position as never before to accumulate and correlate tremendous amounts of personal information on their citizens, from public (federal, state and local) as well as from a plethora of private sources. Government intelligence on each and every citizen is thus rendered much easier and, I would add, much more frightening. Indeed, the potential for abuse is enormous.

In 2002, for example, retired Vice Admiral John Poindexter proposed that the U.S. government create a tracking and monitoring system called “Total Information Awareness”, in order for the U.S. government to gather information in a preventive way about individuals from widely varied sources, including tax records, telephone calling records, credit card charges, banking transactions, airline or ship reservations, and various biometric databases, without taking into consideration civil liberties or a citizens’ right to privacy, the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974, or without having to request search warrants and without having to give prior notice to the persons involved. —The pretext was to allow the government to thwart possible terrorist activity, thus creating an unlimited appetite for information.

Well, there are clear signs that this massive data mining system on individuals is now solidly in place and is in full operation and can be expected to grow over time. George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s network of fusion centers, launched in 2003, has allowed the government to centralize a host of previously disparate information about Americans and foreigners alike, whether related to personal and business records, drivers licenses, local taxes, local infractions, police records, etc., through a host of coordinated information-sharing networks. (N.B.: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on November 25, 2002 and is the domestic equivalent of the Department of Defense.)

Secondly, central provisions of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, allow the government to operate roving wire taps, search any individual’s business, personal, and even library records upon presentation of a national security letter, and spy on so-called “lone wolf” suspects, i.e., foreign nationals who have no known links to groups designated as terrorist. On this, the current Obama administration, by extending those provisions, is scarcely different than the previous Bush administration.

Thirdly, since passports and tight intelligence screening have been made a requirement for most international travel by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, since January 1, 2008, every individual traveling in and out of the United States has all his or her whereabouts and movements recorded so the government knows at all times his or her address and the places he or she has traveled to and from.

For instance, U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s recent decision to use full-body airport X-ray scanners and full body groping at airports is another example where so-called security procedures are applied blindly and indiscriminately. There is more to come, since it has been announced that such invasive intelligence screening is coming to hotels and shopping malls, as well as to trains, buses and ports, etc.

These are some of the main features of the new government apparatus to gather information on people. There are many others. —Take for instance the requirement, since 2002, that all American high schools must give Pentagon military recruiters the names and contact information of all their juniors and seniors. Failure to comply on their part may result in the loss of government funding.

The logical next step for the U.S. government would be to follow a recent Italy’s lead and outlaw outright the use of cash for most transactions, except for small ones, thus providing the government even more minute information about an individual’s income, purchases and displacements. Nothing will escape the watching eye of the government in the electronic age. People will be filed, photographed and corralled.

Indeed, the way mass government surveillance systems are growing, by year 2020, chances are good that Americans will be living in a “Brave New World”!

—CYBER BIG BROTHER would know it all and it will be watching you.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics” at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.

The French version of the book is also now available. See: www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/ or on Amazon Canada
Rodrigue Tremblay is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rodrigue Tremblay

READ FULL STORY HERE

January 1st, 2011
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

Wikileaks, the United States, Sweden, and Devil’s Island

December 16 … I’m standing in the snow in front of the White House … Standing with Veterans for Peace … I’m only a veteran of standing in front of the White House; the first time was February 1965, handing out flyers against the war in Vietnam. I was working for the State Department at the time and my biggest fear was that someone from that noble institution would pass by and recognize me.

Five years later I was still protesting Vietnam, although long gone from the State Department. Then came Cambodia. And Laos. Soon, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Then Panama was the new great threat to America, to freedom and democracy and all things holy and decent, so it had to be bombed without mercy. Followed by the first war against the people of Iraq, and the 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia. Then the land of Afghanistan had rained down upon it depleted uranium, napalm, phosphorous bombs, and other witches’ brews and weapons of the chemical dust; then Iraq again. And I’ve skipped a few. I think I hold the record for most times picketing the White House by a right-handed batter.

And through it all, the good, hard-working, righteous people of America have believed mightily that their country always means well; some even believe to this day that we never started a war, certainly nothing deserving of the appellation “war of aggression”.

On that same snowy day last month Julian Assange of Wikileaks was freed from prison in London and told reporters that he was more concerned that the United States might try to extradite him than he was about being extradited to Sweden, where he presumably faces “sexual” charges. ¹

That’s a fear many political and drug prisoners in various countries have expressed in recent years. The United States is the new Devil’s Island of the Western world. From the mid-19th century to the mid-20th, political prisoners were shipped to that god-forsaken strip of French land off the eastern coast of South America. One of the current residents of the new Devil’s Island is Bradley Manning, the former US intelligence analyst suspected of leaking diplomatic cables to Wikileaks. Manning has been imprisoned for seven months, first in Kuwait, then at a military base in Virginia, and faces virtual life in prison if found guilty, of something. Without being tried or convicted of anything, he is allowed only very minimal contact with the outside world; or with people, daylight, or news; among the things he is denied are a pillow, sheets, and exercise; his sleep is restricted and frequently interrupted. See Glenn Greenwald’s discussion of how Manning’s treatment constitutes torture. ²

A friend of the young soldier says that many people are reluctant to talk about Manning’s deteriorating physical and mental condition because of government harassment, including surveillance, seizure of their computer without a warrant, and even attempted bribes. “This has had such an intimidating effect that many are afraid to speak out on his behalf.” ³ A developer of the transparency software used by Wikileaks was detained for several hours last summer by federal agents at a Newark, New Jersey airport, where he was questioned about his connection to Wikileaks and Assange as well as his opinions about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ⁴

This is but a tiny incident from the near-century buildup of the American police state, from the Red Scare of the 1920s to the McCarthyism of the 1950s to the crackdown against Central American protesters in the 1980s … elevated by the War on Drugs … now multiplied by the War on Terror. It’s not the worst police state in history; not even the worst police state in the world today; but nonetheless a police state, and certainly the most pervasive police state ever — a Washington Post study has just revealed that there are 4,058 separate federal, state and local “counterterrorism” organizations spread across the United States, each with its own responsibilities and jurisdictions. ⁵ The police of America, of many types, generally get what and who they want. If the United States gets its hands on Julian Assange, under any legal pretext, fear for him; it might be the end of his life as a free person; the actual facts of what he’s done or the actual wording of US laws will not matter; hell hath no fury like an empire scorned.

John Burns, chief foreign correspondent for The New York Times, after interviewing Assange, stated: “He is profoundly of the conviction that the United States is a force for evil in the world, that it’s destructive of democracy.” ⁶ Can anyone who believes that be entitled to a full measure of human rights on Devil’s Island?

The Wikileaks documents may not produce any world-changing revelations, but every day they are adding to the steady, gradual erosion of people’s belief in the US government’s good intentions, which is necessary to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination. Many more individuals over the years would have been standing in front of the White House if they had had access to the plethora of information that floods people today; which is not to say that we would have succeeded in stopping any of the wars; that’s a question of to what extent the United States is a democracy.

One further consequence of the release of the documents may be to put an end to the widespread belief that Sweden, or the Swedish government, is peaceful, progressive, neutral and independent. Stockholm’s behavior in this matter and others has been as American-poodle-like as London’s, as it lined itself up with an Assange-accuser who has been associated with right-wing anti-Castro Cubans, who are of course US-government-supported. This is the same Sweden that for some time in recent years was working with the CIA on its torture-rendition flights and has about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Sweden is the world’s largest per capita arms exporter, and for years has taken part in US/NATO military exercises, some within its own territory. The left should get themselves a new hero-nation. Try Cuba.

There’s also the old stereotype held by Americans of Scandinavians practicing a sophisticated and tolerant attitude toward sex, an image that was initiated, or enhanced, by the celebrated 1967 Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow), which had been banned for awhile in the United States. And now what do we have? Sweden sending Interpol on an international hunt for a man who apparently upset two women, perhaps for no more than sleeping with them both in the same week.

And while they’re at it, American progressives should also lose their quaint belief that the BBC is somehow a liberal broadcaster. Americans are such suckers for British accents. The BBC’s Today presenter, John Humphrys, asked Assange: “Are you a sexual predator?” Assange said the suggestion was “ridiculous”, adding: “Of course not”. Humphrys then asked Assange how many woman he had slept with. ⁷ Would even Fox News have descended to that level? I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He would then have known precisely how to reply to such a question: “You mean including your mother?”

Another group of people who should learn a lesson from all this are the knee-reflex conspiracists. Several of them have already written me snide letters informing me of my naiveté in not realizing that Israel is actually behind the release of the Wikileaks documents; which is why, they inform me, that nothing about Israel is mentioned. I had to inform them that I had already seen a few documents putting Israel in a bad light. I’ve since seen others, and Assange, in an interview with Al Jazeera on December 23, stated that only a meager number of files related to Israel had been published so far because the publications in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish much sensitive information about Israel. (Imagine the flak Germany’s Der Spiegel would get hit with.) “There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel,” said Assange. “In the next six months we intend to publish more files.” ⁸

Naturally, several other individuals have informed me that it’s the CIA that is actually behind the document release.

The right to secrecy

Many of us are pretty tired of supporters of Israel labeling as “anti-Semitic” most any criticism of Israeli policies, which is virtually never an appropriate accusation. Consider the Webster Dictionary definition: “Anti-Semite. One who discriminates against or is hostile to or prejudiced against Jews.” Notice that the state of Israel is not mentioned, or in any way implied.

Here’s what real anti-Semitism looks like. Listen to former president Richard Nixon: “The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality. … most of our Jewish friends … they are all basically people who have a sense of inferiority and have got to compensate.” This is from a tape of a conversation at the White House, February 13, 1973, recently released. ⁹ These tapes, and there are a large number of them, are the Wikileaks of an earlier age.

Yet, as the prominent conservative Michael Medved pointed out after the release of Nixon’s remarks: “Ironically, though, no American did more to rescue the Jewish people when it counted most: after the 1973 Egyptian-Syrian surprise attack destroyed a third of Israel’s air force and killed the American equivalent of 200,000 Israelis, Nixon overruled his own Pentagon and ordered immediate re-supply. To this day, Israelis feel gratitude for this decisiveness that enabled the Jewish state to turn the tide of war.” ¹⁰ So, was Richard Nixon anti-Semitic? And should his remarks be kept secret?

In another of his recent interviews, Julian Assange was asked whether he thought that “a state has a right to have any secrets at all.” He conceded that there are circumstances when institutions have such a need, “but that is not to say that all others must obey that need. The media has an obligation to the public to get out information that the public needs to know.” ¹¹

I would add that the American people — more than any other people — have a need to know what their government is up to around the world because their government engages in aggressive actions more than any other government, continuously bombing and sending young men and women to kill and die. Americans need to know what their psychopathic leaders are really saying to each other and to foreign leaders about all this shedding of blood. Any piece of such information might be used as a weapon to prevent yet another Washington War. Michael Moore has recently written:
We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a Wikileaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.
And, dear comrades, let us not forget: Our glorious leaders spy on us all the time; no communication of ours, from phone call to email, is secret from them; nothing in our bank accounts or our bedrooms is guaranteed any kind of privacy if they wish to know about it. Recently, the FBI raided the midwest homes of a number of persons active in solidarity work with Palestinians, Colombians, and others. The agents spent many hours going through each shelf and drawer, carting away dozens of boxes of personal belongings. So what kind of privacy and secrecy should the State Department be entitled to?

Preparing for the propaganda onslaught

February 6 will mark the centenary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, president of the United States from 1981 to 1989. The conservatives have wasted no time in starting the show. On New Years Day a 55-foot long, 26-foot high float honoring Reagan was part of the annual Rose Parade in Pasadena, California. To help you cope with, hopefully even counter, the misinformation and the omissions that are going to swamp the media for the next few months, here is some basic information about the great man’s splendid achievements, first in foreign policy:

• NicaraguaFor eight terribly long years the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Ronald Reagan’s proxy army, the Contras. It was all-out war from Washington, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the Sandinista government — burning down schools and medical clinics, mining harbors, bombing and strafing, raping and torturing. These Contras were the charming gentlemen Reagan called “freedom fighters” and the “moral equivalent of our founding fathers”.
• El SalvadorSalvador’s dissidents tried to work within the system. But with US support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors and strikers. When the dissidents took to the gun and civil war, the Carter administration and then even more so, the Reagan administration, responded with unlimited money, military aid, and training in support of the government and its death squads and torture, the latter with the help of CIA torture manuals. US military and CIA personnel played an active role on a continuous basis. The result was 75,000 civilian deaths; meaningful social change thwarted; a handful of the wealthy still owned the country; the poor remained as ever; dissidents still had to fear right-wing death squads; there was to be no profound social change in El Salvador while Ronnie sat in the White House with Nancy.
• GuatemalaIn 1954, a CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims — indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century. For eight of those years the Reagan administration played a major role.

  Perhaps the worst of the military dictators was General Efraín Ríos Montt, who carried out a near-holocaust against the indians and peasants, for which he was widely condemned in the world. In December 1982, Reagan went to visit the Guatemalan dictator. At a press conference of the two men, Ríos Montt was asked about the Guatemalan policy of scorched earth. He replied “We do not have a policy of scorched earth. We have a policy of scorched communists.” After the meeting, referring to the allegations of extensive human-rights abuses, Reagan declared that Ríos Montt was getting “a bad deal” from the media.

• GrenadaReagan invaded this tiny country in October 1983, an invasion totally illegal and immoral, and surrounded by lies (such as “endangered” American medical students). The invasion put into power individuals more beholden to US foreign policy objectives.
• AfghanistanAfter the Carter administration provoked a Soviet invasion, Reagan came to power to support the Islamic fundamentalists in their war to eject the Soviets and the secular government, which honored women’s rights. In the end, the United States and the fundamentalists “won”, women’s rights and the rest of Afghanistan lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees; in total about half the population. And many thousands of anti-American Islamic fundamentalists, trained and armed by the US, on the loose to terrorize the world, to this day.

  “To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom,” declared Reagan. “Their courage teaches us a great lesson — that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.” ¹²

• The Cold WarAs to Reagan’s alleged role in ending the Cold War … pure fiction. He prolonged it. Read the story in one of my books. ¹³

Some other examples of the remarkable amorality of Ronald Wilson Reagan and the feel-good heartlessness of his administration:

Reagan, in his famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing”, which lifted him to national political status: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”
“Undermining health, safety and environmental regulation. Reagan decreed such rules must be subjected to regulatory impact analysis — corporate-biased cost-benefit analyses, carried out by the Office of Management and Budget. The result: countless positive regulations discarded or revised based on pseudo-scientific conclusions that the cost to corporations would be greater than the public benefit.”

“Kick-starting the era of structural adjustment. It was under Reagan administration influence that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank began widely imposing the policy package known as structural adjustment — featuring deregulation, privatization, emphasis on exports, cuts in social spending — that has plunged country after country in the developing world into economic destitution. The IMF chief at the time was honest about what was to come, saying in 1981 that, for low-income countries, ‘adjustment is particularly costly in human terms’.”

“Silence on the AIDS epidemic. Reagan didn’t mention AIDS publicly until 1987, by which point AIDS had killed 19,000 in the United States.”

– Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman ¹⁴
“Reagan’s election changed the political reality. His agenda was rolling back the welfare state, and his budgets included a wide range of cuts for social programs. He was also very strategic about the process. One of his first targets was Legal Aid. This program, which provides legal services for low-income people, was staffed largely by progressive lawyers, many of whom used it as a base to win precedent-setting legal disputes against the government. Reagan drastically cut back the program’s funding. He also explicitly prohibited the agency from taking on class-action suits against the government — law suits that had been used with considerable success to expand the rights of low- and moderate-income families.”

“The Reagan administration also made weakening the power of unions a top priority. The people he appointed to the National Labor Relations Board were qualitatively more pro-management than appointees by prior Democratic or Republican presidents. This allowed companies to ignore workers’ rights with impunity. Reagan also made the firing of strikers an acceptable business practice when he fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Many large corporations quickly embraced the practice. … The net effect of these policies was that union membership plummeted, going from nearly 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006. ”

– Dean Baker ¹⁵
Reaganomics: a tax policy based on a notion of incentives which says that “the rich aren’t working because they have too little money, while the poor aren’t working because they have too much.”

– John Kenneth Galbraith
“According to the nostrums of Reagan Age America, the current Chinese system — in equal measure capitalist and authoritarian — cannot actually exist. Capitalism spread democracy, we were told ad nauseam by a steady stream of conservative hacks, free-trade apologists, government officials and American companies doing business in China. Given enough Starbuckses and McDonald’s, provided with sufficient consumer choice, China would surely become a democracy.”

– Harold Meyerson ¹⁶
Throughout the early and mid-1980s, the Reagan administration declared that the Russians were spraying toxic chemicals over Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan — the so-called “yellow rain” — and had caused more than ten thousand deaths by 1982 alone, (including, in Afghanistan, 3,042 deaths attributed to 47 separate incidents between the summer of 1979 and the summer of 1981, so precise was the information). President Reagan himself denounced the Soviet Union thusly more than 15 times in documents and speeches. The “yellow rain”, it turned out, was pollen-laden feces dropped by huge swarms of honeybees flying far overhead. ¹⁷

Reagan’s long-drawn-out statements re: Contragate (the scandal involving the covert sale of weapons to Iran to enable Reaganites to continue financing the Contras in the war against the Nicaraguan government after the US Congress cut off funding for the Contras) can be summarized as follows:

• I didn’t know what was happening.
• If I did know, I didn’t know enough.
• If I knew enough, I didn’t know it in time.
• If I knew it in time, it wasn’t illegal.
• If it was illegal, the law didn’t apply to me.
• If the law applied to me, I didn’t know what was happening.

Notes

1. Sunday Telegraph (Australia), December 19, 2010 ^?
2. Salon.com, December 15, 2010, “The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention“. See also his attorney’s account of Manning’s typical day; and Washington Post, December 16, 2010^?
3. The Guardian (London), December 17, 2010 ^?
4. New York Times, December 19, 2010 ^?
5. Washington Post, December 20, 2010 ^?
6. Diane Rehm show, National Public Radio, Dec. 9, 2010^?
7. The Guardian (London), December 21, 2010 ^?
8. Information Clearing House, December 23 2010, “WikiLeaks to Release Israel Documents in Six Months“^?
9. Washington Post, December 12, 2010 ^?
10. From Medved’s radio show, December 14, 2010; “Nixon: The Anti-Semitic Savior of Israel” ^?
11. Al Jazeera, December 22 2010, Frost Over the World: Julian Assange interview ^?
12. March 21, 1983, in the White House ^?
13. “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II”, p.17-18. Also for the five countries listed above, see the respective chapters in this book. ^?
14. June, 2004; Mokhiber is editor of Corporate Crime Reporter; Weissman, editor of the Multinational Monitor, both in Washington, D.C. ^?
15. April, 2007; Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC ^?
16. Washington Post columnist, June 3, 2009 ^?
17. “Killing Hope”, p.349 ^?

–

William Blum is the author of:

• Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
• West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
• Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

READ FULL STORY HERE

Note the obvious drop in velocity over the last four years on the same date in December in these photos.
December 19, 2007

Relative Gulf Stream velocity fields are derived from near-realtime data from the radar altimeters of the satellites Envisat, Jason-1, and Jason-2.

These pictographs are of velocities of the Gulf Stream in the vicinity of the East coast of North-America. Velocities are represented in meters per second. Note that the velocity as it approaches Europe has radically slowed down over the past four years. Some have said that the BP Oil Spill is finishing off the already slowing Gulf Stream.

Find Satellite Data Source Here To Do Your Own Research

On December 22 both houses of the U.S. Congress unanimously passed a bill authorizing $725 billion for next year’s Defense Department budget.

The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, was approved by all 100 senators as required and by a voice vote in the House.

The House had approved the bill, now sent to President Barack Obama to sign into law, five days earlier in a 341-48 roll call, but needed to vote on it again after the Senate altered it in the interim.

The proposed figure for the Pentagon’s 2011 war chest includes, in addition to the base budget, $158.7 billion for what are now euphemistically referred to as overseas contingency operations: The military occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

The $725 billion figure, although $17 billion more than the White House had requested, is not the final word on the subject, however, as supplements could be demanded as early as the beginning of next year, especially in regard to the Afghan war that will then be in its eleventh calendar year.

Even as it currently is, the amount is the highest in constant dollars (pegged at any given year’s dollar and adjusted for inflation) since 1945, the final year of the Second World War. With recent U.S. census figures at 308 million, next year the Pentagon will spend $2,354 for every citizen of the country at the $725 billion price tag alone.

Last year’s Pentagon budget, by way of comparison, was $680 billion, a base budget of $533.8 billion and the remainder for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In July of this year Congress approved the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act which contained an additional $37 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Next year’s defense authorization of $725 billion compares to, according to the Center for Defense Information, a Pentagon budget of $444.6 billion in 1946; $460.4 billion in 1968, the highest yearly amount during the Vietnam War; and $443.4 billion in 1988, the highest during the eight years of the Ronald Reagan administration’s massive military buildup. (Numbers in 2004 constant dollars.) [1]

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates American military spending for 2009 to have accounted for 43 percent of the world total. Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, earlier this year estimated the 2010 U.S. defense budget to constitute 47 percent of total worldwide military expenditures and to amount to 19 percent of all American federal spending.

In addition, Pentagon spending has increased by 100 percent since 1998 and “the Obama budget plans to spend more on the Pentagon over eight years than any administration has since World War II.” [2]

With 2.25 million full-time civilian and military personnel, excluding part-time National Guard and Reserve members, the Defense Department is the U.S.’s largest employer, outstripping Walmart with 1.4 million employees and the U.S Post Office with 599,000. [3]

“Add in what Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and the Energy departments spend on defense and total US military spending will reach $861 billion in fiscal 2011, exceeding that of all other nations combined,” according to Todd Harrison, senior fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. [4]

In April Robert Higgs of The Independent Institute advocated that the budgets – in part or in whole – of the departments of Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Energy, State and Treasury and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should be calculated in the real military budget, which would in 2009 would have increased it to $901.5 billion.

