Friday, September 28, 2007

Help Ron Paul reach his goal of $1,000,000 by donating what you can!

Ron Paul Calls for an End to the ’War on Drugs’

Congressman Ron Paul called for an end to the Drug War and a repeal of "most" Federal drug laws last night during the PBS Republican Presidential Debates hosted by Tavis Smiley.

"We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 70s and it's wasted money. Prohibition didn't work; prohibition on drugs doesn't work."

Ron Paul cited the unfair disparity between the relative percentage of black drug users and blacks imprisoned for drug use. He called for equal justice under the law, giving example to the system's race-based "punishments."

"Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36% of those arrested are blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are blacks. This has to change. We don't have to have more courts and more prisons, we have to repeal the whole 'War on Drugs'-- it isn't working," Paul said.

While many other candidates admirably agreed that blacks were treated unfairly under existing drug laws, many of their solutions included suggestions for new courts, arbitration and rehab programs, not a scaling-back of the failed and hypocritical 'War on Drugs' or a repeal of drug laws.

"So we need to come to our's a disease. We don't treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease and we should orient ourselves to this," said Ron Paul.

Paul was also asked about his support for the death penalty in regards to waning public opinion. He again cited unfair prosecution in the justice system.

"You know, over the years, I've held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. And today, with the DNA evidence, there's been too many mistakes, so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty"


Support Ron Paul! He's what America has been waiting for since JFK!

School Security Guards Beat Teen over Cake Spill

Palmdale -- It all started with a piece of birthday cake, but it ended up with a high school girl being beaten and expelled. The incident, which occurred last week at Knight High School in Palmdale, was caught on a cell phone camera. Michael Brownlee was live in Palmdale with what the girl and her mother plan to do now.


Students, Parents Protest Treatment of Student by Security Guard

Palmdale -- A walkout is planned for this morning by some students at Knight High School in Palmdale. They are protesting what they call an "unprovoked assault" on two students by a security guard. The incident apparently left a 15-year-old girl with a broken wrist. Some students and the girl's parents want the guard fired. SideBar




Alex Jones’ New Film "End Game" Changes Minds: Part 2

The National Expositor wanted to see what would happen if we sent someone with no prior exposure to the truth movement to review an Alex Jones film. We contacted a pro-Bush, mainstream couple and sent them to the premier of Alex Jones' new film "End Game."

Last week The National Expositor gave you the review of Alex Jones' "End Game" by Erin Alfaro. (Read Erin's Review) This week we received the review from her husband. Did "End Game" change both their minds? Find out with Nathaniel Alfaro's review below.

My First Time with Alex Jones, a review of "End Game" by Nathaniel Alfaro

As the title might suggest, this article is about my introduction to Alex Jones and his views via an evening at the Alamo Drafthouse on September 5th, 2007 in Austin, TX to watch "End Game."

I would like to preface this article with a little of my personal background to let you know where I am coming from. I am a 30-something, married, family man working in Corporate America. I am (or was) a straight ticket Republican voter. I come from a large blue collar family where I was taught the value of hard work. I am a Systems Engineer by trade which requires me to obtain information from several different sources, evaluate the information, and then make logical decisions based upon the information I have gathered. I think it prudent to note here that I have never heard, read or watched any of Alex Jones' other materials previous to September 5th, 2007. That being said, let's jump right into it.

We arrived at the Alamo Drafthouse and the ticket line was long. I jokingly remarked to my wife, "Boy, these people sure love themselves some Alex Jones." We made it into the theatre and were offered complimentary "Water for Patriots." Alex Jones was announced. He spoke about some of the ideas behind making "End Game" and a brief history of the New World Order. It was easy to see that he truly had a passion for what he was talking about. I was engrossed. Looking around me, I was obviously not the only one. After Alex had concluded his speech, I was shocked to realize that it had been 19 minutes long. Following some raucous applause from the pro-Alex Jones audience, the show began.