“Adding [the] interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.”

His numbers are:

National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2009
(billions of dollars)

Department of Defense 636.5

Department of Energy (nuclear weapons and environmental cleanup) 16.7

Department of State (plus international assistance) 36.3

Department of Veterans Affairs 95.5

Department of Homeland Security 51.7

Department of the Treasury (for the Military Retirement Fund) 54.9

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1/2 of total) 9.6

Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays 126.3

Total 1,027.5 [5]

The above-cited Carl Conetta stated at the beginning of this year that the 2011 Pentagon budget will mark a milestone in that “the inflation-adjusted rise in spending since 1998 will probably exceed 100% in real terms by the end of the fiscal year.

“Taking the 2011 budget into account, the Defense Department has been given about $7.2 trillion since 1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending ended. Approximately $2.5 trillion of this total is due to spending above the annual level set in 1998. This added amount constitutes the post-1998 spending surge.”

Based on constant 2010 dollars, Conetta further details that the Ronald Reagan administration spent $4.1 trillion on the Defense Department, the Georgia W. Bush administration spent $4.65 trillion and “Barack Obama plans to spend more than $5 trillion.”

He also compares the two previous largest post-World War Two surges in U.S. military spending to the current one:

From 1958-1968: 43 percent

From: 1975-1985 57 percent

In regards to which he said, “the 1998-2011 surge is as large as these two predecessors combined.”

His calculations also include a growth in Pentagon contract employees of 40 percent since 1989, thereby freeing up uniformed service members for more direct combat roles.

The U.S. share of global military spending grew from 28 percent during the Cold War to 41 percent by 2006 and that of NATO member states, including the U.S., from 49 percent to 70 percent in the same period.

Contrariwise, the “group of potential adversary and competitor states has gone from claiming a 42% share to just 16% in 2006.

“Had Ronald Reagan – who is generally regarded a hawkish president – wanted to achieve in the 1980s the ratio between US and adversary spending that existed in 2006, he would have had to quadruple his defense budgets.

“And, of course, since 2006, the US defense budget has not receded, but instead grown by another 20% in real terms.

“By 2011, the United States will probably account for more than half of all global military spending calculated in terms of ‘purchasing power parity’ (which corrects for differences between national economies).” [6]

The defense authorization bill passed on December 22, despite its monumental and unprecedented size, has been routinely described in the American press as stripped-down, scaled-down and pared-down because an arms manufacturer or two, their lobbyists and obedient congresspersons didn’t get every new defense contract and weapons project they desired three days before Christmas.

The December 22 vote in the House was, as Associated Press accurately described it, conducted without debate or discussion – and “without major restrictions on the conduct of operations” – particularly in regards to the $158.7 billion for the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, $75 million to train and equip the armed forces of Yemen for the counterinsurgency campaign in that country and $205 million more to fund Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield.

Regarding the first vote on December 17: “This year’s bill is mostly noteworthy for its broad bipartisan support during wartime….Unlike during the height of the Iraq War when anti-war Democrats tried to use the legislation to force troops home, the House passed the defense bill Friday with almost no debate on Afghanistan.” [7]

Aside from voting for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as a stand-alone measure, excising an amendment to allow abortions to be performed on military bases, and refusing reparations to victims of the World War Two Japanese occupation of the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam (apparently $100 million for the purpose was considered excessive in the $725 billion authorization), there was no meaningful dissent in either house of Congress.

Increasing the U.S. war budget to the highest level it’s been since the largest and deadliest war in history while no nation or group of nations poses a serious threat to the country, and to a degree where it effectively exceeds the defense spending of the rest of the world combined, is all in the proper order of things for the world’s sole military superpower.

1) Center for Defense Information
http://www.cdi.org/news/mrp/us-military-spending.pdf
2) Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2010
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.-Francis/2010/0329/Defense-budget-After-Afghanistan-and-Iraq-withdrawal-a-peace-dividend
3) Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2010
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/David-R.-Francis/2010/0628/Cuts-to-US-defense-budget-look-inevitable
4) Ibid
5) Robert Higgs, Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think
The Independent Institute, April 17, 2010
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=5827
6) Carl Conetta, Trillions to Burn? A Quick Guide to the Surge in Pentagon
Spending
Project on Defense Alternatives, February 5 2010
http://www.comw.org/pda/1002BudgetSurge.html
7) Associated Press, December 17, 2010

READ MORE HERE

by Barbara Honegger

The author is a Senior Military Affairs Journalist, and former

White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President.

Ms. Honegger is the author of the 9/11 expose “The Pentagon Attack Papers” http://www.truthjihadblogspot.com

also published as the Appendix in The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs;

and October Surprise (Tudor, 1989), the first book to reveal the true origins            of the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal.

The below article was published in the Nov. 2008 issue of

the independent Washington, D.C. paper The Rock Creek Free Press

and as a headline article on www.OpEdNews.com.

By claiming that Bruce Ivins, a bio-warfare expert with the U.S. Army’s Ft. Detrick laboratory, was behind the anthrax attacks, the Bush Administration officially acknowledged that those attacks – WMD attacks, as bio-weapons like anthrax are a category of weapons of mass destruction — were perpetrated by a U.S. Government insider (and not by bin Laden, Iraq, or any other foreigner). (1)

Though the Bush Admin. alleged the anthrax letters were the work of a ‘lone nut’, Ivins, attorney and anthrax attack investigator Barry Kissin has shown they weren’t done by a rogue operator but by the CIA (and DIA) and its military-intelligence contractor Battelle Memorial Institute (3) institutionally — i.e. that the anthrax letter attacks were a true ‘inside job.’  Thus, any significant evidence linking the secret-but-official insider anthrax attacks to 9/11 would point toward the same government-military insiders being behind both 9/11 and the anthrax letters.  That is, showing official sanction for the anthrax attacks is a ‘back door’ way of showing official sanction for the mass murders of Sept. 11, 2001.

So what is that evidence linking anthrax to Sept. 11th?

1) The anthrax in the letters was super-weaponized, and whatever insiders sent them wanted Congress, the media and the public to believe they were directly linked to 9/11:

As is well known, the date handwritten on the letters mailed with the anthrax is Sept. 11, 2001. Though the official story — that the first letter, to Florida photo journalist Bob Stevens, wasn’t mailed until after 9/11 and so anthrax wasn’t part of the actual 9/11 plot — it’s clear that whoever wrote and dated the letters and added the super-weaponized (3) U.S. military anthrax wanted the public to jump to the conclusion that there was a direct connection, and that Islamic terrorists – the official story 9/11 attackers — were behind both.

2) Super-weaponizing anthrax was completely beyond the capability of ‘Al Qaeda’, but was one of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s top priorities.

Two days before 9/11, on Sept. 9, 2001, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) held a rare press conference at which it revealed that on his first day as Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld had ordered the DIA to take Project Jefferson, a secret and illegal anthrax weaponization program (probably using the Ames strain contained in the anthrax letters) to the next level of lethality and that it had achieved ‘success’ earlier that month in a classified field test.

The mainstream press reported this event on Sept. 10, the day before 9/11.
3)  New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) preplanned a bio/chem-terrorism exercise likely involving an anthrax scenario for which personnel were already in NYC on 9/11, and Giuliani’s just-previous OEM director urged White House personnel to go on the anti-anthrax drug Cipro on Sept. 11 itself.

Mayor Giuliani testified to the 9/11 Commission that his Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had scheduled a bio/chem-terrorism response exercise, called TRIPOD II, to begin the day after 9/11, Sept. 12.  But personnel who were to take part in the exercise were already in New York City on Sept. 10.  On the morning of Sept. 11, OEM personnel were cleared out of their WTC7 offices and moved to the exercise command center on a New York pier, and thus conveniently out of the building when it was brought down by military-grade thermate explosives later that day — controlled demolition charges that required weeks to pre-place, the very weeks that the exercise was being planned.

New Jersey’s Ft. Monmouth, an Army base just across the water from the Twin Towers, also held a ‘II’ level exercise, called TIMELY ALERT II, on 9/11 (4), almost certainly coordinated with Giuliani’s TRIPOD II, further evidence that the latter was also scheduled to begin on Sept. 11.

The then-recent director of Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management, Jerome “Jerry” Hauer –    a bio-warfare expert and one of the signers of the pre-9/11 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) manifesto calling for “a new Pearl Harbor” (like 9/11) who had been a central player in scripting the TRIPOD II bio-chem attack scenario exercise — was an expert in the response to building collapses (5) and managing director of Kroll Associates before and on 9/11, the company that also managed Giuliani’s OEM ‘bunker’ in WTC 7 and provided ‘security’ for the World Trade Center, including all three buildings brought down by controlled demolition that morning.  He thus oversaw personnel with the complete access needed to pre-place explosive charges.  It was Hauer who had advocated, despite the 1993 terrorist attack on WTC1, that Giuliani locate his OEM, from which a response to an expected follow up attack on the WTC would need to be orchestrated, next door in WTC7 (6). The new OEM opened on the 23rd floor of WTC7 in June 1999, where Hauer, its director, had his office. Hauer became a National Security Adviser to the National Institutes of Health on Sept. 10, the very day TRIPOD II personnel arrived in New York City, from which new NIH post he managed the Bush Administration’s ‘response’ to the imminent anthrax attacks, which falsely pointed the finger at Iraq and diverted attention from the true insider anthrax killers. Indeed, it was Hauer who zealously pushed the ‘bin Laden did it and just planes-and-fires brought down the Towers’ official story on CBS News on 9/11 in the immediate aftermath of the attacks before anyone not on the inside could have possibly determined the actual cause of the collapses, taking pains to insist that explosives were not involved, when they were. And according to mainstream press reports and a lawsuit     by the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch, it was Hauer who personally advised the White House to take anti-anthrax Cipro antibiotics on 9/11 (7). [Other reports state White House personnel were put on Cipro nearly a month before the attacks (8). Did Hauer recommend that White House personnel be put on an anti-anthrax antibiotics on 9/11 because he had reason to believe the 9/11 attacks would also involve anthrax and/or because he had advance knowledge there would be subsequent imminent anthrax attacks?

4) The FBI had been told the 9/11 attacks would involve anthrax. On Sept. 11, Janette MacKinlay lived in a fourth floor apartment overlooking what was soon to become ‘the pit’ of the World Trade Center.

Her neighbor and close friend Bruno told her later that day or early the next morning that he had been pulled off the street into a bank lobby next to the WTC towers by an FBI agent on the morning of Sept. 11 to protect them from the dust cloud from the collapsing tower, and was told by the agent that “We were told this was going to happen and that it would involve anthrax.” Another FBI agent told a woman about to enter the NBC Bldg. that she should leave immediately because “there are explosives in the building as well as in the WTC.”  Clearly, the FBI had been pre-alerted because their own offices were in the WTC -- in WTC7 -- which, like WTC1 and WTC2, was pre-wired for a controlled demolition take down that day. MacKinlay had the presence of mind to collect the dust from the cloud that poured into her apartment overlooking the ‘pit’, and it is this dust that physicist Prof. Steven Jones has analyzed and in which he found military-grade thermate as well as other high explosives, proving the presence of pre-placed charges throughout the towers to which ‘Al Qaeda’ could not have had access to set.

Though no anthrax has been reported in the dust -- though it may not have yet been tested for -- if TRIPOD II were at least in part on an anthrax attack scenario, it wouldn’t have used actual anthrax, but an anthrax simulant -- an anthrax-like powder that would disperse through the air in a way similar to the real thing. Experts should be consulted for the chemical composition of anthrax simulants and the dust from the WTC collapses tested for these simulants.

5) In the minds of the insider scriptwriters for the Sept. 2001 New York City TRIPOD II emergency response exercise, an attack on the World Trade Center was already associated with bio/chem terrorism. According to respected New York Times science writer William Broad, the plan for the 1993 attack on WTC1, for which alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheihk Mohammed’s nephew Ramzi Yousef is in prison for life, involved a plot to push cyanide into New York City. This is reported in Germs, Broad’s book co-authored with Judith Miller. Though the latter’s credibility has been compromised, Broad remains a respected journalist.

6) Rudolph Giuliani bought the Florida-building crime scene of the first anthrax attack. Anthrax was found throughout the American Media, Inc. (AMI) building in Boca Raton, Florida where the first anthrax letter victim, Robert Stevens, worked -- as confirmed by AMI employees whose desks were near Stevens’ whom I have interviewed. A ‘don’t cross’ line was put around the building by the FBI, which had been “told 9/11 was coming and that it would involve anthrax.” AMI was forced to move to another location and put the building up for sale. According to The New York Times, this first anthrax attack crime scene with evidence still in place was then bought (at an anthrax sale price) by former NYC Mayor Giuliani, overseer of the Sept. 11/12 TRIPOD II bio/chem-terrorism probable-anthrax-scenario exercise, who formed a partnership with a decontamination expert qualified to decontaminate the building. Giuliani thus controlled and oversaw the destruction of evidence at both the New York crime scene of the 9/11 attacks, the WTC, ordering the steel containing traces of controlled demolition explosives to be removed, and the crime scene of the first anthrax attack, America Media, Inc, in Florida.

The FBI had already joined the conspiracy to obstruct its own investigation of the anthrax attacks by “agreeing to the request” of Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine in Ames, Iowa to destroy its ‘library’ of over 100 vials of the Ames strain gathered since 1928 necessary for a definitive match against the anthrax in the mailed letters, which library was destroyed on Oct. 12, 2001, one week after Bob Stevens became the first victim. (9)

This Florida anthrax is critical because, according to press reports on Ivins’ alleged involvement, the anthrax in the mailed letters -- but not the ‘first’ anthrax sent to Stevens (the FBI claims no letter was found in connection with the anthrax recovered from Stevens’ computer keyboard but assumes a ‘missing’ letter) was traced back to a flask in Ivins’ laboratory. The Stevens anthrax is thus key to proving that Ivins, if he was involved at all, did not act alone, as it does not trace back to his flask, and because it’s the closest in time to 9/11 and so most likely to be directly linked to Sept. 11.

Before 9/11, one of the six official-story hijackers who lived in Boca Raton, Florida– home of American Media, Inc. where first anthrax attack victim Bob Stevens worked -- Ahmed Alhaznawi -- was treated at a Fort Lauderdale hospital for what the physician believed was cutaneous (skin) anthrax. (9a) And two other official-story hijackers, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Hamza Alghamdi, found their Boca Raton apartments with the help of  realtor Gloria Irish, whose husband Mike was the editor of The Sun tabloid produced out of AMI headquarters where Stevens worked and who (Mike Irish) flew a private plane out of the local airport where Sheehi and Alghamdi took lessons. (9b)

Based on the above, a reasonable case can be made that Giuliani’s Sept. 11/12 TRIPOD II bio/chem. terrorism response exercise was at least in part on an anthrax scenario, using an anthrax simulant; that the letters mailed slightly later with real anthrax may have been written or the text drafted for that exercise; and that Giuliani’s former Office of Emergency Management director and close friend Jerome Hauer advised White House staff to take anti-anthrax Cipro on 9/11 because he was afraid the anthrax attack exercise scenario might be about to ‘go live’ just as both the NORAD hijacked-plane ‘exercise’ and the NRO plane-crashing-into-tower ‘exercise’ had already just ‘gone live’ earlier the morning of Sept. 11 as parts of their 'game' scenarios suddenly turned horribly real.

If the Florida anthrax doesn’t link back to Ivins’ Ft. Detrick flask and Ivins, who worked on vaccines (bio-defense) and not its weaponization (bio-offense) wasn’t behind the attacks -- and neither, the government now claims, was Steven Hatfill whom the Bush Administration just agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle his case -- then who was?

The Trillion Spore Man

As detailed in the September issue of independent Washington, D.C. newspaper The Rock Creek Free Press in the lead article by Casey and Kissin, the key suspects are CIA/DIA contractor Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI); and, individually, William Patrick and Ken Alibek.

Battelle is a bio-defense (and, evidentially bio-offense) contractor located in West Jefferson,   Ohio, that has exclusive control of the Ames strain contained in the mailed anthrax letter. (10) In partnership with the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, Battelle ran Project Jefferson, the government’s covert bio-weapons program whose goal was to develop hyper-weaponized anthrax like that contained in the mailed letters (11) and which Rumsfeld ordered developed to the next level of lethality on his first day as Secretary of Defense.

William Patrick, a former top bio-scientist at Ft. Detrick and close colleague of former Giuliani OEM Director Jerry Hauer, was the mentor of initial FBI ‘person of interest’ in the anthrax attacks Steven Hatfill. Patrick holds five classified patents and trade secrets, including on how to hyper-weaponize anthrax to the 1 trillion spores per gram concentration contained in the letters mailed to Democratic Congressional leaders Senators Daschle and Leahy (12). After leaving Ft. Detrick, he was commissioned by his own protégé Hatfill, who then worked with Battelle contractual partner Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and probably also by Hauer who worked at SAIC with Hatfill -- to research and write a report on how mailed letters could be used as the vector for dispersing weaponized anthrax. (13)  On Sept. 9, two days before 9/11, Battelle’s contractor agency DIA announced the ‘success’ of Project Jefferson’s anthrax hyper-weaponization program. Following the Sept./Oct. 2001 letter mailings, some of which were reported to contain anthrax at 1 trillion spores per gram, a footnote in Patrick’s report stating that “We have now arrived at the point where we can purify [anthrax] to the extent of 1 trillion spores in a gram” was removed from publicly available copies. (13)

William Patrick worked with his close colleague and friend, former Soviet bio-weapons expert Ken Alibek, at Battelle, which also ran Project Clear Vision, a secret CIA program to reverse engineer dry-powder anthrax bombs produced by the former Soviet Union. Patrick and Alibek were the FBI’s first suspects in the anthrax attacks, but the initial FBI investigative team was taken off that focus and replaced by a new team that diverted attention to Hatfill. Director Mueller himself assured a Senator that the FBI “was not investigating, nor intending to investigate, anyone with, or formerly with, BMI [Battelle].” (14) Battelle is also a contractual partner with BioPort, and directs the anthrax production and experimentation program at the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, the  second ‘home’ in addition to Ft. Detrick of the Ames strain contained in the letters.

Hauer and Hatfill worked together at SAIC. (15)

Super-Military-Grade Nano Anthrax and Super-Military-Grade Nano Thermite: Calling Cards of the Real Mass Murderers of Both 9/11 and the Anthrax Attacks

It is extremely important for identifying the real mass murderers of both 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that the dual super-military-grade and nano nature of the thermite pre-placed in World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 parallels the super-military-grade and nano composition of the trillion-spores-per-gram anthrax contained in the anthrax attack letters. And, as we have seen in this white paper that 9/11 is directly, not just indirectly, linked to the anthrax attacks, it is almost certain that the real operative perpetrators of both attacks are experts in military nano technology, a fact which radically narrows the range of the search for the true criminals      to a small and manageable number of individuals.  All that is required to identify them and bring them to justice is unlimited supoena power and the authority to take under oath testimony.

The inside-job anthrax attacks were then used as the immediate pretext for the illegal secret domestic wiretap program and assault on the Constitution

A Washington Post feature story revealed the timing of the first legal justifications brought to Bush for the secret and illegal domestic wiretap program that point strongly toward the insider anthrax attacks as being what was used to justify the program. (16) Its Sept. 14, 2008 story revealed that the very first memorandum, by John Yoo, giving the purported legal rationale for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), was dated Oct. 4, 2001 – just after the first published reports of the first anthrax victim, Bob Stevens, going into the hospital on Oct. 2 and only one day before his death on Oct. 5, reported widely in the mainstream media.  In former President Bush’s own memoirs Decision Points, he reveals that then National Security Agency (NSA) Director Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden and “the legal team” brought the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) to Bush in the Oval Office on that same date, Oct. 4, 2001 (pg.164).  It’s now clear that that “legal team” included Yoo, as Yoo’s memo was also dated Oct. 4.

Bush then reportedly signed the first official authorization’ for the TSP on Oct. 23, 2001 – Right in the middle of the anthrax attack terror.  Senator John McCain had just gone on ABC TV, on Oct. 18, to push the lie that a nonexistent bentonite additive, purportedly marking the anthrax as having come from Iraq, meant that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks.  The Bush White House repeatedly refused to provide Congress with this Oct. 23, 2001 presidential authorization for the illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program, and for obvious reasons.  This is the alleged authorization that we now know, from a footnote referring to it in another now-released document, contains Bush’s shocking claim, probably written by Yoo, that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures do not apply to U.S. military operations conducted inside the United States.
The fact that the Administration continued its secret and illegal domestic spying program long after its was publicly known that the anthrax attacks were the work of one of its own inside military facilities is further strong evidence the real perpetrators were one and the same as the high-level officials who used those same anthrax attacks to justify their illegal surveillance program — the White House itself.  Exposing the inside job anthrax mailings as the false pretext for the illegal warrantless domestic wiretap program is thus critical to bringing President Bush and his administration to account for its Reichtag Fire-like attack on both the Pentagon and World Trade Center but also on Congressional Democratic leaders Daschle and Leahy who were then pushing for an investigation of the 9/11 attacks and resisting the president’s railroading of the Patriot Act.  That Patriot Act is an analog to Hitler’s Enabling Act passed in the wake of the Reichtag Fire.

We have seen the Terrorists, and They are U.S.  It’s time for under oath pre-impeachment hearings –          and pre-court martial hearings — to interrogate these suspects, and all others who worked with them, to expose who really wears The Scarlet ‘A’.

—————–
Notes
1  Likewise, compelling evidence has demonstrated that the mass murders of 9/11 were perpetrated and/or enabled by U.S. Government insiders.  And while it is well known that President Bush publicly admitted Iraq was not behind Sept. 11, it is less widely known that bin Laden has also never been listed as wanted for 9/11 by the FBI on its ‘Most Wanted Terrorists’ web page.  FBI chief investigative spokesman Rex Tomb publicly stated, and publicly reconfirmed, that the reason bin Laden isn’t officially wanted for 9/11 is because there is “no hard evidence” linking him to the Sept. 11 plot;  and FBI Director Mueller himself, in a public address over seven months after the attacks, said that “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper — either here in the          United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere — that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot.”  See: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Expose, by David Ray Griffin, Interlink Books, Sept. 2008, designed to be a companion volume with Prof. Griffin’s original  9/11 book The New Pearl Harbor.  See also Griffin’s The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions; 9/11 Contradictions (on the massive internal contradictions in the official story); and Debunking 9/11 Debunking (a detailed rebuttal of specific published attempts to debunk key fact findings of the 9/11 Truth movement).
2 http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html
3 “FBI Sweeps Anthrax Under the Rug,” Rock Creek Free Press, Sept. 2008 issue, pp. 1 and 2.
4 http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/pa/oct01.html
5 New York Times, July 27, 1999
6 http://truthmovecom.blogspot.com/2008/07/jerome-hauer-911-suspect-awaiting.html
7 http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml
8 Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert, pp. 505-506.
9 http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/theamesstrain.html

9a “Report Linking Anthrax and Hijackers is Investigated,” The New York Times,

Mar. 23, 2002, p. A9.

9b Interview by Leonard A. Cole with Gloria Irish of Apr. 23, 2002, reported in “The U.S. Anthrax Letters,” Chapter 2 in Terrorism, War, or Disease?: Unraveling the Use of Biological Weapons, pp. 39-40, Stanford University Press, 2008; Anne Clunan, Peter Lavoy and Susan Martin eds.
10  http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2008/08/project-anthrax-cover-up-part-five.html
11 The FBI recently held a ‘science’ briefing for reporters on the Ivins evidence in which it made       a 180-degree reversal from the results of lab analyses of the anthrax reported by Ft. Detrick and other scientists and officials in the first year following the attacks. Those early analyses showed the spores in the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle to be super-weaponized: they were found to be highly uniform, extremely small in size, extremely concentrated at 1 trillion per gram, electrically charged, and with a silica coating. At its ‘science’ briefing, the FBI absurdly claimed that mail processing machines caused the additional powderizing and electrical charge found in the samples — both coincidentally common results of weaponization.
12 http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/rarey/rarey3.html; “Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S.,” by William Broad, New York Times, Dec. 3, 2001.
13 Ibid. (Broad, New York Times, Dec. 3, 2001).
14 http://www.worldnewsstand.net/news/anthrax.htm
15 www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/open_letter_mueller.html;
www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_espionage.html

16  “Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink,” Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2008,

by Barton Gellman, see Note [6] at the end of the article which refers to Shannen Coffin’s letter

to Senator Leahy of Aug. 20, 2007 on the subject of this and other of Yoo’s ‘Top Secret-

Codeword’ documents still not released to Congress.

READ FULL STORY HERE

by

Barbara Honegger

Appendix to

THE TERROR CONSPIRACY (Second Ed.) by Jim Marrs

Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist with the Naval Postgraduate School (1995-present), DoD’s graduate science, technology, national security and homeland security university.  This White Paper, as all of the author’s research, publications and presentations on September 11th, are in her capacity as a concerned citizen and do not imply official endorsement.  Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989); was featured in the Iran-Contra expose documentary “Cover-Up”; and was called as a investigator-witness at both the October 23, 2004 and August 27, 2005 Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif.  Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence and analysis summary was presented at the L.A. Grand Juries and at numerous 9/11 Truth conferences throughout the U.S.   World 9/11 Truth authority Prof. David Ray Griffin has included the core finding of this white paper – evidence for inside-the-building bombs at the Pentagon on 9/11 paralleling the already-well-known inside-the building explosives at the WTC in New York – in his latest and most definitive expose book on the Sept. 11^th attacks, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (Chapter 2, ‘Reports of Bombs’).  In a previous book, Griffin said that any serious reinvestigation of 9/11 should include the information and analysis contained in this White Paper.  Honegger’s two-hour under-oath videotaped interview/ testimony of key Pentagon eyewitness April Gallop, cited in the below, provided the basis for a critical 9/11 lawsuit filed in Manhattan on Dec. 15, 2008.

The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100^th anniversary of the Great California 1906 Earthquake with front-page articles featuring a single iconic image — a charred clock frozen in time at 5:12 a.m. — the exact moment that “The Big One” hit.¹ A century after that devastating event, this stopped clock still serves as both the ultimate evidence and the historic icon that “captures it all.”

Today, 100 years later, another series of clocks and watches frozen in time at the exact moment of the violent event at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, also “capture it all” and serve as the ultimate evidence shattering the Official Conspiracy Theory of what happened there that terrible morning – and narrows the range of who was really responsible.

Converging Lines of Evidence of a 9:30-to-9:32 a.m. Inside Violent Event at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 well before   the Official Story says anything approached and hit the building

The Pentagon was first attacked shortly after 9:30 a.m. – almost 8 minutes before the official ‘impact’ time                                   of 9:37:46, when the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) says a plane hit the building from the outside.

Both DoD and mainstream media first reported 9:43 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact on the building, and some early reports claiming to quote official sources were as late as 9:48.  Over time, the time given by Pentagon officials  for the claimed outside impact on the building moved earlier and earlier, until it finally ‘settled’ at about 45 seconds after 9:37 (as of the time of  this writing).  But the officially given time has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon — shortly after 9:30 a.m.  Clearly, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at almost 9:38  were true, Flight 77 could not have been the source of massive damage to the west wedge of the building which occurred  as much as eight minutes earlier.

Multiple standard-issue, battery- and/or electric-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11—including one in the heliport just outside the west wedge—were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 by at least two violent events, almost certainly bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked immediately outside the west face. The   first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by “a booby trapped truck.” The Navy, part of ‘the Pentagon’ itself, posted a photo of the stopped Pentagon heliport clock  on an  official website; and another of the building clocks stopped shortly after 9:30 was in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.² These are just some of the west-section Pentagon clocks that were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 on Sept. 11.

In addition, there is April Gallop’s stopped wrist watch.

April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative area in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the part of the building most heavily destroyed and with the most casualties, when what she said sounded and felt “like a bomb” went off, soon followed by a second explosion.  According to the Pentagon’s own after action report, Gallop’s desk was approx. 30 feet from the inside trajectory of the alleged impactor plane.

“Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb,” Gallop told the author in an under-oath videotaped interview.^2A “There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.”  In those two hours of under-oath videotaped testimony, Gallop states that the explosion went off at the precise instant that she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer in the Army administrative area, to which she had just returned that morning after some months of pregnancy and childbirth leave, and that the first explosion stopped her wrist watch just after 9:30 a.m. ^2B She has kept the stopped wrist watch in a safe deposit box as evidence of the exact moment of the initial Pentagon explosion.  (Significantly, one of the witnesses to an inside-the-building explosion going off at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City separate from the outside Ryder truck bomb, Jane Graham, revealed to host Bonnie Faulkner in a Pacifica KPFA radio interview that the moment she pressed the on button on her computer at her desk inside the building, an internal explosion went off.^2C The parallel inside-bomb/outside-attack-cover-story modus operandi of the Murrah Building and Pentagon attacks point to the same inside perpetrators being responsible for the planning and execution of both.)

The huge explosion and massive damage experienced by Gallop at/by her desk inside the west section only about 30 feet from the alleged ‘entrance’ hole of the claimed impactor, combined with the fact that the Pentagon’s west outer wall was of heavy masonry that had just been fortified to withstand damage from an external bomb or impactor, make it almost certain that the explosion and internal damage experienced Gallop and other witnesses came from inside, not outside, the building.

Some 9/11 researchers, notably Jim Hoffman, have studied the evidence surrounding the Pentagon attack and, though acknowledging evidence for an explosion not explained by a plane impact or resultant jet fuel combustion, still claim a Boeing 757 or similar aircraft probably hit the building, based predominantly on witnesses who believe they saw a large plane approach and impact the west wedge.  For such witnesses to believe the incoming plane hit the building, however, the large smoke cloud couldn’t have already been billowing above the Pentagon, or they would have known it was due to some other, prior cause.  Thus, if the early 9:30-9:32 inside explosions were the cause of the fireball and smoke cloud, any plane that witnesses saw approaching and believed hit the building had to have approached near-simultaneously, just after 9:30 — no where close to the 9:37:46 official story alleged impact time.

Other 9/11 researchers, notably the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT), assume as fact the author’s original finding that inside-the-building explosion(s) caused the fireball that a number of CIT’s witnesses saw immediately after a large plane passed to the north of the Citgo gas station, contrary to the official story which claims the path was to the south.  But CIT’s witnesses don’t give a time for the plane’s approach, and CIT’s videos and website assume the time to be just before the official story impact time of 9:37:46.  But, again, that’s almost certainly not the case.  If the internal explosion causing the fireball and smoke cloud happened just after 9:30, as marshaled by the evidence here, so also must have the approach of the plane that CIT’s witnesses saw — not at the much later official impact time of almost 9:38.

It is important here to note that internal explosion(s) between 9:30 and 9:32 a.m. on the first and/or second   floors of the west section of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there possibly having also been a later impact by some airborne object much smaller than a 757/Flight 77 — a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile — into the same or a nearby section of the building.  Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building following the explosions,    the heat from the earlier explosion(s) would have become the target for the missile.  (See below for reports that A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11 to enable them to be remotely controlled, and fitted with missiles.)

As further evidence of internal explosions at the Pentagon on 9/11, survivor witnesses from inside the west section reported that the blast caused its newly-hardened windows to first expand outwards, and then inwards, consistent with an internal-explosion-caused pressure wave⁷; and the outermost columns closest to where the official story says the right wing of a 757 crashed into the building appear to be blown up and out from the inside, not inward, in photos.

Multiple witnesses also said they smelled cordite after the initial explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive which has a distinct and very different smell from that of burning jet fuel, which would have been the smell if Flight 77 had hit and entered the building. And, as we have already noted, Gallop said there was no smell of jet fuel inside the most-damaged section of the West wedge, where she worked in the Army administrative area, shortly after the first violent event that stopped her watch there shortly after 9:30.  Pentagon eyewitness Don Perkal stated to MSNBC, “Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite.  I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.”  Witness Gilah Goldsmith reported, “We saw a huge black cloud of smoke.  It smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.”  And witness Samuel Danner, an AmTrak electrical engineer, was at the site and said he smelled cordite.⁸ Cordite N — which consists of the main explosive compounds nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin — is cool-burning and produces little smoke and no flash but, like other explosives,  produces a strong detonation shock wave.  Several witnesses also reported seeing a bright silvery flash, which is inconsistent with either jet fuel combustion from a plane impact which produces a bright yellow not white or silvery fireball, or with cordite explosions which aren’t accompanied by a flash.

Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson in an ABC News interview shortly after 9/11 that his first thought, being in the building when the initial attack happened, was that a bomb had gone off.  Donaldson asked, “What did you think it was?”  Rumsfeld replied, “A bomb?”

The author also interviewed the famous “lone taxi driver” whose cab is the only car visible still parked on I-395 above the Pentagon lawn looking down at the west face after the other cars have  left the freeway. This taxi can be seen in overhead photos taken on the morning of 9/11 and viewable on the Internet. The driver said his was the last car allowed onto that section of I-395 before police put up a barricade and that he decided not to immediately leave the scene like the others “because I realized this was history and I wanted to see for myself.”  He stated that he saw no evidence of a plane having hit the building nor any visible plane pieces on the lawn at the time he arrived, which was after the first violent event had occurred at the building, as black smoke was already streaming up and to the right from inside-the-building fires.  The taxi cab driver drew a diagram of what he saw that morning while overlooking the Pentagon’s west face from I-395, which the author has retained.

The author has interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth , New Jersey , who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!”  The witness has requested that his name not be used in this evidence summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation; his name and contact information have been provided to Prof. David Ray Griffin as bona fides for the ‘Reports of Bombs’ section of the chapter on the Pentagon attack, Chapter 2, in Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, as has the two-hour under-oath testimony-interview with April Gallop.

This Army financial management/audit area was part of or contiguous to the Army personnel office, and this general Army administrative area was one of the two west wedge functions most heavily damaged and with the greatest number of fatalities in the Pentagon attack — the other being the Naval Command Center, more of which below. The day before 9/11, on September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld publicly announced and acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing” – that it allegedly could not account for and needed to “find” — $2.3 Trillion dollars (other reports have put the amount at $2.6 Trillion). Were some of the auditors who could “follow the money” — and the computers whose data mining could help them do it – intentionally targeted by the inside-the-building explosions at the Pentagon on Sept. 11^th ?   In his books, Professor Griffin states that this possibility, first suggested based on publicly known circumstantial evidence by the author, deserves serious investigation.  It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer leading up to and at the time of the attacks, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the “missing” Trillions, had a company specializing in aircraft remote-control technology.  As some analyses claim a part found in the Pentagon wreckage is the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,⁵ and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors—normally piloted planes—were reportedly secretly retrofitted into remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly-compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11,⁶ the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors trying to “follow the money” and their computerized databases were intentionally targeted by inside-the-building explosives on 9/11, with the plane-impact claim as the preplanned cover story.

Once it is realized that the real story at the Pentagon – as in the WTC in New York City – is inside explosives, the possibility that specific offices, functions or even individuals were targeted to be ‘taken out’ becomes very real, whereas the cover story that a Boeing 757 hit the building leads immediately to the assumption — probably desired by the real perpetrators — that any specific deaths and destruction were random.

The Ft. Monmouth Army auditor and his two colleagues were also eyewitnesses to multiple teams of bomb-sniffing dogs and their K-9 handlers in camouflage uniform at the Pentagon metro station just outside the Pentagon at approximately 7:30 am on Sept. 11.  He said that K-9 bomb squads had not been at the Pentagon metro stop before 9/11, or since, but only that day. Since K-9 dog squads don’t usually search for airliners, but bombs, some kind of an explosives attack was apparently anticipated.  Ms. Gallop said she also saw the bomb-sniffing K-9 teams that morning, from the top of the Pentagon Metro stop looking down.  (A possible explanation for the dogs could be advance security for President Bush’s anticipated arrival at the Pentagon heliport, then scheduled for approximately 12:30 p.m. on 9/11.)

As mentioned above, in addition to the Army administrative area, the second most-destroyed area of the Pentagon on 9/11 was the Naval Command Center (NCC).  The Official Conspiracy Theory contained in the 9/11 Commission Report and repeated by the mainstream media states that 44 Naval Command Center personnel were physically present in that space on the morning of 9/11, and that 43 of the 44 died.  The author,  however, was told a very different story by the military officer in charge of the Navy Anti-Terrorism Division in the NCC on the morning of 9/11, Coast Guard Reserve Rear Adm. Jeffrey Hathaway.^6A After the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Aden Harbor in Yemen, Hathaway was put in charge of Navy anti-terrorism force protection and was temporarily assigned to the NCC before the attacks.  Upon the author telling Hathaway that the reported sole survivor of the Naval Command Center on 9/11 was Navy Lt. Kevin Shaeffer, Adm. Hathaway immediately responded that that wasn’t the whole story, and that a secret 19-person intelligence cell in a hardened room at the NCC were also present and that all survived the attack.  Given that everyone officially present in the Naval Command Center, except for Shaeffer, reportedly died – by far the greatest acknowledged fatalities-per-capita of any section of the Pentagon – the possibility immediately presents itself that this secret intelligence cell or function was intentionally targeted by  the internal explosives.  The author queried Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer — author of the expose book  Operation Dark Heart censored by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and a key operative in the pre-9/11 Special Operations Command (SOCOM) intelligence analysis group “Able Danger” that identified two of the three ‘Al Qaeda’ cells allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks including ‘ringleader’ Mohammed Atta before 9/11 — as to whether this Naval Command Center intel cell potentially targeted by the inside-the-building explosives was part of ‘Able Danger,’ which the new Rumsfeld Pentagon shut down in late January 2001 immediately after Bush and Cheney took control of the White House.  Anthony Shaffer (no immediate relation to sole OCT Naval Command Center survivor Lt. Kevin Shaeffer, who, following months of surgery and therapy after sustaining 60 percent burns from the attacks went on to be the key staff member on the critical 9/11 Commission subgroup on the Pentagon/DoD response          to the attacks which, in turn, censored not only “Able Danger” but the Pentagon’s inside-the-building explosions as well as NORAD’s hijack-scenario counterterrorism exercises being ‘played’ on the morning of 9/11) said not to his knowledge, but that he would look further into the identity of the 19-or-so member NCC intelligence cell not numbered among the NCC survivors in the official account.

The author also interviewed a Navy public affairs officer assigned to the Naval Command Center before and on 9/11, Lt. Cmdr. David Nunally.  This officer was not in the building that morning, having been temporarily assigned elsewhere, but was quickly called back after the attacks to be the deputy public affairs officer at the underground “back-up Pentagon” location in Pennsylvania near the Maryland border, called Site R. Lt. Cmdr. Nunnally said that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and later Vice President Cheney were flown to the Site R underground bunker in response to Richard Clarke’s officially declaring “Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations” (COG/COOP) on the morning of 9/11.  This is confirmed in Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, which reports that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld chose Wolfowitz to be the designated COG/COOP official at Site R in his stead.  Perhaps significantly, the ‘crash’ site of Flight 93 is not far from Site R and Camp David, which early reports on the morning of 9/11, presumably taken from official sources, said may have been the flight’s intended target (the OCT claims the believed Flight 93 target was the Capitol bldg.) and the airspace around  Camp David, like around Washington, D.C., is a standing ‘shoot down’ area.  Additional information about Site R, on and after 9/11, can be found in James Bamford’s book, A Pretext for War.

The author has interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11,    Robert Andrews—the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld—a former Green Beret whose office was on the second floor of the south section of the Pentagon, adjacent to the west section.  Perhaps significantly, the pre-9/11 ‘Al Qaeda’-tracking and data-mining operation ‘Able Danger’ was under Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

While drawing the path that he took that morning on a sketch of the Pentagon for the author, Mr. Andrews revealed the following:

Immediately after the second World Trade Center attack of 9:03 am, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld left his office on the Potomac side of the Pentagon and went (merely) across the hall on the same floor to his Executive Support Center (ESC), which is set up for teleconferencing. There, he joined the now-famous teleconference of top government officials run by White House NSC counterterrorism ‘czar’ Richard Clarke out of the White House Situation Room media room.  Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, confirms that Rumsfeld was among the first officials on this teleconference shortly after the second WTC tower was hit.  Clarke’s account and Andrews’ confirmation of it are thus completely at odds with the Official Conspiracy Theory and the 9/11 Commission report, which claim that no one could “find” Secretary Rumsfeld until approximately 10:30 a.m. when he walked into the National Military   Command Center (NMCC) in the Pentagon.  The fact that Rumsfeld, the military’s top civilian official, was on Clarke’s teleconference with the top official of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Director Jane Garvey, also unmasks the complete lie of the official cover story that Air Force interceptors weren’t scrambled in time “because the military and the FAA couldn’t talk each other” on 9/11.  The top-most officials of the Pentagon and     FAA were talking to one another constantly and being recorded on Clarke’s teleconference from as early as 9:15 a.m.  This videotaped Clarke teleconference is thus “The Butterfield Tape” of 9/11 which, not surprisingly, has never been released to the public.  [During the 1970s Watergate scandal, secretly-made tapes of President Nixon’s Oval Office conversations revealed by Alexander Butterfield were the “smoking guns” which forced Nixon to resign or face certain impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate.]

According to Andrews, immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03 am, he and his aide left his office and ran as fast as they could down to the Secretary of Defense’s West section Counterterrorism Center (CTC), arriving at approximately 9:10 a.m.   While they were in the CTC, a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall from the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room.  Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 a.m. but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.  He and his     aide then immediately evacuated the CTC with the goal of joining Rumsfeld in the Secretary of Defense’s Executive Support Center (ESC) across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. He said that Rumsfeld was already on Richard Clarke’s White House teleconference when they arrived.  En route to Rumsfeld’s ESC, Andrews said when he and his aide entered the corridor on the inside ring of the West section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the inner courtyard.      This is two rings further in towards the center from the inner most purported OCT ‘exit’ hole in the central ‘C’ Ring of the OCT-alleged impact of Flight 77.

Once in the inner courtyard, Andrews and his aide ran as fast as they could to Rumsfeld’s Executive Support Center, where he joined Rumsfeld as his special operations/counterterrorism adviser during Clarke’s White House teleconference. Andrews also said that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke with President Bush while in the ESC.  Whether this was via the Clarke teleconference or by phone or other means was not stated. The fact that Rumsfeld personally communicated with Bush on 9/11 while Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon ESC has been published on an official DoD web site.⁹

High-Level Official Testimony to the 9:32 Violent Event Time

In addition to the already legion evidence that Flight 77, a large Boeing 757-200 passenger plane, did not hit the Pentagon – i.e. the too-small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the width of the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width; no visible damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly skidded before  hitting the building on the ground floor; wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than a 757; Pentagon requests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take up-close images of the building damage, etc. — there is also official evidence for the “too-early-for-the-official-story” circa 9:32 violent event time.

The FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] Timeline document “Executive Summary—Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis––September 11, 2001” includes the following entry:   “0932:  ATC [Air Traffic Control] AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.”³ The earlier-than-official-time of 9:32 is the critical fact here, and not the stated cause which was taken from the official narrative and not from any direct ATC eyewitnesses.

On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave an audio-taped Secretary of the Navy Guest Lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey , Calif., a Department of Defense university, in which he explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32.”  A tape of this segment of Gonzales’ talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington , D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record.