The movie, in my mind, broke into 3 distinct sections. The beginning of the movie told a history of the "New World Order," its earliest tenets and participants, and established how these people helped to steer global topics such as economy and scientific views. The middle of the movie moved on to the ultra-secretive Bilderberg group and the annual meeting that it holds, with interviews and footage from the 2006 Bilderberg meeting held in Canada. The last part of the movie focused on current events from the Trans Texas Corridor, to the 2007 Bilderberg meeting, to the European Union and how these current events would shape the future of the world's governments, population and economy. The movie basically presented the past, present and future of humanity as it relates to the ideology and goals of global elitists and the New World Order. The film was presented in documentary format with lots of voice over, a dizzying array of quotes, facts and film snippets from various sources both historical and current. I found the film to be surprisingly entertaining and on several occasions, very disturbing. There are scenes of human execution, live organ harvesting and scientific experimentation on humans. On the lighter side, one of the final scenes of the movie has Alex "politely" expressing his opinion of Rick Perry (Texas Governor) and Rick's recent attendance of the 2007 Bilderberg meeting. Alex was using a bullhorn pointed directly at the front of the Texas Governor's mansion. That scene drew loud cheers from the partial Texas crowd.

After the credits rolled, it was time to hear once again from Alex. Due to time constraints he only had time for 3 or 4 questions. Alex fielded a couple of obvious "fan-boy" questions that would have been better qualified as comments. I must say, this was the only part of the evening that disappointed me. After watching "End Game" and being introduced to new concepts and ideas, I had several "real" questions that went unanswered that evening. However, leaving the theater with more questions than answers should be the litmus test for any good documentary. "End Game" certainly did not disappoint.


Thursday, September 27, 2007

MSNBC: Libertarian Ron Paul has become ’an Internet sensation’

MSNBC's David Shuster marvelled on Tuesday that anti-war libertarian Ron Paul "has managed to develop a huge fan base online ... especially among college students" in his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

There are almost 30,000 Ron Paul videos on YouTube, and Paul has more than 64,000 friends on MySpace. Many articles about Paul on RAW STORY have received unusually high numbers of hits at story-recommending sites like Digg and Reddit, as well. (For example, Ron Paul: Republicans need Reagan's courage, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson invites Ron Paul to give 'freedom tutorial', and Ron Paul teams up with Dem candidate to end war.)

"I can't explain it," Paul told Shuster. "I'm bewildered but surprised and pleased as anybody else. But all I can say is maybe the message of liberty is very popular with young people."

Paul said that if he had the kind of money the front-runners enjoy, he would use it to promote his message of a non-interventionist foreign policy and personal liberty. "We don't need the Patriot Act, and we don't need warrantless searches and we don't need secret prisons," Paul stated.

Paul said he would support the Republican nominee in 2008 only "if I can find one that'll take the same position I have on the war, that we ought to end it and come home." When asked what he would do with his growing support if he is not the nominee, he answered, "I guess the question is, what are they going to do with me?"

"They've sort of joined me spontaneously, and I'm delighted, but I would work hard to keep them together and to continue the process," Paul continued. Though he cautioned that he had no interest in a third party candidacy, he emphasized that "this group of people now can be very influential. ... I don't think this is going to be just put away. I don't think we can close these ideas off."


Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dingell will offer a "discussion draft" outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.

"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Dingell said he's not sure what the final climate package will include when the House takes it up for a vote. The taxes measures he's proposing, in fact, will be taken up by another House committee. And the Senate is considering a market-based system that would set an economy-wide ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that would be allowed to be released.

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

In the interview Wednesday, Dingell acknowledged he's tackling some of the most sacred of political cows. He's not sure if they will end up in the climate legislation, but he wants to open them for discussion.

"All my friends tell me you can't do this, it's going to be political poison," said Dingell, 81, who has served longer in the House than any of his colleagues and heads one of the chamber's most powerful committees.

Widely known for protecting the automakers who are so prominent in his state, the Michigan Democrat first raised the tax ideas this summer. Some people immediately suggested he was offering proposals he knows won't pass to sidestep other issues such as automobile fuel economy increases.