Denmark ’s soon-to-be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington , D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon.  He immediately looked at his wrist watch, which read 9:32 a.m.  He gave radio interviews to Denmark stations the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.⁴

In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen.          Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there      that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.  This fighter jet—not Flight 77—is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree descent before disappearing from the radar.  When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, usually at or below 500 feet, it is said to be flying “under the radar.”  The Pilotsfor911Truth website and       their Pandora’s Black Box video documentary have determined from official data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that the true altitude/height of the plane represented by the blip seen on the Dulles ATC screen was 476 feet – way to high to have hit the Pentagon at all, let alone its ground floor, but, significantly, it was in just the height range to been seen by controllers to have just gone off radar so it could be said to have crashed into the building.     Military pilots—like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage—are trained to fly at approx. 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection.  In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 330-degree maneuver (originally claimed to be a 270-degree maneuver, since updated) on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was.

Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for “Flight 77” impact, 9:37:46 — usually ‘rounded down’ to 9:37 in mainstream press reports — to the 9:30- to 9:32-range actual time of the first explosions there — is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet was “Flight 77.” Also, the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time     Arnold’s surveillance jet arrived on the scene, at least the first internal violent event had already happened, so the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the actual earlier 9:30-9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the Official Conspiracy Theory’s alleged outside impact.

Even the famous Naudet brothers’ video of the first attack of 9/11, on World Trade Center 1 in New York, shows, at the 42:27 mark that there were reports at 9:30 that the Pentagon had been hit.^4A

There is even some evidence of internal explosions prior to 9:30.  Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. was watching the NYC attacks on TV when he got a call from his sergeant telling him that the Pentagon had gone to ThreatCon Delta and then just as he hung up the phone “at experienced a violent explosion “at 9:12 or 9:11” as if “it was almost timed for precision,” after which dust fell from the ceiling of the east loading dock where he was working and he heard people screaming.

Significantly, all of this also happened just after 9:30 a.m. (from The Complete 9/11 Timeline at www.HistoryCommons):

* After an inexplicable delay during which they knew that both WTC towers had been attacked, the Secret Service suddenly acted as if the 9/11 attacks were “real,” rushing President Bush out of the library at the Florida school where they had allowed him to continue to read to children as much as 10 minutes after being told by Ari Fleischer that the second New York tower had been hit.

* Firefighters were suddenly ordered out of WTC 1 in New York City.

* The New York Stock Exchange was ordered closed.

* The takeover of Flight 93 reportedly began, with the stabbing of a flight attendant and one of the alleged hijackers announced that there was a bomb on board, picked up by air traffic controllers.

But perhaps the most damning evidence for the Sept. 11 attacks being an inside job is that the actual attacks were mirrored by NORAD/Air Force hijack-scenario counterterrorism ‘exercises’ being conducted by NORAD’s (an Air Force agency’s) North East Sector (NEADS) on the morning of 9/11 itself. The author’s original research and analysis first revealed the NEADS hijack-scenario exercises that ‘went live’ on 9/11 as the modus operandi for the planning, execution and cover-up of the attacks, credited as ‘The Holy Grail’ of 9/11 research by author Michael Ruppert in his early 9/11 expose book Crossing the Rubicon.

Critically, the author has recently interviewed White House NSC counterterrorism ‘czar’ Richard Clarke, who confirmed that NORAD was conducting hijack-scenario exercises in the N.E. Sector – where all three NYC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania attacks took place – on the morning of  9/11 to an audience of 75, published on an official DoD website.^4B The key excerpt from that article:

“Regarding 9/11 itself, Clarke noted that part of the little known history of that day was confusion by NORAD’s North East Sector, which was about to conduct an exercise on a partial hijack scenario as the actual hijackings began, as to whether the unfolding events were ‘real world’ or part of the exercise – a confusion whose cause bears an eerie similarity to the ‘arm reaching out of the computer’ danger Cyber War [Clarke’s latest book]    warns about.  “Yes, this happened on 9/11, and it happened with TWA Flight 800, when the Navy was doing a sea search exercise in the very area where the plane went down…I wouldn’t have been able to respond the way we did on 9/11 if we hadn’t exercised it five times.”

Also critically, the operational head of NORAD NEADS on 9/11, Bob Marr, has also now publicly acknowledged that his agency was conducting a plane-hijack-scenario counterterrorism  exercise on the morning of 9/11.^4C

It is impossible for the U.S. Government to have not been able to “imagine” using planes as weapons when its own military was practicing how to defend against exactly such a hijack-scenario attack on the morning of 9/11 itself.  Impossible.

On February 4, 2004, the author interviewed Air Force General Ralph Eberhart, Commander of NORAD on 9/11, about NORAD’s hijack-scenario exercise on the morning of 9/11. To the author’s knowledge, he has granted no other interview since the events of September 11. Before asking questions, Gen. Eberhart was given copies of all mainstream press articles published as of that date on the subject of the confusion on 9/11 of his Northeast Sector (NEADS) personnel running NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” emergency response exercises that morning.  As of the date of the interview, therefore, the then head of NORAD was made aware of  the initial confusion by his own NEADS “game” players on 9/11 between incoming exercise reports and incoming reports of actual hijacks.

The author first asked Gen. Eberhart if there was any connection between NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” exercise being run on 9/11 and the plane-crashing-into-tower emergency response exercise simultaneously being held at National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) headquarters outside Washington, D.C.^{12/first cite} He replied, “No.”  This response was surprising, as a large percentage of NRO personnel are reportedly from his own agency, the Air Force.  He was asked for reconfirmation, to which he again said, “No.”  Laying the ground for the next question, the author mentioned that NEADS’ “exercise” director on the morning of 9/11, Lt.  Col. Dawne Deskins, has   said that she was confused as to whether initial reports of the hijacked planes on the morning of 9/11 were “real world”    or “part of the game.”  This, the author noted, showed that the NORAD exercises that morning had to have been on a hijack scenario at least similar to the actual attacks, as otherwise   there wouldn’t have been any grounds for confusion. After considering this for a moment, Gen. Eberhart refused to answer any further questions and abruptly ended the interview.  As we have seen above, subsequent to the initial publication of this white paper in the first printing of The Terror Conspiracy, NORAD officials confirmed that their ‘exercise’ on the morning of 9/11 did, indeed, include a hijack scenario (Touching History, pp. 24-27).

Explosive Revelations Regarding the WTC Attacks

Millions in the U.S. and around the world now know World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 as well as WTC Building 7, not hit by any plane, fell due to controlled demolitions using pre-planted super-military-grade thermite explosives pre-planted inside the buildings, to which ‘Al Qaeda’ could never have obtained access – especially to WTC 7, which housed multiple U.S. Government agencies including the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, SEC and even NYC Mayor Giuliani’s own Emergency Operations Center from which emergency counterterrorism responses were to have been run – thanks to the impeccable and courageous efforts of Prof. David Ray Griffin and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org), among others.  Over 1,300 licensed architects and engineers have signed Architects & Engineers’ petition calling for a new, truly independent investigation of the events leading up to and on 9/11.

Among the most explosive revelations of what really happened at the World Trade Center on  Sept. 11 is WTC 7 owner and WTC 1 and 2 lease-holder Larry Silverstein’s admission, in an interview on PBS Television that the NYC “fire department commander,” after a discussion in a phone call with Silverstein late on the afternoon of 9/11, made the decision “to pull [the building, a professional term for triggering the controlled demolition of a structure with preplaced explosives] and we watched the building collapse.”  This claim takes on sinister dimensions when combined  with the below inside information received from American Helicopter Society Executive Director M.E. Rhett Flater, who knows many of the principals involved:

“The NYC Police [Dept.] had two Bell 412’s [helicopters] equipped with hoists and rescuers in the air on 9/11 next to the WTCs.  One of these was the same 412 and police crew which assisted with rooftop rescues when one of  the buildings was attacked by Al Qaeda bombers several years earlier [in 1993].  The NYC Fire Department, which has no love for the NYC Police Department, assumed jurisdiction and denied access to the roof by the NYC Police helicopters.  Complicating matters, the rooftop doors were [double] locked prior to 9/11 at the direction of the NYC Fire Department.  As a result, there were no helicopter rescue attempts.  When a fleet of Sikorshy U-60L Black Hawks arrived from Stratford with medics and supplies, they were ordered to a local airport and directed to stay away from the towers.  The same was true of other rescue attempts by civil and military and paramilitary helicopters.” ^9A

Amazingly, the pilot of one of the NYC Police Department helicopters who sent two of his crew members down to the WTC 1 roof to rescue survivors after the basement bombing of the building in 1993, Det. Greg Semendinger, was the official NYPD photographer in one of its four helicopters circling around the Towers on 9/11, and expressed ‘surprise’ that there was no one on the roof to rescue^9B, though it was well  known – even infamous – throughout the Police Department that the NYC Fire Department had ordered the roof doors double-locked.  Further, Semendinger’s helicopter that morning was equipped with the same winch and foldable rescue seat he had used to rescue almost two dozen from     the WTC roof eight years earlier.  Of the 2,770 photos Semendinger took from the NYPD helicopter on 9/11, which were provided to the National Institute of Standards and Technololgy (NIST) as background for their report that refused to   even consider the controlled demolition hypothesis for what caused the Towers to fall and which NIST then provided to the 9/11 Commission, and which subsequently were given to ABC News as a result of its FOIA demand, only 24 have been released to the public (see above link).  The remaining 2,746 photos almost certainly contain literal ‘smoking guns’ and need to be forced into the public domain by a new, truly independent investigation of Sept. 11^.

Putting two and two together, the NYC Fire Department commander(s) who ordered the WTC 1 and 2 rooftop doors double-locked — closing off the only hope of escape for victims caught above the point of the plane impacts and fires, many of whom were forced to jump to their deaths – also refused to allow NY Police Department helicopters equipped and ready to rescue anyone able to get to the roofs – or any of the other dozens of civilian, military and paramilitary helicopters that rushed to Manhattan ready to rescue them – to do so; and, after talking with WTC 7 owner Silverstein, ordered that that building be destroyed by classic remote-controlled demolition.  And what’s ‘good’ for the goose (WTC 7) is ‘good’ for the gander (WTC 1 and 2): i.e., it is almost certain that Silverstein and the NYC Fire Department Commander also made the decision to bring down WTC 1 and 2 by controlled demolition earlier in the day.

This is a High Evil forcing a “devil’s alternative” on the victims caught above the plane impacts and fires that would make Hitler’s SS jealous with rage.

To add fuel to the fire, Fox News reporter and former Gannett News journalist Jeffrey Shapiro has claimed that NYC Police Department officials told him late on the afternoon of 9/11 that Silverstein also was on the phone with his insurance company trying to talk them into approving the controlled demolition destruction of WTC 7, the one WTC structure he owned outright, using language similar to that Silverstein told PBS he and the Fire Department Commander had used as the pretext for ‘pulling’ the building (http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html ).

Further, WTC janitor William “Willy” Rodriguez, the last non-emergency-responder to leave the WTC alive on 9/11, has testified that he was in the first basement level of the WTC when an immense explosion went off below him in the even-deeper subbasement level(s) of the building a few seconds  before the plane hit the tower high above.¹⁰ Just as Robert Andrews revealed that the West-side sub-level of the Pentagon was damaged at approximately 9:32 a.m. on 9/11, and as we know that the cause of the first 9:32 a.m. Pentagon attack was not an impact event but inside explosives, there thus are eye- and  ear witness reports of bombs going off in both the Pentagon and the WTC underground level(s) before either were hit by anything from the outside.

As no “outside” terrorist, al Qaeda or otherwise, could have had access to either the Pentagon or the sustained advance access needed to pre-place explosives inside the WTC, only domestic insiders could have pre-placed the explosives in both the Pentagon and the WTC.  Further, because the WTC1 deep-basement explosions(s) experienced by Willy Rodriguez happened before the tower was hit by a plane; as any incoming plane not controlled by the same agents that triggered the sub-basement detonation(s) could have veered off from the building at the last second thereby ruining the plane-impact-as-cover-story for the later building collapse; and as the sub-basement explosions were necessary for the actual later collapse of the buildings by controlled demolition, the same domestic U.S.  insiders had to have controlled both the internal sub-basement detonations and the incoming plane(s). Thus, even if al Qaeda hijackers were on the incoming planes, they were not in control of the final approach and impact of the planes, which had to have been 100 percent guaranteed and thus 100 percent controlled by domestic U.S. insiders to ensure that, once the WTC1 sub-basement explosions went off, the plane could not veer off and miss the building ruining the plane-impact-and-fires cover story for its collapse.  This fact is crucial, as it can take jurisdiction for the mass murders at the WTC out of the   hands from the FBI, which oversees crimes committed in the air, as a compelling legal argument can be made that    the real crime of controlling the planes’ impacts into the towers was committed by ground controllers in a terrestrial building or vehicle.  In fact, it has been reported that just-former FBI top ‘Al Qaeda’ hunter John O’Neill, who began his new job as head of security for the WTC on 9/11, told his assistant in his last phone call from the towers that the    planes were being controlled “from the ground.”  If so, this places the jurisdiction of the crime of the WTC mass murders squarely with the State of New York, as murder is a State crime and multiple mass murders are the sum of individual State crimes.  And because the controllers of the timing of the WTC 1 basement-level explosives had to have also been the controllers of the final approach and impact of the planes, and the former was arguably, and provably with legal discovery and subpoena power, on the ground and not in the air, a Manhattan Grand Jury can be given the case and pull the jurisdiction for the Bush-Cheney Reichstag Fire out of Federal jurisdiction.

Because the real modus operandi of both the Pentagon and WTC attacks are the same – inside explosions with plane-impacts-and-fire cover stories — it is logical to deduce that the same insider terrorists were responsible for pre-placing and detonating the explosives inside both the WTC and the Pentagon.   That is, a single group of US-domestic conspirators—not al Qaeda or any other outside terrorists—almost certainly planned and executed both the WTC and Pentagon attacks, which significantly narrows the range for the identities of the real perpetrators.

In addition to the already well known and officially acknowledged evidence of Bush Administration foreknowledge of the broad outlines of the September 11 attacks – i.e. advance warnings from intelligence agencies of as many as 11 foreign countries and the content of the now-famous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (whose 10-page attachment still has not been made public), etc. — there is strong evidence that Bush-Cheney administration insiders had near perfect — if not  complete — advance knowledge of the planned attacks and both mirrored them by controlling the actual attacks under cover of the 9/11 hijack-scneario ‘exercises’ and chose the date for the actual attacks, which was therefore also the date for the exercises.

(Note:  The fact that Bush Admin. insiders had advance knowledge of the details of a planned “outside” attack, as detailed below, is not inconsistent with these insiders having facilitated and even orchestrated the actual attacks to both ensure they happened ‘successfully’ and to blame them on the planners.   That is, the real plot behind the Sept. 11 attacks is similar to that of the Nazi Reichstag Fire, through which Hitler rapidly consolidated power, which was its purpose.  Like the Nazi-facilitated Reichstag fire, the above and below evidence makes it highly likely that the true story of Sept. 11 is that there was a real though highly-unlikely-to-succeed “outside” plot about which U.S. and         allied intelligence gained detailed advance knowledge and the Administration then secretly protected and enabled the plot to ensure not only that it succeeded, but succeeded spectacularly as the psychological operation needed to justify the entire subsequent Bush-Cheney global-military and domestic-surveillance agenda.

Below is just some of the compelling evidence that the Bush-Cheney Administration had detailed advance knowledge of the attack plans:

1) Shortly after September 11, Newsweek reported that before 9/11, the Bush Administration initiated a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance/tap of “up to 20” suspected al Qaeda-linked terrorists then in the U.S., but that then FISA Court Chief Justice Royce Lamberth subsequently ordered the then-already-ongoing surveillance stopped. This can only mean one thing –that the Bush Justice Dept./FBI/NSA initiated the tap before asking the FISA Court for a warrant for it, as with the now-famous post-9/11 NSA taps initiated by the Bush administration without first applying for FISA warrants.

As “up to 20” is a clever way of saying “19” without making the link to 9/11 explicit, the Bush Administration Justice Dept/FBI/NSA almost certainly initiated surveillance of all 19, or close to all 19, of the soon-to-be alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11, and probably did so based at least in part on the findings of Special Operations Command’s “Able Danger” data mining intelligence operation which Bush and Rumsfeld ordered shut down just after taking office in late Jan. 2001. Though Judge Lamberth ordered the surveillance ended once the administration filed the formal warrant application, there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored his order to cease the tap and continued its surveillance of the alleged 9/11 hijackers up to and including the day of 9/11:

Zacarias Moussaoui—the only person indicted by the Bush Administration for anything even related to 9/11—has stated in court filings that both he “and my (al Qaeda) brothers” then in the U.S. were surveilled by the   Bush administration before 9/11 and that the Bush Administration knew he could prove it.  How could this be the case?  If Moussaoui was one of the “up to 20” al Qaeda-linked terrorist suspects the U.S. surveilled before 9/11   without an advance FISA warrant, as reported by Newsweek, then Moussaoui was also one of the “up to 20” whose warrantless surveillance Judge Lamberth ordered stopped.  Moussaoui, after all, was originally named                as the “20th hijacker” of the 9/11 plot. Amazingly, the FISA Act requires that, if the FISA Court rejects a surveillance that was initiated before a warrant has been applied for, as in this case, the court must inform “the target(s)” of the surveillance and give him/them the government’s stated reason for initiating the tap in the FISA application.  Thus Moussaoui can “prove” the Bush Administration/FBI initiated surveillance on him before 9/11 because, it can thus      be deduced, the FISA Court itself — or some U.S. agency it ordered to do so on its behalf — told him so after Lamberth ordered his surveillance and that of the other “up to 20” plotters stopped.  Those other “19 or so” plotters who were required by law to have also been officially informed before the attacks that they had been surveilled and for what stated  reason would have also included Mohammad Atta, Ramzi Binalshibh and all of the other official story hijackers.  And because it was almost certainly the FBIthat surveilled the “19 or 20” inside the U.S. without warrants before the attacks, explains why the FBI was able to so quickly identify the 19 official-story hijackers immediately after the attacks, though it falsely claimed they knew nothing about the hijackers ahead of time and that the attacks were a complete surprise.

Given the above, the fact that the FISA Court was required to inform most or all 19 of the “up to 20” alleged  9/11 hijackers before 9/11 that they were being surveilled by the Bush Administration—and the reason for such surveillance — throws new light on the claims by the Pentagon’s then-secret data mining task force“Able Danger” to have tracked lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and at least four of the other 19 hijackers beginning in January 2000, when Atta actually did enter the country according to Daniel Hopsicker’s taped interview with Atta’s live-in girlfriend Amanda Keller reported in his book Welcome to Terrorland. The FBI falsely claimed, and still falsely claims, that Atta did not enter the U.S. until the summer of 2000, six months after he actually did so.  The likely reason for this intentional lie about when Atta first entered the country is what Atta is known to have done while inside the U.S. between January and the Summer of 2000.  Hopsicker reveals that, among other activities, Atta visited Portland , Maine , in March, 2000, and perhaps even earlier.  An abiding “mystery” of the official 9/11 cover story is why Atta drove to this very city — Portland , Maine — on September 10, the day before 9/11, and then flew from Portland to Boston early on the morning  of September 11.  The answer to this “mystery,” which the FBIclearly already knows, is the link between what Atta      was doing in Portland before the Bush Administration said he was even in the country, as well as what he was doing there the day before 9/11 and early on the morning of 9/11.  This probably has something to do with the fact that the         CIA reportedly runs secret flights out of an airport in Portland , Maine , and that “rendition” detainees have said they were flown out of the country on special jets after first stopping at Portland ’s International Jet Port.¹²

2) The FBI’s top bin Laden/al Qaeda hunter until shortly before 9/11, John O’Neill, “happened” to be at the same hotel in the same town near Tarragona , Spain in mid-July 2001 just before lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and 9/11 plot “coordinator” Ramzi Binalshibh arrived  there.  Some Bush administration officials now also believe that 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) met there for what the 9/11 Commission calls “the Final 9/11 Planning Meeting.”  This cannot be—and is not—a coincidence.  O’Neill, who was in close contact with German intelligence — Atta led the “German cell” for the 9/11 attacks — and Spanish intelligence, clearly had been alerted to the upcoming “Final Planning Meeting” meeting and was at the hotel to surveil/ tap/bug the room and/or monitor the surveillance/taps/bugs of German and/or Spanish intelligence  where it was about to be held.  O’Neill and his agency, the Bush-Cheney Administration’s FBI, thus knew every detail – or nearly every detail, see below — of the planned 9/11 plot at least two months in advance of the attacks.

Perhaps just as significantly, European media reported that bin Laden was in an American hospital in Dubai incapacitated for surgery during precisely this same mid-July 2001 period of the Spanish ”Final 9/11 Planning Meeting.”  Reportedly, bin Laden was visited in the hospital by the CIA’s then UAE station chief.  The question naturally arises whether bin Laden was telephoned by Atta, Binalshibh and perhaps even also KSM, or visa versa, while the latter were at the “Final 9/11 Planning Meeting” in the hotel that O’Neill had pre-bugged.  If so, then O’Neill, the FBI, and the highest levels of the Bush Administration—including O’Neill’s then boss Attorney General Ashcroft, who suddenly stopped flying commercial aircraft about this time—knew not only every detail of the 9/11 plot as of that date, but almost certainly recorded all the key conspirators plotting their “final plans” including possibly bin Laden himself, on tape—clearly another “Butterfield” tape to be demanded by subpoena in a new 9/11 investigation. In fact, former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has revealed, based on documents she saw as part of her official duties, that bin Laden himself was working for the U.S. up to and on the day of  9/11 itself.  This almost certainly is the reason the FBI has never listed bin Laden as wanted for 9/11 on its  “Most Wanted Terrorists” web page, and why the FBI’s chief investigative spokesman Rex Tomb has said the reason bin Laden is not officially wanted for 9/11 is because there is no real evidence linking him to the attacks.

That is, there may be, and probably is, evidence linking bin Laden,Binalshibh, KSM and Al Qaeda to a 9/11-like plot and planning, but not to the actual attacks, as they were physically carried out by insiders under cover of U.S. Air Force counterterrorism “exercises” that mirrored the “final plans” discussed at the July 2001Tarragona meeting.  As noted above, on 9/11 itself the U.S. military was conducting NORAD emergency response exercises on scenarios involving plane hijacks, and the NRO was conducting an emergency response exercise on the scenario of a plane crashing into one of the towers of is headquarters just outside Washington, D.C.¹¹ where many NRO personnel are from the Air Force and CIA.  It is next to impossible for this to have been the case unless the exercises were intentionally scripted to mirror what had been learned  from the above-mentioned detailed advance intelligence.  That is, the “cover-story” purpose of the military exercises held on 9/11 was to practice how to defend against the very attacks that John O’Neill’s Tarragona meeting surveillance, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data-mining operation and the FBI’s pre-attack FISA-warrant-less surveillance of the “up to 20” (19) suspected al Qaeda terrorists had already revealed. You don’t practice defending against something in multi-million-dollar hijack-scenario exercises on the morning of 9/11 that you “can’t imagine.”

A few paragraphs above it was stated that, because of O’Neill’s surveillance of the Al Qaeda mastermind’s and lead hijacker’s “Final Planning Meeting” in Tarragona, Spain, he and the Bush-Cheney FBI knew nearly every significant operational detail of the plot.  The one “burning” exception to this, however, is the date of the 9/11 attacks.  Perhaps the most compelling proof of active Bush administration complicity in 9/11is that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta took the information to this critical mid-July “Final 9/11 Planning Meeting” that “the date [for the attacks] has been set”  — i.e. set by someone else other than Atta) — and that he, Atta, didn’t yet know it, but would “know it” in five to six weeks, by late August  2001.¹³ Atta was clearly waiting to learn the date of what the Bush Administration and 9/11 Commission allege was “his own” attack.  This last key piece of the puzzle fell into place during the first phase of Zacarias Moussaoui’s sentencing trial, in the 58-page transcript of  “ 9/11 mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation “testimony” read into the trial record by the Bush Department of Justice prosecution.  In this transcript, KSM says that he and bin Laden “allowed Atta to choose” both the final targets and the attack date.”¹⁴ However, from what Atta said to Binalshibh and probably also to KSM and possibly even  also to bin Laden by phone at the “Final Planning Meeting” in Spain, we know that Atta did not set the attack date, as he was waiting to learn it five to six weeks after that mid-July “Final Planning Meeting.”  Putting two and two together from the above, therefore, we know that neither bin Laden nor alleged “mastermind” KSM nor alleged “coordinator” Binalshibh set the date for “their own” attacks, though setting the date of an attack is the one thing that translates a mere plan – a plot or conspiracy — into reality.  That is, none of the top alleged “outside” conspirators set the date for the September 11 attacks.

So if the “9/11 conspirators” didn’t set the date to turn their plot into a reality, who did?

The key and central fact of the entire 9/11 plot is that the attack date Atta was “waiting for” was the date of the Bush Administration’s planned counterterrorism exercises, which, in a vicious circle, were scripted to mirror Atta’s and Binalshibh’s attack plan gleaned via advance intelligence obtained from O’Neill’s surveillance of the “Final 9/11 Planning Meeting” near Tarragona, from the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” tracking of Atta and other of the 19 hijack-plotters, and the FBI’s warrantless surveillance of Atta and other of the about-to-be a lleged hijackers.  And because Atta was “waiting to hear” the attack date, which was the hijack-scenario U.S. military exercise date, Atta was the sole plotter to whom the Bush Administration finally chose to tell the actual attack date – Sept. 11th — as soon as it was selected, and he bought his one-way ticket as soon as he learned it, in late August 2001, just as he had predicted at the “final planning meeting.”

The No. 1 inside conspirator, therefore, is whoever gave the Pentagon’s own hijack-scenario counterterrorism exercise details and their date — Sept. 11 — to Mohamed Atta or to a middleman who, in turn, gave the date to Atta.  

Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, then head of Pakistan ’s military intelligence agency ISI, is the prime suspect for a second-level middleman who laundered this No. 1 inside-conspirator’s NORAD hijack-scenario exercise date to Atta.  On the morning of 9/11, Ahmed was in Washington, D.C. having breakfast with future CIA Director Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham, soon to co-chair of the joint House-Senate “investigation” of the 9/11 attacks, and had met with CIA Director George Tenet and with top officials at the Pentagon, about to conduct the exercises, in the few days leading up to 9/11.  He is therefore the most likely person who was told the date and details of the Pentagon’s hijack-scenario emergency response exercises and communicated them, directly or via an intermediary,  to Atta, as Ahmed also approved wiring $100,000 to Atta shortly before 9/11.  (Interestingly, it has been reported   that $100,000 is an amount the FBI often pays to key informants).  It is also known that Atta then confirmed 9/11 as the date for the exercises—which was to be the date for the attacks—in his now-famous NSA-intercepted call with KSM of September 10, 2001, in which he related “The Match is about to begin.  Zero hour is tomorrow.”  “Match” is a way of saying “exercise” or “game.”  This critical September 10^th telephone intercept was almost certainly made without an advance FISA warrant, putting the lie to then NSA Director and later CIA Director Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden’s patently false claim that the “first” warrantless taps were initiated only as                    a defensive response to 9/11 following the attacks.

Another abiding “mystery” of September 11 is why Gen. Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on 9/11, claimed to the 9/11 Commission that on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was conducting, among others, a preplanned “Soviet-era” emergency response exercise¹⁵ in which U.S. fighter jets were to defend against “Russian” nuclear bombers played by a U.S. military “Red Team” planes.  Why “Soviet era”when the Soviet Union had ceased to exist ten years before? He didn’t say “Russian,” he said “Soviet.” This is very strange until one discovers that, despite repeated official and media claims that Sept. 11 was “completely unique” and that the skies over America had “never before”          been cleared of all commercial and private/civilian aircraft, NORAD (the Air Force) had conducted a previous emergency response exercise 40 years earlier which also completely cleared the skies over the mainland U.S.  This was on October 14, 1961, in a war game called “Sky Shield II,” which was based on a scenario of defending against an air attack by Soviet bombers on New York City.¹⁶ The main difference between the 1961 exercise and September 11th is that the clearing of the skies was publicly announced in advance in “Sky Shield.”  This actual Soviet-era exercise (and the fact that it was labeled II implies there was  yet an earlier one), which included 1,800 U.S. and 15 Canadian military planes and was billed as “the greatest exercise ever conducted by Western air defense forces,” is even mentioned in the Air Force’s own account of the events of Sept. 11, Air War Over America.  In fact, Gen. Larry Arnold, NORAD’s commander for the continental U.S. on 9/11 directly under Eberhart,who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled to belatedly meet the hijack threat, made a point of including the eerily similar 1961 Air Force wargame in the book.  Not only did both the 1961 and September 11 NORAD “Soviet-era” wargame scenarios include attacks on New York City; in the 1961 exercise, U.S. military planes played the role of the Soviet attack bombers.  That is, the U.S.military pre-scripted both the defense and the “attack”by its own planes pretending to be Soviet aircraft.  If Eberhart’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission about NORAD’s conducting a “Soviet-era” attack scenario exercise on 9/11 to the Commission is correct, his own Air Force agency was conducting an exercise much like the one in 1961 on 9/11, for which NORAD therefore pre-scripted the 9/11 “attack” scenario, which was “made real” in the actual attacks that morning.

If a high-level cabal inside the U.S. military and intelligence community intended to make the 9/11 hijack-scenario “exercise(s)” based on Atta’s “Final Planning Meeting” plot become real that morning, they had to have a plan for ensuring the planes actually made it to their targets.  Taking control of the original flight(s) and substituting military planes made to look like them would be the “safest” way to achieve this.  In this light, it is significant that mainstream press stories contain intriguing reports pointing to the possibility that there were two American Airlines “Flight 11s,” leaving from two different gates at Boston Logan airport within a few minutes of one another on 9/11, as well as emerging evidence of other of the OCT-hijacked 9/11 flight numbers being “twinned,”¹⁷ or duplicated.  The question thus naturally arises,      were these  “twin” planes U.S. military or CIA planes “playing” hijacked-airliner “attackers,” similar to the 1961 “Sky Shield” scenario except substituting commandeered airliners for Soviet bombers?  And could the planned 9/11 NORAD exercises have included a “trigger” event to clear the skies over the mainland U.S. so that a realistic test of  U.S. air defenses could be conducted without interference from the thousands of civilian aircraft normally in the air?

Key quotes from New York Times articles before, during and immediately after the 1961 NORAD “Sky Shield” exercise are eerily similar to stories appearing on 9/11 [text in parentheses and italics added]:

“It is not so much the fear of collisions with military aircraft that has caused civilian planes to be ordered out of the skies, as it is the knowledge that inadequate [civilian FAA] electronic flight controls will be available during the exercise to    guide them. [U.S.] Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers, playing the role of the marauding forces, will seek to foul communications and radar.  They will drop tinsel-like pieces of metal called “chaff” overhead [similar to the myriad small pieces of metal scrap found on the Pentagon lawn and at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania “crash” site on 9/11?]…that will throw radarscopes [including the FAA’s] into a confusion of false signals.”  “All the [exercise “Red Team”] bomber missions were laid out ahead of time and fed into the NORAD computer.”   “An automated shorthand running display of the entire battle was provided at NORAD combat center and in similar centers at Strategic Air Command headquarters  [to which President Bush was taken on 9/11] and in the Pentagon [which was attacked on 9/11].”  “A fight plan for every [exercise] aircraft is fed into the computer’s memory beforehand.  When a plane shows on the radarscope, a console operator picks up an aluminum electronic gun, points it at the blip, and squeezes the trigger.  That brings the flight to the computer’s attention.  If the flight [plan] is filed in its memory, the computer automatically replies, ‘Yes, I am aware of  that [plane].’ It does this  by marking the flight with an F for Friendly.  While the computer compares the flight with its memorized data, it marks the flight P for Pending.  Finally, it may mark it H for Hostile. ‘We have two minutes to identify a flight [as Friendly] before we scramble [interceptor jets]…to make a visual identification of an uncertain aircraft or  to attack it.’”  ‘We do not train [in exercises like the 1961 ‘Sky Shield II, or on 9/11] with Hostile symbology [showing on screens]; therefore, the Strategic Air Command’s bombers playing the role of the attacking [Soviet-Russian] force [on October 14, 1961] were marked K, for Faker.’”  “There are seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles near New York [in 1961; how many more were there on 9/11, 40 years later, when none, according to the official story, were used?]”

The 1961 wargame was directed by then NORAD commander Air Force Gen. Laurence Sherman Kuter from his combat operations center at NORAD’s Colorado Springs headquarters, which in the mid-1960s moved to Cheyenne Mountain, also Gen. Eberhart’s command center on 9/11.  It may also be significant that the Air Force’s war games simulation center is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama , which Gen. Kuter had earlier commanded and where lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had received training prior to 9/11.

The Pentagon’s “Able Danger” data miners claim that “Department of Defense lawyers” – almost certainly from the National Security Agency, then headed by Gen. Hayden, an officer in the Air Force, the same service that planned the 9/11 war games — blocked planned meetings with the FBI at which they wanted to tell the FBI that they had “tracked” Atta and other of the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11 and ask the FBI to initiate additional surveillance on them.  The fact that the FBI did initiate exactly such a surveillance of the “up to 20 Al Qaeda linked terrorist suspects” before    9/11 (see above) is strong evidence that, despite its claims to the contrary, the Pentagon’s “Able Danger” team, or someone who knew what they had found, did communicate what they had learned from tracking Atta  and the others to the FBI before 9/11, and that the FBI then initiated FISA-warrant-less surveillances of Atta and others subsequently ordered stopped by then Chief FISA Court Judge Lamberth – all prior to 9/11.  The fact that initially-suspected “20th 9/11 hijacker” Moussaoui officially filed claims that he “and my brothers” were surveilled before 9/11 is further evidence that   the FBI continued to watch all or most of the 9/11 hijackers right up until the attacks, despite Lamberth’s order to cease  and desist.  In the days leading up to 9/11, FBI Headquarters supervisors David Frasca and his deputy Michael Maltbie refused 70 urgent requests by Moussaoui’s FBI interrogator for either a FISA Court warrant or an “ordinary” criminal warrant to get into Moussaoui’s computer and surveil anyone mentioned therein.  Doing so, it is claimed, would have stopped the plot, as Moussaoui now claims to have personally known 17 — almost all — of the alleged 19 hijackers.¹⁸

In addition to all the evidence that plane-impacts-and-fire was the carefully planned cover story for the cause of collapse     of WTC 1, 2 and 7, as well as the west façade of the Pentagon, both of  which were initially hit by inside-the-buildings explosives, not planes, the other overwhelming line of evidence for 9/11 being an “Inside Job” is the anthrax attacks.  A summary of the anthrax links to 9/11 itself – not just to the known mid-October 2001 letters – follows.  For full details on these links, see Appendix II, The Scarlet A: The Anthrax Links to 9/11.

Any evidence linking 9/11 to the anthrax letters — dated September 11 but sent in mid-October and only to Democratic leaders in Congress, no Republicans — is direct evidence of an inside job because that particular type of anthrax is known to have been of the highly controlled “Ames strain” developed by the U.S. Army at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, and at the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa.  It was also  high-spore-count, super military-grade weaponized anthrax refined according to a trade secret reportedly personally held by William Patrick, former Ft. Detrick bio-weapons expert and mentor of Steven Hatfill, the only “person of interest” stalked by the FBI as a suspect in the still “unsolved” anthrax case, and the close friend and colleague of Bush Administration bio-counterterrorism expert Jerry Hauer, a signer of the pre-9/11 Project for New American Century (PNAC) manifesto noting the “opportunities” that would be created by “a new Pearl Harbor” attack.

On September 11, 2001 this same Jerry Hauer reportedly personally delivered the anti-anthrax medication Cipro to Vice President Cheney’s staff at the White House.  Why?  The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a suit against Vice President Cheney and other Bush Admin. officials demanding to know why Cipro was delivered to the executive mansion — and only to the   executive mansion — on the day of the attacks.  So far the response has been deafening silence.  On September 10^th, the day before 9/11, FEMA and other emergency response personnel arrived in    New York City for a counter-bioterrorism exercise called “Tripod II” claimed by the Bush administration to have been scheduled to begin September 12.  There is reason to believe that the bio-agent this drill was to practice defending against was anthrax, as Jerry Hauer was also a major planner of the New York City exercise.  And there is also a strong possibility the true start date for the exercise was Sept. 11, not Sept. 12, as many “exercise” personnel were already in place in New York City on September 10.  As NORAD’s (U.S. Air Force’s) hijack-scenario ‘counterterrorism’ exercise had just “come to life” in real attacks on 9/11, were Hauer and Cheney worried that the same thing might be about to happen with the counter-bioterrorism “exercise” Tripod II?  Is this why the anti-anthrax drug Cipro was distributed to the White House on 9/11 — “just in case”?   If so, it would be strong evidence that Tripod II was on the scenario of defending New York    City — and perhaps also the White House — against an anthrax attack.  Was the “vector” — the delivery vehicle – for that anthrax-attack-scenario emergency response exercise to have been via hijacked plane(s)?

Notably, in their book on bio-terrorism, Germs, Judith Miller and William Broad claim, apparently from inside sources, that Ramzi Yousef’s plans for the first World Trade Center attack  in 1993 included explosively pushing large quantities of cyanide out into New York City.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the official story “mastermind” of 9/11, is Yousef’s uncle.  Finally, former New York City mayor Rudolf Giuliani testified to the 9/11 Commission that even before WTC7, the location of his emergency operations center, collapsed on 9/11, he moved those operations to the command and control center set up for the “Tripod II” bio-terrorism exercise on Pier 92 and that it worked even better      than the original.  Giuliani told the 9/11 Commission, “The reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because   on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people there – from FEMA, from    the Federal Government, from [the] State [Dept.], from the [ New York ] State Emergency Management Office – and they were getting ready for a drill for bio-chemical attack.  So that was going be the place they were going  to have the drill.  The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center  there that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center.  And it was from there that the rest of the [9/11 and subsequent] search and rescue effort was completed.”

Conclusion

A cabal of covert elements of the U.S. military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the classification-controlled access to plant the explosives that went off inside its own most heavily defended world headquarters, the Pentagon, on 9/11.  The U.S. military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant the explosives   Willy Rodriguez heard and felt go off deep in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center on 9/11.  The U.S. military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to plant the controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 in New York City which brought down all three buildings on 9/11, and had offices in WTC 7.  The U.S. military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had access to the sulfur-enhanced super-military-grade nano-thermite  (thermate) detected in the WTC dust needed to melt the steel found molten deep in its basement levels as long as two months later, and to the super-military-grade nano anthrax spores in the letters sent to the Democratic leadership of the Congress and to top media.  It is absurd to believe that al Qaeda would target only Democrats, especially as the U.S. leadership at the time of the attacks was Republican. When he    received the anthrax letter dated September 11, then Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle was calling for a Congressional investigation of 9/11 and had already been warned off from “looking too closely at” 9/11 by personal calls from both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  When he received his anthrax letter, another Democratic leader, Senator Patrick Leahy, was leading the Congressional resistance to the Patriot Act, a premeditated assault on Americans’ privacy rights and civil liberties justified by “al Qaeda’s” claimed 9/11 attack clearly drafted by the Bush Administration well before 9/11 and “in the can” awaiting its desired “New Pearl Harbor” trigger event.  The U.S. military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, would have chosen the least-populated and most-reinforced section of the Pentagon––its newly upgraded west wedge—to strike in order to minimize casualties while being able to blame outside attackers, whereas real terrorists would have tried to maximize them.  Real terrorists, also, would have maximized casualties at the World Trade Center by placing explosives so as to allow the buildings to haphazardly fall on other buildings and the streets around them, not bring them neatly down by controlled demolition designed to minimize casualties and surrounding physical damage.  A U.S. military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, had to have performed the steep, highly skilled, high-speed 270- to 330-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Dulles Air Traffic Controllers were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens that morning.  Only a military aircraft, not a civilian airliner flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the “Friendly” signal needed not to trigger the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.  Only the U.S. military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break its own Standard Operating Procedures and paralyze its own emergency response system on 9/11.

And who in the U.S. military, intelligence and military contractor chains of command and U.S. civilian leadership   in the Bush-Cheney Administration are among the prime suspects for these Acts of High Treason?

First and foremost are the signers of the pre-9/11 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) manifesto         calling for “a new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze its radical right-wing global domination and domestic surveillance-and-control agenda:  1) Vice President Dick Cheney; 2) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; then Deputy Secretary of Defense     Paul Wolfowitz; 3) Richard Perle, then head of Secretary Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board; 4) Jerry Hauer, one of the government’s top bio-terrorism experts who reportedly took anti-anthrax Cipro to the White House on 9/11.^15A Hauer had been director of NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), whose personnel were moved to a New York pier on 9/11 just before its WTC7 offices were destroyed by pre-placed controlled demolition charges.  A central player in scripting the bio-chem terrorism attack scenario for the Sept. 10/11/12 TRIPOD II exercise in NYC, Hauer is also an expert in the response to building collapses (New York Times, July 27, 1999).  It was Hauer who insisted, despite the 1993 terrorist attack on WTC1, that Giuliani still locate his Office of Emergency Management, from which a response to another terrorist attack would be expected  to be orchestrated, in WTC7 next door^15B, and also Hauer who zealously pushed the ‘bin Laden did it and planes-and-fires brought down the Towers’ official story on CBS News  on 9/11 in the immediate aftermath of the attacks before anyone without insider knowledge could have possibly determined the actual cause of the collapses, taking pains to state that explosives were not involved, when they were.  The OEM opened on the 23^rd floor of WTC7 in June 1999, where Hauer, its director, had his office.  Hauer was also managing director of Kroll Associates before and on 9/11, the company that provided ‘security’ for the World Trade Center, including all three buildings brought down by controlled demolition that morning, and thus had complete access to pre-place the explosive charges he adamantly insisted on national TV on 9/11 were not involved.  Hauer became    a National Security adviser to the National Institutes of Health on Sept. 10, the very day TRIPOD II personnel arrived in New York City , from which new NIH post he managed the Bush Administration’s ‘response’ to the imminent anthrax attacks and the initial cover up of the insider anthrax killers.  5) Gary Bauer, the right-wing ‘family values’ zealot who ‘happened’ to be one of the ‘witnesses’ to immediately claim publicly to have seen ‘Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’, proven by the evidence to be a physical impossibility; and 6) then National Security Council Middle East adviser Zalmay Khalizad, soon to be the first US Ambassador to Afghanistan after 9/11 and then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq – the very two countries whose invasions were rationalized as retaliation for the 9/11 attacks.  During the Cold War, Khalizad was reportedly a liaison to then CIA “bag man” Osama bin Laden in the CIA-Pakistani ISI-Saudi covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the crucible from which al Qaeda later emerged.  ‘Al Qaeda’, in fact, was originally the CIA’s and ISI’s                    list of anti-Soviet foreign fighters in Afghanistan.