Dingell rejects such criticism and said he wants to trigger "an intelligent discussion of the whole question."

Many economists have long maintained that a carbon tax is a more-efficient, less-bureaucratic way to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide than a cap-and-trade system, which could be difficult to administer.

A carbon tax would impact everything from the cost of electricity to winter heating and add to the cost of gasoline and other motor fuels. But economists say a cap on carbon also would raise these costs as burning fossil fuels becomes more expensive.

Such tax proposals have gained little traction.

Rep. Pete Starke, D-Calif., has been trying unsuccessfully to get a carbon tax for 16 years. In the early 1990s the House passed a modest "BTU" tax on the heat content of fuels, only to have it die in the Senate. Dingell acknowledged that there are still people who blame the Democrats' loss of Congress in 1994 on the ill-fated tax.

The federal 18.4-cent gasoline tax also has been a subject of discussion, but not about increasing it. As gasoline prices soared above $3 a gallon last year a chorus of lawmakers called for suspending the tax.



CFR’s Hart Suggests False Flag Event For Iran War

Tacit warning to Iranian government suggests staged event may be used to ensure "bombs fall on your head"

Council on Foreign Relations member Gary Hart, famed for stating that Americans will die en- mass on home soil this century, and for declaring 48 hours after 9/11 that it should be used "to carry out a new world order", has written a scathing letter to the leaders of Iran clearly warning that the U.S. government has a history of staging provocations in order to initiate conflict with other nations and that Iran could be next.

Hart references the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898, which led to the Spanish American war, as well as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was ultimately the catalyst for airstrikes on Vietnam.

Why does Hart reference these two cases? Because they are both examples of staged managed events that were used to coerce the American public into supporting war.

The sinking of the Maine was immediately blamed on the Spanish, with the innovator of yellow journalism William Randolph-Hearst enflaming anti-Spanish sentiment in his papers by definitively claiming that it was a Spanish plot. No reliable evidence was ever produced linking Spain to the event and it is now widely believed that the event was at best a mechanical failure or at worst a false flag operation.

Similarly the Gulf of Tonkin incident saw President Johnson accuse North Vietnamese PT boats of attacking strike carries in the gulf, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. Documents and tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act have since shown that Johnson knew that there were no PT boats and no attacks, but still went ahead with lying to the American public on national TV to garner support for escalating the war in Vietnam. Johnson also had the NSA fake intelligence data to make it appear as if the two US ships had been lost.

Hart, one of the instigators of the Homeland Security apparatus that has evolved since 9/11, then goes on to state that American people are reluctant to go to war unless provoked and coldly remarks "For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations."

He then mentions the Iraq war and refers to how the public were duped into accepting the invasion via the spectre of 9/11. Hart writes "even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad."

To those who do not read history Gary Hart's letter makes for a confusing read, but to those who know anything about staged provocations, the intent is clear. Hart is declaring that the elite controlled US government has attacked countries based on false pretenses in the past and will gladly do so again.

Hart's declarations carry the same sentiment as those of fellow globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski earlier this year. The Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the elite policy making group the Trilateral Commission implicitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.

Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran," which would revolve around "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Texas Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul has also recently warned that a "Gulf of Tonkin like event" may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.

Here is Gary Hart's letter in full:

Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.



Key provsions of Patriot Act unconstitutional, says judge

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.

Received apology from FBI
Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released about two weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized to him.

Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.

The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.



Saddam Offered Exile, But Neo-Cons Unleashed Carnage Anyway

What could have been saved? A trillion dollars, a million lives, the global reputation of the U.S. - but that wasn't the plan

Neo-Cons could have saved a trillion dollars, spared over a million lives and prevented tens of thousands of dead and injured U.S. soldiers but decided to unleash carnage anyway, after it was revealed last night that Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq.

"Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)," reports the Daily Mail.

"The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch."

"The White House refused to comment on the report last night. But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted."