Another key suspect is Air Force General William Hayden, later Director of the CIA and then head of the     National Security Agency (NSA), which tapped the calls of lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the day before 9/11, and surely on many other occasions before 9/11 as well—all almost certainly without FISA warrants as required by law.  These pre-9/11 warrant-less NSA taps put the lie to President Bush’s claim that he initiated the program of warrant-less NSA taps of al Qaeda suspects because of—and thus only after—9/11.  Yet another key suspect is Army Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin, the radical Christian fundamentalist Special Operations commando recently proposed to head the Army’s Special Operations Command.  Yet another is the Pentagon’s POP2 office, which reportedly plans and scripts “false flag” operations—attacks planned and orchestrated by the U.S. military but made to appear perpetrated  by an outside enemy to justify U.S. military “retaliation.”  Yet another suspect is Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Iran expert Lawrence “Larry” Franklin, who was “loaned” to Perle and Wolfowitz’s neocon co-conspirator Douglas Feith and arrested for passing national security secrets to Israeli operatives at a meeting of top American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) personnel.  Franklin also was and is an officer in the Air Force Reserves, which directed NORAD’s “Vigilant Guardian/Vigilant Warrior” hijack-scenario exercises on 9/11.

Scrutiny should also be leveled at the scriptwriters for the NORAD hijack-scenario  and NRO plane-into-tower emergency response exercises planned for and held on 9/11, especially members of their lead “White Teams,”which set the content and then oversee both “Red Team attackers” and  “Blue Team defenders” on the actual day of an exercise, in this case on 9/11 itself.  And every one of  the as-yet-to-be-identified “top Pentagon officials” who on Sept. 10, the day before 9/11, according to Newsweek, suddenly cancelled their already-booked flights for September 11.¹⁹ Also National Military Command Center (NMCC) commander Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, who on that same day, September 10, asked his deputy, Navy Capt. Charles Leidig to take over for him the next morning  between 8:30 and 10:30 — precisely the time window of the “exercises” whose details and date had been given to Mohammed Atta.  Further investigation should be directed at the (government) “agency” the 9/11 Commission revealed, without identifying    it by name, that took out the vast majority of the put options on American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the few days before 9/11.  Also, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey during the first 1993 attack on the World Trade Center who, as a private attorney, represented Egyptian-born US resident Magdy Elamir, under investigation for illegally diverting millions of dollars and whose brother, Mohammed Elamir, funded arms smugglers linked to al Qaeda.²⁰ Significantly, Mohamed Atta’s name in his country of birth, Egypt, was also Mohamed Elamir. In other words, the very man President Bush put in charge of the entire 9/11 “investigation” and who is now Director of Homeland Security — the top official charged with defending the U.S. mainland from an attack by al Qaeda — may have himself  been directly involved with Al Qaeda and even with Mohamed Atta himself.  In fact, Chertoff   may well have been the top Bush-Cheney insider whom we know (see above) had to have been the source for Atta’s finally being told the date of “his own” attack.  And FBI headquarters supervisor David Frasca and his deputy Michael Maltbie, who ignored 70 pleas by Zacarias Moussaoui’s FBI interrogator to let him investigate the contents of Moussaoui’s computer before 9/11.  Attention  should especially be directed to Phillip Zelikow, a Bush-Cheney White House NSC staff member along with Zalmay Khalizad to then NSC Adviser Condoleezza Rice before and on 9/11.  Zelikow both orchestrated The 9/11 Commission Report cover up of the administration’s inside job and, at Rice’s personal request, rewrote the Bush Administration’s official national strategic plan draft to better match the global domination agenda of the pre-9/11 PNAC manifesto.  Zelikow specializes in political mythologies, clearly the most important qualification for his selection as executive director of the Official Myth of Sept. 11 — The 9/11 Commission Report.  Only someone in the innermost circle  of the actual criminal conspirators would be trusted with this critical mission covering up their  mass crime.  These are just some of the names knit into the Scroll of the September 11 Truth Revolution.

Notes:

1) The clock stopped at the moment the Great Earthquake hit San Francisco on April 18, 1906 is at http://sfgate.com/greatquake/ .

2) The clock at the Pentagon heliport just outside the west section, frozen at 9:31:40 am by the violent event at the Pentagon, was posted on an official Navy web site at: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480Pentagonclock_BBC.  Note that whoever took this official Navy photo placed the clock in front of a poster of the controversial Marine Corps part-helicopter/part-fixed-wing plane the Osprey, perhaps thereby suggesting what may have struck the building (after the inside explosions went off), if anything did.  Though the Osprey officially existed  only in prototype at the time, a prototype Osprey would be unique in that its     military IFF transponder would have given off a ‘friendly’ signal and it could have approached the Pentagon helipad in its   helicopter mode and changed over into fixed-wing plane mode at the last second, taking defenses off guard.  Yet another stopped Pentagon clock is — or  was — in the September 11 exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution, originally posted at http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19 .  The author was informed that, after this white paper was published on the Internet, the clock was removed from the Smithsonian 9/11 exhibit but is still in storage there.

2A) Videotaped under-oath testimony of April Gallop to the author, Irvine, California, March 2007, approx. two hours.

2B) April Gallop’s watch, which was stopped just after 9:30 by the explosion that happened at the precise moment she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer on the morning of 9/11, is evidence that the actual time of the initial explosive violent at the Pentagon was closer to 9:30 than 9:32.  As the information about Gallop’s wrist watch was obtained after the first version of this white paper was published, the author has retained 9:32 as a shorthand for the time window 9:30 to 9:32 within which, from the subsequent additional evidence, the initial explosion at the Pentagon occurred.

2C) Audio of Jane Graham interview, KPFA Radio, Berkeley, Calif. http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/62892

3) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) timeline document “Executive Summary Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001.”

4) Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time.  “…I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32…My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.”  The audio of this radio interview is in the 9/11   video documentary “Bomberne som Forsvandt” by Danish researcher Henrik Melvang, available at www.unmask.dk and at www.bombsinsidewtc.dk.  See also the 9/11 timeline by European researcher Jose Garcia in Reality, Truth and Evil Facts, Questions and Perspectives on September 11, 2001, Temple Lodge Publications, 2005.

4A) Naudet Brothers video:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2457244225269763926&hl=en# at 42:27.

4B) Clarke interview article at  http://www.nps.edu/About/News/Counterterrorism-Czar-Richard-Clarke-Calls-for-New-National-Cyber-Defense-Policy-to-Prevent-a-Cyber-9/11-.html

4C) Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, pp. 24-27.

5) The 9/11 Conspiracy, Catfeet Press/Open Court , James Fetzer, editor, 2006, chapter by Prof. James Fetzer; and photos   of a JT8D turbojet engine and the remnant found at the Pentagon at http://www.simmeringfrogs.com/articles/jt8d.html.

6) Report by two civilian defense contractor employees at “Secret Global Hawk Refit for Sky Warrior,” http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/318250.shtml.

6A) Rear Admiral Hathaway bio information     (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_911_timeline_3229#complete_911_timeline_3229).

7) 9/11 — Coup Against America : The Pentagon Analysis, compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, photos and analyses with hundreds of references, by Pete Tiradera, 2006, available from petertiradera@yahoo.com.     

Perkal and Goldsmith:  http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/explosive.html.  Danner:  American  Free Press, July 7, 2006, reporting based on audio report by Republic Broadcasting Network, summary at http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html.

9) Author interview with former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and  Low Intensity Conflict, Monterey, California; summary posted on Naval Postgraduate School web site www.nps.navy.mil, subsequently changed to www.nps.edu.  Article no longer posted; hard copy available from the author.

9A) Personal communication to the author by Rhett Flater, Executive Director of the American Helicopter Society.

9B) “Chilling Aerial Photos of 9/11 Attack Released: Police Aerial Photos Show World Trade Center Collapse” http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9796098.

10) Videotaped testimony of William (“Willy”) Rodriguez, former World Trade Center janitor and the last person to leave the WTC alive on September 11, in the 9/11 documentary “Loose Change,” second edition”, text in parentheses added:  “All of a sudden we hear ‘Boom!’ in the basement.  I thought it was a generator that blew up, and I said to myself, ‘Oh, my God, I think it was a generator.  And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind I heard (another, second) ‘Boom!’ right on the top (above), pretty far away.  And so it was a difference (in space and time) between coming from the basement and coming from the top…and a person comes running into the office (in the first basement level, from a deeper basement level) saying ‘Explosion!’…and he said ‘(it was from) The elevators!’  And there were many (deep basement WTC1) explosions.”

11) “Agency (NRO) Planned Exercise on September 11 Built Around a Plane Crashing into a Building,” Associated Press, August 22, 2002; by Jonathan Lumpkin; “They Scrambled Jets, but It was a Race They Couldn’t Win,” Syracuse Post-Standard, January 20, 2002, by Hart Seely; “Rome Staff’s Efforts on 9/11 Earn Praise, Commission Says Military Did the Best It Could with the Information It Had,” Syracuse Post-Standard, June 18, 2004, by Hart Seely; Complete 9/11 Military Exercises Timeline, Cooperative Research, at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before-9/11=militaryExercises;

Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert, Chapter 19: “Wargames and High Tech: Paralyzing the System to Pull Off the Attacks” and Chapter 20: “Q&A: Many Asked, Some Answered––and a Golden Moment,” New Society Publishers, 2004.  In the Acknowledgements to Rubicon, p. xi, Ruppert credits the author with what he refers to as “the Holy Grail of 9/11 research” (p. 336): Thanks to Barbara Honegger, who kept hammering on the wargames until we all paid notice…  you showed me the most important lead I needed to put it all together.”

12) “Detainee’s Suit Gains Support from Jet’s Log,” New York Times, March 30, 2005, p. A1. Key excerpt, text in parentheses added: “Mr. Arar (a “rendered” detainee) says he followed the (Gulfstream jet) plane’s movements on a map displayed on a video screen (inside the plane), watching it as he traveled to Dulles Airport outside Washington, to a Maine Airport he believed was in Portland (Maine), to Rome, and finally to Amman, Jordan, where he was blindfolded and driven to Syria.” Though the FAA claims its records show a plane on that date making the other stops but landing in Bangor, not Portland , Maine, the detainee’s account may be accurate, as only Portland ’s airport is labeled an  “International Jet Port ,” specializing in landings and takeoffs of just such private, corporate and government jets.    

13) Ironically, at the final hearing of the Kean Commission, where its report was released to the press and public, commissioner John Lehman responded to the question, What if anything remained unknown, by noting that the Commission still wasn’t clear as to “how Atta chose the date for the attacks.”

14) Summary interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, claimed “mastermind” of the September 11 attack plot, read into the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing trial record by the prosecution on March 27, 2006; the full text is part of the court proceedings transcript for that date available through Exemplaris.com.

15) The 9/11 Commission Report, note 116, p. 458, at http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf.  Key excerpt:  “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union .”

15A) http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

15B) http://truthmovecom.blogspot.com/2008/07/jerome-hauer-911-suspect-awaiting.html

READ FULL STORY HERE

Project Censored 2010 Die Zombie Newspapers, Die! by Michael I. Niman voltairenet.org* Newspapers have been going bankrupt all over the United States without being replaced. It would appear that the trend is here to stay. Should one fear and deplore the end of professional journalism or, on the contrary, celebrate the death of an economic model that for decades has put expediency and profit before investigation and dissent. 14 October 2010 Tools Print Send All the versions of this article: français Español Countries United States NGO Project Censored Themes Communication The dailies really died a generation ago, and now their corpses are following suit. Headlines and TV news leads are abuzz with obituaries for the newspaper business, as if the industry had suddenly up and died. Sure, the nation’s top newspapers are in financial turmoil. A few major dailies recently shuttered their doors. Most papers are downsizing staff. Some, like the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, physically shrunk, trimming their waistlines by about three inches. The Detroit News/Free Press and Seattle Post-Intelligencer are moving away from printed paper and going virtual. Denver’s 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News, the 128-year-old Cincinnati Post, and the 87-year-old Albuquerque Tribune have recently closed down entirely and gone to the compost pile. Hence, the post-mortem for the industry. Like much of what we’ve been reading in our daily newspapers, however, the story about the collapse of journalism is old news. Newspapers have been dead for quite a while. The only twist is that their rancid zombie bodies have finally followed suit. I know this sounds cruel, and I’m no doubt raising the ire of legions of coupon-clippers, crossword enthusiasts, and dog-smackers, but let’s look at the history here. Big newspapers killed by greed and the lure of money The collapse of the newspaper industry was predicated by its loss of biodiversity. The monopoly model grew to dominate the industry by the middle of the 20th century. In almost every American city, the dominant paper, buoyed by a growing economy of scale, drove its competition out of business. By the end of the century, approximately 98 percent of American cities were one-newspaper towns. The monopolies threatened democracy, with the dailies often acting as regional news gatekeepers whose spin dominated local politics. Their power put them above reproach; few politicians ever took on the local daily and lived, at least career-wise, to tell about it. And they jacked up advertising prices, sometimes to the point of threatening the very existence of struggling businesses. With their regional monopolies, newspapers regularly generated double-digit returns for their Wall Street investors, becoming one of the nation’s most profitable industries. The romance of the cub reporter out chasing hot leads, ferreting out corruption, scooping the competition, and saving democracy, however, was dead. Newspapers, as profit generators, more and more were taken over by conglomerates in business not to inform, educate, and agitate, but simply to make money, like any other whore on the street. The monopoly model gave newspapers a good run financially, but it was short-lived because publishers grew fat and arrogant as they sat on their thumbs, viewing their growing profits more as an entitlement than as something they would have to work to earn. Without competition, they cut staff, even in good financial times, greedily bleeding their papers for ever-increasing profit margins. Generic wire service stories replaced hard-hitting local reporting, and papers lost their significance as sources of local news. The profit-whore model meant that newspapers avoided biting the hands that fed them. This meant avoiding stories that pissed off advertisers, friends of advertisers, and the folks that advertisers sucked up to. It also meant avoiding any controversy that could in any way upset any party that might one day think of advertising. Between these two censored categories lie most of the stories that make newspapers both necessary and vibrant. “Rocky Mountain News” employees learning about the demise of Denver’s oldest newspaper. The model killed the story … and the readers In its more extreme form, the profit-whore model meant not only trying not to offend but actually sucking up to advertisers. Hence, newspapers replaced hard news with soft, advertising-driven fluff stories and entire advertiser-driven sections of the paper. Think about it. When was the last time you read a story in the auto section critical of a car, or a story in the real estate section critical of irresponsible development patterns? On the macro level, the “suck up to power and don’t ask questions” mandate to which newspapers adhered left us, for example, with nearly every major newspaper in the United States shamelessly parroting subsequently discredited Bush administration propaganda in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact, many media critics now argue that the pro-war bias of American newspapers was a key factor in allowing the Bush administration to lead the nation into war. Alternative news sources, residing mostly in cyberspace, countered this false information with what has proven to be prescient analysis and more accurate information—but they couldn’t counter the misinformation disseminated by newspapers. Look over Project Censored’s tally of the most important but least reported stories of the past 20 years. They choose 25 mind-boggling stories each year—stuff like Halliburton selling nuclear technology to Iran, Halliburton getting contracts to build detention centers in the US, and Dick Cheney’s Halliburton stock rising 3,000 percent during the Iraq war. These stories cover the gamut from government allowances for carcinogens in our food and water to the destruction of habeas corpus and basic human rights protections and the wholesale corporate plunder of natural resources. Yet, in any given year, you can count the number of these stories broken by daily newspapers on your thumbs—and usually have a thumb or two left over. Newspapers have let us down. That’s why we’ve turned to other sources for our news. Sure, the newsprint model of squishing forests into paper pulp is dated in the digital age, but that’s not why these massive news organizations are dying. Today’s major newspapers have, on average, a century or so of brand-building under their belts. They should be the principle recognized players in the news industry, in every medium. These should be strong brands well placed to dominate a convergent media landscape—but after a generation of suck-up-manship, their brands, and hence, their value on Wall Street, are trash. After leading us into war with Judith Miller’s mindless cheerleading for the Bush administration, why should we trust the New York Times for information about Iraq? And, really, why the hell should we pay for their misinformation? Newspapers added to the list of scrap items Many of the stories we’re reading and watching about the collapse of newspapers are authored by papers whining about their own self-induced demise, or by similarly run and equally whorish TV news organizations, prematurely gloating about the death of newspapers as they follow closely down the same path to irrelevance. Missing from this analysis is coverage about the consequent growth of democratic media organizations that actually challenge the status quo and report on dangerous and troubling news stories. In this context, the story isn’t one of a generation racing toward illiteracy and apathy, but a much more hopeful story about a media revolution. Let’s look at this as a market adjustment, with the value of the propaganda model plummeting. This is not a bad development. Big media won’t die garcefully, however. No. They’re wheeling out a host of wonks—so-called experts—to tell us that newspapers have been killed off by, get this, Craig’s List. Think about that. It seems the mysterious loss of classified revenue turned out to be the silver bullet laying the undead to rest. But (and seldom does anyone ask) why did the dailies lose their classified ads? Coincidentally, this loss came on the heels of their readership dwindling. And many of those ads migrated not to Craig’s List but to the weekly alternative papers that have been picking up the reporting slack as the big guys shied away from dangerous stories. This is the market at work—Friedman, not Marx. Where do you look when you want to rent an apartment? And the weeklies didn’t inherit these ads from dead relatives—they worked for them around the same time the dailies stopped working. For journalism to thrive, journalists need to be paid. Critics of democratic media are quick to point out that the market cannot support a million on-line information venues, and small media organizations can only afford small salaries for all but a handful of workers. So, the argument goes, we need a new model to finance quality media. True indeed. But this same argument often operates on the premise that the old model—big monopoly newspapers—were doing that, and the death of the big boys now means the end of journalism as a profession. Is journalism in crisis? The remuneration system by which professional journalists are paid has been way out of wack for a long time, rewarding some of the worst, most spineless, boot-licking writers while punishing hard-working, risk-taking journalists. Let’s look at the New York Post, for example—clearly one of the nation’s worst, sensationalist, fear-mongering, xenophobic rags. They employ some of the highest-paid “journalists” in the industry. Meanwhile, in the same city, the hard-hitting, award-winning Indypendent (yes, it’s spelled with a “y”) relies on volunteer writers for some of the best local investigative reporting in the country. If we stop rewarding lackeys for selling out their supposed profession, that’s not a bad thing. Finding revenue streams to pay good journalists is a whole other issue. The bottom line here is that while there might not be a future for soulless, zombie monopoly newspapers, there is a future for journalism. I’m reminded of a meeting I had a few years back with a delegation of Ukrainian journalists. They were all middle-aged, which means they trained as journalists in a totalitarian Soviet society where there was no journalism. Still, generation after generation, aspiring journalists learned skills they were barred from using. Then the empire collapsed, and when it collapsed, there were journalists waiting to come out of hibernation. Maybe that’s the story here. Perhaps the collapse of self-censored monopoly papers will finally break the stronghold that mediocrity has held over journalism for a generation. Maybe this means that good journalists won’t have to hold day jobs in other professions to support themselves. Perhaps it means weasels will no longer edit newspapers. Or maybe not much will change other than the venue in which misinformation and trivia is delivered. In any event, I’m not shedding any tears for corporate media. Share this Michael I. Niman Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College. A version of this introduction was published in Artvoice on April 28, 2009. His previous Artvoice columns are available at www.Artvoice.com archived at www.Mediastudy.com., and available globally through syndication. This author’s articles United States Global Grandiosity: America’s 21st Century World Architecture U.S. apologized to Guatemala for intentionally infecting (…) Bill Clinton: U.S. should be prepared to lose global (…) Obama’s assurances to Netanyahu Obama transition: Neoconservative resurgence under (…) The Truth Will Set U.S. Free: Breaking Israel’s Stranglehold (…) The Bizarre Background of the ‘9/11’ New York Mosque A Conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham (…) Barack Obama on End of U.S. Combat Mission in Iraq Crisis. What Crisis? Profits Soar! + + + Communication The Nobel Peace Prize at the service of imperialism The Sakineh scandal Something Stinks About Wikileaks Release of “Secret” (…) The Harmans buy Newsweek Chinese television plugs Israel Propaganda: Jill Biden stars in TV series Wikileaks: a political diversion Smearing a film about Chávez’s Venezuela CIA produces nonfiction film “Restrepo” and “War”: Sebastian Junger as a Propagandist for (…) + + + Project Censored Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly Guest Workers Inc.: Fraud and Human Trafficking The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (Videos) Seizing War Protesters’ Assets Is the US Restarting Dirty Wars in Latin America? Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business (video) Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized (…) Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation What is “Project Censored”?

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

READ FULL STORY HERE

He went into the hospital two months ago for back surgery, and the doctors found a heart condition. He had a heart attack and a stroke and probably an infection. He may never be able to write another book or make another speech. I do not have all the facts, but if he is able someday to at least work on his computer, that would be very positive.

I am praying for Dr. Griffin and his family. He has left a legacy with his books that will survive for hundreds of years. He even mentioned me in one of his books. But right now I am praying that he will recover. I don’t really know how bad it is. My friend from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth called him and his wife related this information to us.
Read entire article here

Radio transmitters that are carried aboard aircraft and that are supposed to activate only in the event of the aircraft crashing went off in the New York area several minutes before the two planes hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In events that, according to the official account of 9/11, should have been impossible, emergency locator transmitters (ELTs), which are intended to help locate crashed aircraft by broadcasting a distinctive signal, were activated over two minutes before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north WTC tower and over four minutes before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower. And yet no ELTs went off at the times these planes hit the towers, when we might have expected them to have been activated.

EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER WENT OFF OVER TWO MINUTES BEFORE FLIGHT 11 CRASHED
American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. and 40 seconds. [1] But two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA’s New York Center, had received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m., the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: “I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off.” (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later–about 90 second before Flight 11 hit the WTC–another plane in the New York Center’s airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: “We picked up that ELT, too. But it’s very faint.” [2] According to author Lynn Spencer, “several” facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time. [3]

Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off “in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan.” [4] And, around the time Flight 11 hit the WTC, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, “We got a report of an ELT in the area that [the radar track for Flight 11] was in.” (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for Flight 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York’s JFK International Airport.) [5]

However, while an ELT went off minutes before Flight 11 hit the WTC, it appears that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself.

EMERGENCY TRANSMITTER WENT OFF OVER FOUR MINUTES BEFORE FLIGHT 175 CRASHED
United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. and 11 seconds. [6] But, as with the first crash, an ELT was activated in the New York area several minutes before this plane hit the tower.

At just before 8:59 a.m., over four minutes before the Flight 175 crash, the pilot of Flight 583, who had reported the ELT signal before the North Tower was struck, told David Bottiglia at the New York Center that he had noticed another ELT going off. The pilot said, “I hate to keep burdening you with this stuff, but now we’re picking up another ELT on 21.5.” [7]

As with the previous crash, although an ELT went off minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower, it seems that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself.

ELT SHOULD ONLY GO OFF IN EVENT OF A CRASH
An emergency locator transmitter is a battery-operated radio transmitter carried by aircraft, which can emit a distinctive signal on the emergency frequencies of 121.5 and 243.0 megahertz. When “armed,” an ELT is designed to automatically activate in the event of a crash and then continually emit the emergency signal, thereby helping rescuers to locate the crashed aircraft. [8] ELTs are required to be installed in almost all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. [9]

Paul Thumser, an operations supervisor at the FAA’s New York Center on 9/11, has over 20 years’ experience as an air traffic controller and is also an experienced airline pilot. He provided the 9/11 Commission with detailed information about ELTs. Thumser said the ELT in a Boeing 767–the type of plane that hit both of the WTC towers–cannot be activated by a pilot. Therefore, with a 767, “impact would be the only way to trigger one.” Furthermore, the sensitivity setting of the ELT in a 767 “is not low,” and so it should be impossible for one to be set off by the plane making a hard turn or a hard landing. Thumser therefore judged that “it would have to be a serious impact to set the ELT off.” [10] Terry Biggio, the operations manager at the FAA’s Boston Center, similarly told the 9/11 Commission: “An ELT is not a signal sent by pilot operators. It is clearly indicative of a crash.” [11]

This means that an ELT should not have been activated over two minutes before Flight 11 hit the North Tower, nor should one have been activated over four minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower. If such transmitters on Flights 11 and 175 had been set off, this should have happened when these planes struck the WTC, and yet that did not happen. It was perhaps for this reason that Mike McCormick, the air traffic control manager at the FAA’s New York Center, told the 9/11 Commission that his “best hypothesis” was that the ELT signal transmitted “moments before the impact of AA 11″ was “unrelated to the event” of the crash. [12]

McCormick also told the 9/11 Commission that ELT signals sometimes “happened accidentally,” and that “the vast majority are false alarms.” [13] However, this could not have been the case with the signals before the WTC crashes. None of the air traffic controllers who were involved with monitoring Flights 11 and 175 have reported any planes’ ELTs going off by accident around that time. And for one plane in the New York area to have its ELT set off accidentally just before Flight 11 hit the WTC, and then the ELT on another plane in that area going off accidentally just before Flight 175 hit the WTC, would have been too big a coincidence to be plausible.

INEXPLICABLE EVIDENCE
The strange evidence of emergency locator transmitter signals being broadcast in the New York area before the World Trade Center towers were hit raises serious questions about the official account of the 9/11 attacks. According to that account, if ELTs had been activated, this should have been at the times the planes hit the towers, not several minutes beforehand. [14] The evidence appears inexplicable, and so proper investigation is imperative to make sense of it. But while a number of air traffic controllers mentioned the ELT signals in their interviews with the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report offered no explanation for this anomalous evidence.

Many questions remain unanswered. For example, were the sources of the ELT signals ever determined? If so, did the signals indeed come from the planes that hit the WTC, or were they from somewhere else? And were the transmitters themselves ever found? After all, according to the FAA, “In most installations the [ELT] is attached to the aircraft structure as far aft as practicable in the fuselage; or in the tail surface, in such a manner that damage to the beacon will be minimized in the event of a crash impact.” [15] So the transmitters should have survived the crashes, if they were in the planes that hit the Twin Towers. If the ELTs were found, then, were they indeed in the rubble of the World Trade Center? Or were they somewhere else?

Paul Thumser told the 9/11 Commission that “credible” ELT signals (i.e. those not determined to be false alarms) had to be reported to the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC), which, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, was located at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. [16] So did the AFRCC locate the sources of the ELT signals or determine anything else about them? The only relevant information provided by the 9/11 Commission appears in one of its memorandums, which stated, “We visited the RCC and they receive all ELTs; so many, in fact, that they are a nuisance, and they have special procedures and software to manage that.” [17]

We clearly need to know a lot more, since a proper investigation of these emergency signals could help determine what exactly happened on September 11, and point investigators toward those really responsible for perpetrating the terrorist attacks.

NOTES
[1] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.
[2] “Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175.” New York Times, October 16, 2001; “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With David Bottiglia.” 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003; “Sensitive Security Information: Chronology of September 11, 2001.” Federal Aviation Administration, n.d.
[3] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.
[4] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With Peter McCloskey.” 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003.
[5] FAA Audio File, Herndon Command Center, Position 14. Federal Aviation Administration, September 11, 2001.
[6] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 8.
[7] FAA Audio File, New York Center, Position R42, 8:51 a.m.-9:10 a.m. Federal Aviation Administration, September 11, 2001; “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With David Bottiglia”; “The Hunt for American Air Eleven After WTC 1 is Hit.” 9/11 Commission, n.d.
[8] Christopher G. Morris (Editor), Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992, p. 739; U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-04.300: Airfield and Flight Operations Procedures. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2008, p. E-6.
[9] “Regulatory Brief: Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs).” Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, January 22, 2009.
[10] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With Paul Thumser.” 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003.
[11] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Interview With Terry Biggio, Facility Deputy Manager, Boston Center.” 9/11 Commission, September 22, 2003.
[12] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center (ZNY) Follow-up Interview With Mike McCormick.” 9/11 Commission, December 15, 2003.
[13] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With Mike McCormick, Air Traffic Manager.” 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003.
[14] Note that while ELTs are activated in a majority of aircraft crashes, they are not perfect, and have sometimes failed to go off when planes have crashed. See “Regulatory Brief: Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs).”
[15] “Emergency Locator Transmitters.” Federal Aviation Administration, April 2, 1990.
[16] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With Paul Thumser”; “Air Force Rescue Coordination Center.” U.S. Air Force, November 12, 2008.
[17] “Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With Paul Thumser.”

READ FULL STORY HERE

Excerpt:
World Trade Center (WTC) security company Stratesec has been a topic of considerable discussion among independent 9/11 investigators. One topic discussed has been the possible familial relationship between Stratesec’s CEO, Wirt Dexter Walker III, and its director Marvin Bush, whose brother was President of the United States on 9/11. Although Wirt and Marvin are distant relatives, these ties are inconsequential relative to each man’s family connections to old drug money, deep state operatives, and the wealthy, powerful people who have controlled such money and operatives over the last two centuries.

Stratesec was a company that provided security services for several facilities that were central to the crimes of 9/11. In the years leading up to 9/11, the company had security contracts with the organization that managed Dulles Airport, where Flight 77 took off that day, and with United Airlines, which owned two of the other three hijacked planes. Stratesec had also run security for Los Alamos National Laboratories, where, at the time, scientists were developing super-thermite explosives of the type that have been found in the WTC dust. Stratesec worked at the WTC and was developing the security system for the buildings in the period leading up to, and including, the day of 9/11. These connections are important considering the substantial evidence that insiders were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

World Trade Center (WTC) security company Stratesec has been a topic of considerable discussion among independent 9/11 investigators.  One topic discussed has been the possible familial relationship between Stratesec’s CEO, Wirt Dexter Walker III, and its director Marvin Bush, whose brother was President of the United States on 9/11.  Although Wirt and Marvin are distant relatives, these ties are inconsequential relative to each man’s family connections to old drug money, deep state operatives, and the wealthy, powerful people who have controlled such money and operatives over the last two centuries.[1]

Stratesec was a company that provided security services for several facilities that were central to the crimes of 9/11.  In the years leading up to 9/11, the company had security contracts with the organization that managed Dulles Airport, where Flight 77 took off that day, and with United Airlines, which owned two of the other three hijacked planes.[2] Stratesec had also run security for Los Alamos National Laboratories, where, at the time, scientists were developing super-thermite explosives of the type that have been found in the WTC dust.[3],[4] Stratesec worked at the WTC and was developing the security system for the buildings in the period leading up to, and including, the day of 9/11.  These connections are important considering the substantial evidence that insiders were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Investigation into this company has revealed that the Chief Operating Officer, Barry McDaniel, came to Stratesec from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group called BDM International, which specialized in “black projects.”[5] The Carlyle Group was managed by several Bush cabal insiders including James Baker and former deputy director of the CIA, Frank Carluccci.  Carlyle was funded by investors that included the bin Laden family.[6] Prior to working for BDM, McDaniel had worked as a military ordnance distributor at Fort Belvoir, a facility with many links to 9/11 including the terrorist tracking program Able Danger and the terrorist trainer Ali Mohammed.[7]

McDaniel was not the only former Carlyle Group employee at Stratesec, as the company’s director of information technology was also formerly with BDM.[8] Additionally, the vice president of finance at Stratesec came there from Anadac Molybdenum Corporation, a company where the chairman, Roger Taylor, was also the president of Zapata Granby, a subsidiary of Zapata Corporation.  This is the same Zapata Corporation that was founded by George H.W. Bush in the 1950s.  George H.W. Bush’s son, Marvin, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to 2000.

Probably the most interesting person associated with Stratesec was Wirt Dexter Walker III.   Despite the “III”, Wirt is actually the fourth Wirt Dexter Walker in the same line.  To keep the notations clear, however, in this article we will refer to the Stratesec CEO, Wirt Dexter Walker III, as “Wirt Three.”  Given the remarkable connections between Wirt Three and the facilities and aircraft compromised on 9/11, a review of all the Wirts, and where they came from, is worthwhile.

Solomon Walker

Wirt Three’s great-great-great grandfather, Solomon Walker, appeared in Claremont, New Hampshire in the early 1800s.  Exactly where he came from, no one knows.  The first reports of Solomon were that he was a selectman in Claremont and was married to an heiress named Charity Stevens.  Charity was the granddaughter of Elihu Stevens, a justice of the peace who shared in large land grants given to certain people in New Hampshire by the King of England.[9] Charity’s cousin, Paran Stevens, later became a famous hotel mogul in New York City and throughout New England.[10]

Nearly one hundred years after Solomon appeared in Claremont, people were still searching for answers as to his parentage and origination.[11] It is unclear how he came to Claremont and, even today, Solomon’s descendants have not been able to determine where their forefather originated.[12]

Much evidence suggests, however, that Solomon Walker of Claremont was the son of Solomon Walker and Sylvia Delano, of Maine.  The recorded history of their youngest son, Solomon, is vague and suggests that he married twice to women much older than him.  His second marriage was said to be to Sophia Delano (16 years older), whom he supposedly married a day after his 82-year old father had married her.[13] Although Charity Stevens was 15 years older than Solomon, she was not his stepmother.

For a number of other reasons, it is likely that Solomon “Delano” Walker and/or his father, also named Solomon Walker, made the short journey from Maine to Claremont.  Solomon’s father’s hometown was Berwick, ME, which is one hundred miles straight east of Claremont.  Berwick is very near Kennebunkport, the long-time home of the Walker side of the Bush family.  Coincidentally, Dick Cheney’s great-grandfather, Samuel Fletcher Cheney, was born at about the same time, halfway between Berwick and Claremont, in Boscawen, NH.

Sylvia Delano, Solomon’s mother, was a cousin of Warren Delano, who was a partner of Russell & Company, a China trading firm whose leaders made fortunes through the opium trade.  Warren Delano was also the grandfather of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Another reason to believe that Solomon Walker was the son of a Delano is that his wife’s cousin, Mathilda Stevens, married the son of Mary Delano.  Mary’s dad, Abisha Delano, was also a first cousin of Warren Delano.  Abisha and Mary were among the many Delanos who lived in Sullivan County, New Hampshire, where Claremont is located.[14] Banker and railroad executive, Francis R. Delano (1842 to 1892), attended Kimball Union Academy in Sullivan County.

The clearest indication that Solomon Walker was a Delano is that one of his sons was treated very generously by Warren Delano and his colleagues.  When their son, James Monroe Walker, was a boy, Solomon and Charity moved from Claremont to Oakland County, Michigan.  James went to college at Oberlin College initially, before moving to the University of Michigan to study law.  After that, James’ fortunes grew exponentially.

James Monroe Walker

Solomon Walker’s son, James Monroe Walker, was an attorney who was President and Solicitor for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy (C,B&Q) Railroad, the Michigan Central Railroad, the Wilmington Coal Company, the Kansas City Stockyards, and the Union Stockyard and Transit Company.[15] James M. Walker ran these businesses for the opium traders at Russell & Company, who invested their money in these railroads and other major infrastructure in the US during the mid-1800s.[16]

Russell & Company was started in 1818 by Samuel Russell, cousin of the founder of the “secret society” called Skull & Bones at Yale University, William Huntington Russell.  Samuel had gotten his start through merchant companies like Whittlesley & Alsop of Boston, MA.  The Alsops were also major investors in the businesses run by James Monroe Walker, and Russell & Company partner John N. Alsop Griswold was a director of the C,B&Q as well as president of the Illinois Central railroad.  Many years later, in the 1960s, Washington Post columnist Joe Alsop, a descendant of the Whittlesley & Alsop owners, convinced President Johnson to create the Warren Commission, which was a cover-up for the assassination of President Kennedy.[17]

In 1828, Russell & Company merged with another drug smuggling syndicate run by John Perkins Cushing.[18] Cushing brought in his cousins, Robert Bennet Forbes and John Murray Forbes.  Robert Bennet Forbes was Senator John F. Kerry’s great-grandfather.  John Murray Forbes attended school at Phillips Academy in Andover, the alma mater of George H.W. Bush, and his sons Jeb and George W.

John Murray Forbes coordinated much of the US investment of the Russell & Company partners, and he was the one who hired James Monroe Walker.[19] Walker was first hired as Solicitor for the Michigan Central, and later as Solicitor and President of the C,B&Q.  While running these railroads, Walker worked with Nathaniel Thayer Jr, a distant relative of George W. Bush, who was general counsel for the C,B&Q and other Russell & Company businesses that Walker was involved in.  Walker worked closely with Sidney Bartlett as well, who was another legal representative for the C,B&Q.

At the same time, Bartlett and Thayer were legal representatives for the railroads owned by Edward H. Harriman, including the Union Pacific.[20] Harriman was a director of the Illinois Central, along with Russell & Co partner John N. Alsop Griswold.  Harriman is well known for being the father of William Averell Harriman and Roland Harriman, two Skull & Bones members who founded the Brown Brothers Harriman, whose employees included George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law, Prescott Bush.  Eugene Delano and his son, Moreau Delano, were partners in Brown Brothers Harriman as well.

The fortunes that Russell & Company invested in US railroads and other infrastructure were the spoils from The Opium Wars, among the most inhumane and socially devastating events in human history.  These wars, which occurred between 1839 and 1858, were brought upon the Chinese people by the British government acting on behalf of merchants like Russell & Company, who intended to defy the Chinese government’s ban on opium trading.  It was Russell & Company’s business partner, William Jardine of Jardine Matheson, who successfully persuaded the British Foreign Minister, Lord Palmerston, to wage war on China.[21]

As a result of these devastating attacks, the British merchants were able to force Turkish opium upon China, thereby making enormous fortunes paid in silver.  By 1906, after several generations of this forced drug trade, opium victims in China were estimated to number 100 million.[22]

China ceded Hong Kong to the British in 1842 as part of an early defeat.  Jardine Matheson was one of the opium trading companies that survived for much longer in Hong Kong, being taken over by Chinese tycoon Li Ka-shing in 1980.  Li Ka-shing later invested in firms owned by Winston Partners, and has also employed Winston Partners cofounder Marvin Bush’s brother, Neil Bush, as a consultant.[23]

As opium traders before, during and after the Opium Wars, Russell & Company were agents of merchant banks like Baring Brothers and N.M. Rothschild.[24],[25] Initially, the merchant banks funded the purchase of the opium, and Russell & Company sailed to make the purchase and subsequently smuggled the drugs into China, making tremendous fees for their work as operatives in the drug trade.  The company’s biggest client, Baring Brothers, was agent for the US government between 1843 and 1871, and actually sold the Louisiana Purchase to the US.  Baring Brothers was later agent for the British government and had a close relationship with the British monarchy from 1891 to 1995.

The names of the partners of Russell & Company are well known in the history of US power circles.  Partner Abiel Abbot Low fathered a mayor of New York City, Seth Low, who was also president of Columbia University.  The descendents of the Forbes brothers, Robert Bennet and John Murray, are US powerbrokers to this day, and include the owners of Forbes magazine as well as Senator John Forbes Kerry.  The Delanos fathered many powerful people including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

President Roosevelt’s grandfather, Warren Delano, was the head of Russell & Company from 1840 to 1842, after which time Russell Sturgis, another relative of John Perkins Cushing, became a partner.  Sturgis later became the head of Baring Brothers.  Warren’s son, Frederic Adrian Delano, eventually took James Monroe Walker’s position as president of the C,B&Q, and was there  for twenty years.  Frederic was also the first vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank.

It was at the time that James Monroe Walker was president of the C,B&Q, in the 1870s, that these drug dealing investors began to create a vast railroad network that controlled the transport of goods throughout the United States.  Controlling the delivery of goods was the same as controlling the price of goods.  Additional power over the country was gained through control of the stockyards that fed the masses, and the coal that drove the trains and heated homes.  James Monroe Walker was right in the middle of this massive power grab, and served as a trusted operative for these merchant investors from the east.[26]

James Monroe Walker married Elia A. Marsh, of Kalamazoo, Michigan.  Elia came from an old New England family as well, as a child of Ransoms and Fletchers and Meigs.  Her cousin Betsey Ransom married Claghorn Robinson, who is a member of the Lathrop side of the Bush family.  Elia’s brother, Wells Ransom Marsh, was a member of the secret society called Alpha Delta Phi.[27], [28]

James and Elia had a son named James Ransom Walker, and a daughter named Mary Louise Walker.  Mary died shortly after her marriage to John Wellborn Root, a noted architect of the time.  Root’s uncle was Elihu Root, attorney for prominent Skull & Bones member William Collins Whitney, and early employer of Bonesman Henry Stimson, who later became Secretary of War (twice) and Secretary of State.

The first child born to James and Elia was the original Wirt Dexter Walker, named for James’ law partner Wirt Dexter, the grandson of US Secretary of the Treasury, Samuel Dexter.  Since the original Wirt Dexter Walker was not the “first”, in this article we will call him Wirt Zero.

Wirt Zero

It’s fair to say that Wirt Zero’s family was well-connected.   That’s a good reason why Wirt went to Yale and was a member of the University’s second oldest secret society, Scroll & Key.  Other notable Scroll & Key members have included the famous statesman Dean Acheson, who in 1969, as one of his final acts, passed along his sophisticated knowledge of Washington and his expertise on American policy to Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.[29] Scroll & Key members also included a number of famous CIA agents and the founder of WTC impact zone tenant Marsh & McLennan, Donald R. McLennan.  President Bush’s relative, Joseph Walker Wear, was Scroll & Key in 1899.

Moreover, Wirt Zero was a member of the Yale fraternity called Delta Kappa Epsilon (DeKEs), like George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, New York City Governor George Pataki, and former President Gerald Ford (of the Michigan Omicron chapter).  When George W. Bush was president of the DeKEs, he defended the fraternity’s practice of branding its pledges with a red-hot coat hanger.[30]

Delano family connections with Yale are strong. [31] Yale graduates among the Delanos include Eugene Delano Jr., William Adams Delano (Scroll & Key 1895), and Moreau Delano (Scroll & Key 1898).

When Wirt Zero was only 21 years old, and had just graduated from Yale, his father died.  Young Wirt was made the executor of the estate and he suddenly became a very rich man.  Wirt Zero then attended the Union College of Law in Chicago (now Northwestern), became a lawyer in 1883, and joined his father’s partner’s law firm.  He worked in Chicago and belonged to the Union League Club, and the Chicago Club.  Wirt appears to have most enjoyed traveling to the area from where his mother’s family hailed, the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, and he built an estate there called Blythewood Farms.

Wirt began having trouble with his eyesight around 1887.  During this time, he and his brother James Ransom Walker had the distinction of having financed the first steel-framed “skyscraper” in history, the 14-story Tacoma Building in Chicago.  But by 1890, Wirt was totally blind and had to abandon much if his work.  He then spent a number of years traveling to specialists in the east and in Europe. [32]

Despite being blind, Wirt married Marie Winston in December, 1894.  Marie was the daughter of General Frederick Winston, an attorney and founder of the Chicago law firm Winston and Strawn.  Coincidentally, this law firm is now run by 9/11 Commission member James R. Thompson, and, in a further coincidence Winston & Strawn represented Underwriters Laboratories in its recent legal battle with the author of this article. [33]

Two of Wirt Zero’s bothers-in-law were members of Yale’s Skull & Bones society.  Both Dudley Winston and Frederick Seymour Winston were Bonesman.  Dudley Winston became a banker and also served as secretary to his father when his father was US Minister to Persia.  Frederick Seymour Winston and his father were both lawyers for the C,B&Q railroad and, along with Marie, they are listed as American descendants of the “Magna Charta Barons.”[34]

Wirt Zero died at New York City’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel on April 24, 1899, at the age of 39.  He was preparing for another trip to Europe when he contracted a sudden pneumonia while traveling from Chicago to New York.

Wirt Zero’s will, drawn up at the time of his marriage in 1894, became something of a national story.  That’s partly because Wirt was totally blind as of 1890 and, more importantly, because his fortune was to be distributed based on Marie’s willingness to remain unmarried after his death.  If she chose to marry again, the will said that the majority of Wirt’s estate, minus a small annual allowance for Marie, would go to the creation of an art foundation in Chicago.  Marie did decide to remarry a few years later, after newspaper stories decried her financial loss, and the Wirt Walker Gallery was born.[35]

Wirt Zero fathered a child that was never again mentioned other than in early discussions over his controversial will and testament.[36] The child was almost certainly Wirt Dexter Walker I (Wirt One), and we must assume the mother was Marie Winston Walker.