According to the tapes, Bush told Aznar that whether Saddam was still in Iraq or not, "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

Why didn't the Neo-Cons take Saddam's offer? After all, the invasion was about "weapons of mass destruction" and "spreading freedom", we were told. With the dictator gone, the U.N. and American forces were free to roam the country in search of the non-existent weapons while setting up the "utopian democracy" that Iraqis now live under.

The Neo-Cons didn't take the offer because the invasion of Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, it was about making fat profits for the military-industrial complex by bombing the country back into the stone age, slaughtering countless innocents in the process, seizing control of oil factories, and setting up military bases as a means of launching the Empire's next jaunt into Iran.

The invasion of Iraq was about having a justification to stay there indefinitely and break the country up into different pieces as was the plan all along.

Here's what $1 billion could have saved us.

- At least $200 million every single day that could have been spent on fighting poverty, building schools, taking men to Mars, ad infinitum.

- At least $1 trillion that the Iraq war will eventually cost if we ever leave. A trillion is a million millions.

- At least 1 million dead Iraqis according to the latest numbers, along with millions more that will die in the years to come as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, malnutrition, cholera and all manner of other horrors brought about by the invasion.

- Over 1.1 million displaced Iraqis who have been forced to leave their new "utopian democracy" and another million who have been forced to leave their homes due to sectarian violence and persecution.

- Over 3800 dead U.S. soldiers since the invasion began.

- 300 dead coalition soldiers since the invasion began.

- Anything from 23,000 to 100,000 injured U.S. soldiers since the invasion began.

- The reputation of the U.S. around the world as the most hated nation on earth.

- The ballooning deficit and the probable eventual collapse of the U.S. dollar and the economy.

Thanks Neo-Cons - I hope it was worth it.



Prof. Peter Dale Scott publishes:

"9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath"

Professor Peter Dale Scott has written an insightful and provocative paper, published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Excerpts from the paper:

"The 9/11 Commission Report is an example of concerted cover-up, partly by omissions, and just as importantly by its cherry-picking of evidence to create impressions that are in fact authoritatively disputed, and in some cases probably not true. There are many examples of cherry-picking and contrived simulations of fact. More importantly, there is a consistent pattern in this: to minimize Cheney's responsibility for what happened that day."

"In this presentation I have focused on anomalies in the behavior, especially on 9/11, of Richard Cheney. He, and Donald Rumsfeld and others, should testify, under oath, about

1) The June 1 JCS Order requiring highest-level approvals for intercepts of off-course planes,

2) The contested time of Cheney's arrival in the Presidential bunker,

3) Cheney's orders with respect to a plane approaching Washington, and did this occur around 9:27 AM (as testified to by Mineta), or 10:15 AM (as per the 9/11 Report)?

4) Cheney's call or calls with Rumsfeld and the President before or about 10 AM, and did they discuss so-called "Continuity of Government" (COG), including warrantless surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, and arrangements for mass detention.?

The story the Report presented was embarrassing enough: of a trillion dollar defence system that broke down on 9/11, and completely failed to perform its allotted function. But the Report's systematic and repeated distortions lead one to suspect that some even more embarrassing truth is being concealed, and that this truth has to do with orders given on that day by the Vice President.

I believe that COG may be the answer to the mystery question about Cheney's actions at a time when he was talking to the President and Rumsfeld. If so, the three men were almost certainly not acting on their own. Rather, they would have been key figures in a highly classified agenda that must have involved other people.

The question to be explored is whether that agenda involved revising the U.S. constitutional balance of powers, and whether Cheney on 9/11 was primarily occupied in exploiting the attacks as a means to implement an agenda of constitutional revision which he already had in place.

The 911 Commission decided that its supporting evidence and records should be withheld from public view until January 2, 2009 – a date which would obviously insure the President and Vice-President from possible impeachment. But many would concede that since 9/11, and as a result of 9/11, the American nation has drifted towards a constitutional crisis, requiring a change of policy direction. The issues posed by what happened on 9/11 are very relevant to this crisis, and too significant to be postponed until 2009. As it did belatedly in the case of the John F. Kennedy assassination, Congress should initiate a procedure for these records to be reviewed and released expeditiously.