The commonly accepted history, however, suggests that Wirt One was the son of Wirt Zero’s brother, James Ransom Walker.  Apart from the never again mentioned child of Wirt Zero, there are several other reasons to believe that Wirt One was the son of Wirt Zero.  First, in family documents created four years after his birth, Wirt One was not listed as one of the sons of James and Louise.[37] Secondly, the other sons of James and Louise were given the middle name “Meeker” but Wirt One was named precisely after James’ brother, Wirt Dexter Walker.   Additionally, Wirt One was born eleven days before the sudden and unexpected death of Wirt Zero, and it seems unlikely that James would give his son the exact name of his living brother.

Wirt One

In any case, Wirt Dexter Walker I (Wirt One) was born on April 13, 1899, eleven days before the sudden and unexpected death of Wirt Zero.  Born into in a very affluent, “high society” environment that included regular travels between Chicago and the Berkshires, he was raised by Wirt Zero’s brother, James Ransom Walker, and his wife Louise (Meeker) Walker.  Wirt One was a boy tennis champion in the Berkshires and also played baseball with James and Louise’s other sons, James Meeker Walker and Arthur Meeker Walker.

Like his brothers (or cousins), Wirt One attended Williams College.[38] Graduates of Williams College have included some of the most prominent CIA employees in history, including Director of the CIA, Richard Helms (1935), who later specifically recruited Williams graduates for the agency.[39] Another famous CIA veteran from Williams was former Bush advisor and Iran-Contra conspirator Donald Gregg (1951).  CIA legend Russell Jack Smith taught at Williams until the attack on Pearl Harbor, after which he joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and began a lengthy career in intelligence.

Williams College connections to the Bush family include Lucy Woodruff Walker, daughter of Williams graduate and trustee, William Perrin Walker.  Lucy was the wife of Judge David Davis, who was the cousin and benefactor of David Davis Walker, George H.W. Bush’s great-grandfather.   Another Williams College alumnus, and close associate of George H.W. Bush, is Carlyle Group advisor and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (from 1993 to 2001), Arthur Levitt.

Brown Brothers Harriman executive, Eugene Delano, graduated from Williams College in 1866.  Delano was also a trustee of Williams College, for twenty-five years, and died two years after Wirt One entered the college.

Wirt One left Williams College to join the Army in the summer of 1918, and was located temporarily at Camp Custer.  He served in “Base 14” as a private and returned in April 1919.[40] It’s not clear if he ever returned to graduate from Williams, but soon after his return he married Susan Cramer Stephenson, whose guardian was her uncle Ambrose Cramer of Lake Forest, IL.[41] Susan and Wirt lived for the first two years of their marriage in Buffalo, New York and then moved back to Chicago permanently.  Susan and Wirt had one son together, Wirt Dexter Walker II, before Susan sued for divorce in 1924 on grounds of “cruelty.”

In 1929, Wirt One married again, this time to Gertrude Reich.  While married to Wirt, Gertrude was sued for stealing the affections of another woman’s husband, in a well-publicized scandal.  Wirt later sued Gertrude too, for divorce, based on the claim that she deserted him.[42]

Wirt married a third time, in 1937, to Mildred Walker.  They were married for twelve years until Mildred sued for divorce, accusing Wirt of cruelty again, and also of nonsupport.[43] At the time, Mildred claimed that Wirt had an income of over $100,000 per year in 1949.[44]

Aside from the ladies, Wirt One’s endeavors included working for the Arcady Farms Milling company, at first as an employee of his uncle, Arthur Meeker, and eventually as president and chairman of the company.  Arcady Farms Milling was a manufacturer of feedstock for turkeys and other livestock.

In 1943, Wirt One was attacked by six men after a dinner party attended by political leaders.  The motive for the attack was unclear and Wirt was taken to the hospital with a broken nose, a fractured jaw, and internal injuries.  No clues to the identity of the attackers were found.[45]

Like his father, Wirt One was a member of the Chicago Club which was, since its inception in 1869, a highly selective and secretive group of Chicago powerbrokers.  In fact, the Chicago Tribune dubbed it the “center of power in Chicago.”[46] Wirt One appears to simply have been a lucky, rich kid amongst a membership list that at one time or another included the likes of Marshall Field, George Pullman and Abraham Lincoln.  But perhaps there was more to Wirt than we know.

Immediately after his divorce from Mildred, in April 1949, Wirt One married Rosalie Cohen, “former model and secretary.”[47] Rosalie was twenty years younger than Wirt.

Wirt One died August 8, 1953, the week of the CIA’s famous coup in Iran.  His obituary lists private services and no report of how he died.

Wirt Two

Wirt Dexter Walker II (Wirt Two) was born to Wirt One and his first wife, Susan Cramer Stephenson during the two years that they lived in Buffalo.

Like his father, Wirt Two went to Williams College.  He graduated and then immediately joined the Army Air Corps during World War II and became a pilot.[48] Just before leaving for duty in 1942, Wirt Two married Margaret Elizabeth Ross, of North Adams, MA.[49] They eventually had three children:  Wirt Dexter Walker III (Wirt Three), Wendy Margaret Walker, and William Ross Walker.   Both Wendy and William, along with their brother Wirt Three, were shareholders in Stratesec.[50]

In 1954, Wirt Two was in a legal battle with three of his father’s four wives, over his father’s substantial estate.[51] His daughter Wendy later remarked on Wirt One’s exploits, suggesting that her grandfather’s work at Arcady Farms was only one of several of his “ventures.”[52]

Wirt Two became a career officer in the Army Air Corps and then the US Air Force, serving until 1962.  He flew combat missions with the Eighth Air Force while stationed in England during the war, and was later stationed in Germany.  After the war he was assigned to “various government agencies involved in reconnaissance intelligence.”[53] The Lockheed-made U2 reconnaissance aircraft was assigned to the Eighth Air Force, a part of Strategic Air Command, where U2 operations started in 1956 and involved flights over the Soviet Union and the Middle East.[54] In May 1960, while Wirt Two was working on reconnaissance intelligence, an American U2 was shot down by the Soviets, initiating a worldwide controversy over espionage.

Wirt Two is also listed as an ex-employee of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), an agency of the CIA that analyzed aerial spy photographs.[55] The significance of the NPIC to major intelligence activities during the twentieth century cannot be overstated.  NPIC was the agency that was responsible for the intelligence that originated the Cuban missile crisis.[56] NPIC was also central to the analysis of the photographic evidence related to the Kennedy assassination, including the Zapruder film.  Whether or not Wirt Two participated in these historic activities is not publicly known.

In his obituary, Wirt Two is listed as having been an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), for which it is said he worked until 1977.  He died of leukemia in 1997.

Wirt Three

Wirt Three lives in McLean, Virginia, home of the CIA.  He graduated from Lafayette College in 1968 and in 1971 he married Sally Gregg White, a Washington DC debutante.  Sally is a descendant of architectural ironwork magnate George White, whose son “Doc” White was a World Series winning pitcher for the Chicago White Sox.  “Doc” was actually a dentist but his brother, Charles Stanley White, was a famous Washington DC surgeon and grandfather to Sally.  Sally’s father, Charles White Stanley Jr, was a surgeon too and, like Wirt Two, he was an officer in the Army Air Corps. [57]

Wirt was fortunate to land a position, right out of college, as a broker for an “investment” firm called Glore Forgan.[58] Originally a company called Field Glore, financed by Marshall Field III, Glore Forgan was renamed in 1937 for its new partner, James “Russ” Forgan.  Russ was one of the most influential men in the history of US intelligence, having led the European division of the CIA’s predecessor organization, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).  In the OSS, Forgan focused on infiltrating the German intelligence apparatus with the help of William J.  Casey.  Casey later became SEC chairman under Nixon and the director of CIA under Reagan.  Before going back to work in the “investment” business, Forgan helped to write the documents that created the CIA.

While Wirt Three worked there, William Casey was House Counsel for Glore Forgan.  It was at this time that the firm was at the center of a near collapse of Wall Street.  In 1970, it began to be clear that Glore Forgan had somehow sold many millions of dollars more in securities than what its customers thought they owned.   As a result, the company was expected to fail and, due to a cascading effect, its failure was projected to take down dozens of other firms causing a panic and huge losses on Wall Street. [59] These projections compelled President Nixon to ask Ross Perot, through Treasury Secretary John Connally, to intervene and save Glore Forgan.  Perot suffered dramatic losses in an attempt to save the company (the only business loss of his career) and Glore Forgan went bankrupt anyway.  The US government created the Securities Investor Protection Corp (SIPC) in response.[60]

A few years later, Wirt Three went from being a broker at Glore Forgan to running a series of other companies that went bankrupt.  Yet somehow, Wirt Three always had cash flow.   That could have been due to the fact that, by 1982, Wirt Three was a director of the Kuwaiti-American Company (or Kuwam).

Stratesec started off in 1987 as Burns & Roe Securacom, founded by Nelson Rockefeller assistant, Sebastian Cassetta.   The company changed its name to Securacom when it was taken over by Kuwam in 1992, at which time Wirt Three became CEO.  When Wirt Three was sued by the president of an existing company with an identical name, Wirt became abusive and told the other businessman that he “would bury him financially and take everything he had “ by “filing a barrage of frivolous arguments…in multiple jurisdictions.”[61] Wirt lost the case and had to change his company’s name to Stratesec, but this incident suggested that Wirt Three was not only abusive, but that he had the kind of deep pockets that allowed for frivolous lawsuits.

Kuwam also owned two companies called Commander Aircraft and Aviation General, both of which had Wirt Three as CEO, and both of which went bankrupt shortly after 9/11.

As CEO of Stratesec, Wirt Three did business with some shady characters.  For example, Stratesec owed money to a company called Bankest Capital, which appeared to be a money-laundering operation or similar fraud.  Wirt Three transferred seven million dollars in shares of his Stratesec stock to Bankest as a way to reduce that debt ($1.75 MM).[62] Bankest ‘s owners, brothers Eduardo and Hector Orlansky, were later convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud when $185 million went missing due to “hug overadvances.”[63] Apparently $2 billion was “flowed through the Orlansky’s two businesses from 1998 to 2003 to create the appearance they were healthy and growing.”[64]

A company called Hanifen Imhoff was the underwriter for Wirt’s company, Commander Aircraft.[65] This gives further evidence that the companies Wirt Three was running were not only bound for bankruptcy, but were probably CIA fronts all along.  Hanifen Imhoff was “nailed for Correspondent’s fraud” in December 2000.[66] Hanifen Imhoff also happens to be a division of Stifel Nicolaus & Company, whose long term chairman was George W. Bush’s first cousin, Yale Skull & Bones member George Herbert Walker III.[67],[68]

In any case, Wirt Three has a tendency to show up when airplanes crash into tall buildings.  The only other such occurrence since 9/11 led to Wirt Three being interviewed because the plane that crashed was related to his company, Aviation General. [69]

Conclusion

It appears that Wirt Three manages CIA front companies and that Stratesec was one of them.  There are many ways to see this, including Wirt’s shady business dealings and his tendency to run companies into bankruptcy while still maintaining cash flow.  Wirt is, at a minimum, a child of the CIA (and the DIA), but he also worked with William Casey for Russ Forgan’s company, making him an associate of some of the most influential deep state operatives of the last sixty years.

Wirt’s family has been connected to drug money and Yale’s secret societies for over 150 years, and these connections include many links to the Bush family.  Of course, George H.W. Bush was a CIA director and other Bush family members were operatives, like Louis Walker (Skull & Bones 1936).  Another institution with many links to prominent CIA veterans is William College, where two of the Wirts went to school.

Wirt Three is also a distant relative of the Bush family, through the intermarriage of Ransom and Robinson family members and through the Mayflower passenger Francis Cooke, who is an ancestor of both the Delanos and the Bush clan.  Such distant relations are not of importance to most people today, although they are quite important for the Bush family as indicated by how that family chooses its relationships, including its business partners.  For example, George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara are distant cousins along four different lines.

Marvin Bush is but one of several Bush family links to Stratesec, in that several of Stratesec’s directors and employees came from Bush-connected companies, and at least one of Wirt Three’s ventures was underwritten by George Herbert Walker III’s company.  Add to this the fact that the COO of Stratesec , Barry McDaniel, came from a subsidiary of The Carlyle Group that conducted “black projects,” and Stratesec seems worthy of a detailed investigation.

After 9/11, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recommended that Stratesec be investigated for insider trading related to the crimes of that day.  Oddly enough, the FBI and SEC never followed through with the investigation, claiming it was unnecessary because the officers of Stratesec had no “ties to terrorism or other negative information.” [70] That assessment does not appear to be valid for many reasons, including that The Carlyle Group was financed in part by Osama bin Laden’s family and that Stratesec director James Abrahamson was the business partner of Mansoor Ijaz, who claimed on several occasions to be able to contact Osama bin Laden.[71]

Maybe the investigation didn’t happen because no one wanted to embarrass the President, who was busy making tremendous political and personal profit from 9/11, and whose family was deeply connected to The Carlyle Group, and whose brother was a Stratesec director.  But it’s likely that Stratesec was not investigated simply because it would have resulted in discoveries that no one in a position of power wanted to make.

Ultimately though, we know that Stratesec was a security contractor for several of the facilities that were compromised on 9/11, including the WTC buildings, Dulles airport where Flight 77 took off, and also United Airlines which owned two of the ill-fated planes.  We also know that the CEO of Stratesec came from a background of deep-state connected, opium-funded wealth, and that the many Wirt Dexter Walkers were thereafter steeped in a culture of power and secrecy that has ruled the United States for many years.

[2] Margie Burns, Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United, Prince George’s Journal (Maryland), February 4, 2003, http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

[3] Super-thermites are known as “nanothermites”.  See W.C. Danen et al, “Los Alamos Nanoenergetic Metastable Intermolecular Composite (Super Thermite) Program,” 221st ACS National Meeting, San Diego, CA, April 2001.

[4] Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[5] Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of The Carlyle Group, Wiley publishers, 2003, p35

[6] History Commons, Complete 911 Timeline, Bin Laden Family, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?financing_of_al-qaeda:_a_more_detailed_look=binladenFamily&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[7] Peter Dale Scott, 9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events, Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottJFK,911,andWar.pdf

[8] STRATESEC Incorporated Appoints Dr. Amos Lu To Head Information/Network Security Business, Business Wire, March 29, 2000, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_March_29/ai_60865231/

[9] Otis Frederick Reed Waite, The early history of Claremont, New Hampshire: A paper read before the New Hampshire Historical Society, September 29, 1891

[10] New York Times, Mrs. Paran Stevens Dead, April 4, 1895

[11] The Washington Herald, Genealogical Department, December 23, 1906, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045433/1906-12-23/ed-1/seq-7/;words=HERALD+Washington

[12] DAWSON-L Archives, Rootsweb, Dawson DNA testing, October 23, 2004, http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/DAWSON/2004-10/1098549985

[13] Dave Utzinger’s Database, Entry for Solomon Walker (2^nd of three), http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=michelotti&id=I504940

[14] Genealogy Trails History Group, DELANO FAMILY of Sullivan County, NH, http://genealogytrails.com/newham/sullivan/bios_delano.html

[15] Josiah Seymour Currey, Chicago: its history and its builders, a century of marvelous growth, Volume 5, The S,J, Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago, 1912

[16] Ed. By Ernest R. May and John King Fairbank, America’s China trade in historical perspective: the Chinese and American Performance, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1986

[17] Mary Ferrell Foundation, LBJ Phone Calls, http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/LBJ_Phone_Calls

[18] William P. Litynski, An Illustrated History of The China Trade & The Opium Wars

[19] John N. Ingham, Biographical Dictionary of American Business Leaders, Greenwood Press, 1983

[20] New York Times, Funeral of Sidney Bartlett, March 9, 1889

[21] Wikipedia page for William Jardine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jardine_(1784%E2%80%931843)

[22] New York Times, China Decrees death to the Use of Opium, December 30, 1906

[23] National Corruption Index webpage for Li Ka-Shing, http://www.nationalcorruptionindex.org/pages/profile.php?profile_id=16

[24] William C. Hunter, The ‘fan kwae’ at Canton before treaty days, 1825-1844, Kegan Paul, Trench & Co, 1882

[25] Robert B. Forbes’s autobiography, Personal Reminiscences(1882), http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg35515.html

[26] Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Record book of trust mortgages and agreements; also, leases, conveyances, contracts, agreements, and articles of consolidation, A. Mudge & son, printers, 1882

[27] The Peninsular Chapter History, Peninsular Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi, http://peninsular.alphadeltaphi.org/Default.aspx?tabid=952

[28] Wikipedia page for Alpha Delta Phi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Delta_Phi

[29] James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, Viking Penguin, 2004, p 31

[30] Yale Daily News, reproduced at DailyKos, Dec 10, 2005, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/10/233039/84

[31] Yale University. Class of 1908, History of the class of 1908, Yale College, Volume 1

[32] Chicago Daily Tribune, Wirt D. Walker’s Death, April 26, 1899

[33] Website for Winston & Strawn, page for James R. Thompson, Partner and Senior Chairman, http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentid=24&itemid=10873

[34] Charles H. Browning, The Magna Charta Barons and Their American Descendants, Genealogical Publishing Co. Baltimore, 1969

[35] Bevier-Elting Family Association, The $15,000 Misunderstanding, http://www.b-efa.org/elting/misunderstanding.htm

[36] Chicago Daily Tribune, To Found Art Gallery: Will of Wirt Dexter Walker Plans a Public Collection, June 13, 1899

[37] Wyllys Cadwell Ransom, Historical outline of the Ransom family of America, The Richmond & Backus Company, 1903

[38] Williams College, Catalogue 1917-1918, Williamstown, MA

[39] Jack Davis, Improving Intelligence Analysis at CIA: Dick Heuer’s Contribution to Intelligence Analysis, Central Intelligence Agancy, https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art3.html

[40] Chicago Daily Tribune, Many Chicagoans Who Served In Base 14 Return, April 21, 1919

[41] Chicago Daily Tribune, Marriage Announcement 1, May 56, 1918

[42] Chicago Daily Tribune, Wirt D. Walker Sues to Divorce Gertrude Reich, March 19, 1935

[43] Chicago Daily Tribune, Wife Sues W.D. Walker, Miller, For Separation, February 18, 1949

[44] Chicago Daily Tribune, Asks $3,500 a Month Temporary Alimony from Milling Head, February 24, 1949

[45] Chicago Daily Tribune, Firm President Slugged By Six At Club’s Door, December 30, 1943

[46] Wikipedia page for The Chicago Club, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Club

[47] Chicago Daily Tribune, Wirt D. Walker, Head of Milling Company, Married Fourth Time, April 9, 1949

[48] Chicago Daily Tribune, 89 Illinois Men Awarded Wings As Army Pilots, July 4, 1942

[49] Chicago Daily Tribune, Lieut. Wirt D. Walker Jr. Weds Eastern Girl Today, July 4, 1942

[50] Securities and Exchange Commission, FORM S-3 filing for Stratesec Incorporated, June 12, 2000, http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=1091163&SessionID=Md2THqRGPhOZT77

[51] Chicago Daily Tribune, Flyer’s Share of Fortune to Hinge on Court, May 17, 1954

[52] Wendy Walker, Re: Wirt Dexter of Chicago History Fame, GenForum presented by Genelogy.com, October 9, 2001, http://genforum.genealogy.com/dexter/messages/444.html

[53] The Washington Post, obituary for WIRT D. WALKER – Intelligence Analyst, June 15, 1997

[54] The Citizen’s Compendium, U-2 Dragon Lady, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/U-2_Dragon_Lady

[55] NPIC Reunions Database, List of Deceased NPIC Employees, http://npicreunions.blogspot.com/

[56] Wikipedia page for Arthur C. Lundahl, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Lundahl

[57] The Washington Post, Times Herald, Dr. C.S. White Jr., 48, Surgeon, Chief of Staff, April 13, 1964

[58] The Washington Post, Times Herald, White-Walker wedding announcement, April 29, 1971

[59] Alec Benn, The Unseen Wall Street, of 1969 to 1975: And Its Significance for Today, Quorum Books, 2000

[60] Donald Morrison, Ambush on Wall Street, Texas Monthly, April 1974

[61] Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182, http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1099498

[62] SEC filing for Bankest Capital, SC 13D, March 13, 2003, http://www.secinfo.com/dV5Ff.244f.htm

[63] Reuters, Former exec to pay $165 million in fraud case, Aug 28, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2829063820070828

[64] Peter Zalewski, The Accounting: Indictments, receiver’s report on Bankest Capital present picture of a $170 million mystery, Daily Business Review, November 22, 2004, http://lbfmiami.com/pdfs/press_accounting_indictments.pdf

[65] SEC News Digest, Issue 93-47, March 12, 1993, http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1993/dig031293.pdf

[66] Dan Jamieson, Hanifen Imhoff/Fiserv Nailed for Correspondent’s Fraud, Registered Rep., Dec 1, 2000, http://registeredrep.com/mag/finance_hanifen_imhofffiserv_nailed/

[67] St. Louis Business Journal, Webster U. names business school for Bert Walker, April 22, 2010, http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/04/19/daily52.html

[68] Bloomberg Businessweek, Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated Hanifen Imhoff Division, http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=20865

[69] UK Mail Online, Plane crashes into Milan tower, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-110475/Plane-crashes-Milan-tower.html

[70] FBI Memorandum released by 9/11 Commission, “FBI Briefing on Trading”, Prepared by: Doug Greenburg, 8/18/03, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf

[71] Sourcewatch webpage for Mansoor Ijaz/Sudan, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz/Sudan

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

Source www.youtube.com