Records that should be released would include all of the phone logs from the White House on 9/11, to determine, as a matter of priority, the precise time and circumstances of Cheney's orders on that day. They would also include materials (such as COG files and the videotape of the White House teleconference) that the Commission apparently never requested. The public also needs to establish why other records requested by the Commission did not initially reach them.

And then, I believe, it would be appropriate for a venue to be established in which the Vice President would testify for the first time about 9/11 under oath."

I'm confident you will want to read Prof. Scott's paper, here.



Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Terror trial proceedings troubling

Bizarre allegations about Toronto 18, unorthodox decisions are raising questions about Crown's case

Ottawa's abrupt decision to cancel a preliminary inquiry into Canada's most spectacular post-9/11 terror allegations and instead move directly to trial raises new and troubling questions.

Everything about the case of the so-called Toronto 18 is shrouded in mystery. Evidence raised in court, either at bail hearings or the preliminary hearing, is covered by a publication ban. But this hasn't prevented the public from knowing allegations against 14 adults and four juveniles that are so bizarre as to be almost unbelievable.

The Crown claims that at one point the alleged Islamic terrorists were plotting to cut off Prime Minister Stephen Harper's head – but changed their minds because they weren't sure where Parliament Hill was. It also claims some of the 18 attended a Keystone Kops-style military training camp at Washago north of Toronto where, it seems, they spent most of their time complaining about the cold.

Shortly after charges were levelled, the Star reported the government case rested on two informants. One, whose name cannot be published, is said to have been paid $4 million by the government. He was apparently a central figure in an alleged plot to make a fertilizer bomb. A second informant, Mubin Shaikh, decided to go public. Now you can't shut him up. He's been interviewed by the Star, the National Post, the Los Angeles Times, the CBC and most recently the BBC.

A former army cadet, Shaikh says he is the man who ran the alleged Washago terror training camp. In spite of the publication ban, he's been happy to tell the world everything he knows and much that he doesn't – including his opinion of one of the alleged ringleaders ("an effing time bomb").

In one interview, Shaikh claimed the alleged plotters planned to start a Chechen-style Muslim resistance movement in Northern Ontario, a region of the country with few Muslims and even fewer Chechens.

In April, in a completely unrelated case, Toronto police charged Shaikh with assault and threatening bodily harm after he allegedly attacked two 12-year-old girls.

He was in the middle of testifying in the terror case when the Crown shut down the preliminary hearing into the case of the 14 adults and announced it wanted to move directly to trial. (Charges have already been stayed against three of the four juveniles, which means that they are effectively off the hook).

Defence lawyers for the alleged terrorists are ticked. It's hard to blame them. The whole reason for a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant trial and, more important, to give the defence a chance to hear the Crown's case.

Defence lawyers say they made concessions in return for the right to cross-examine witnesses like Shaikh. Now they won't have a chance to test his widely publicized allegations until the trial.

By itself, a decision to avoid preliminary hearings and move directly to trial is not unusual. The government has done so in other high-profile criminal cases.

But usually, the Crown makes up its mind at the beginning; it does not normally change gears halfway through.

Which leaves us to ask: Was something about to be revealed in court that the government didn't want anyone to hear?

Was the Crown getting nervous about its informants?

Is there some other reason?

If I'd attended the preliminary hearing, I might know the answers to these questions. But then I wouldn't be able to report them.

So you'll have to wait for the next leak – or the next overseas media interview with one of the government's star witnesses. Perhaps CNN will call up Mubin Shaikh.


Gun Bill Rewrites Law To Disarm More Americans

Anti-gun legislation that has already passed the House is set to be rammed through the Senate, paving the way for the disarmament of combat veterans and bar anyone who is deemed to be "a danger to themselves" from owning firearms.

HR 2640, which has been dubbed the "veterans disarmament act" by gun owners, would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

The bill passed in the House in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee both times without a recorded vote. Gun owners have been trying to raise awareness and beat down the legislation ever since.

The bill, sponsored by outspoken anti-second amendment representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), also applies to anyone who has been diagnosed with ADHD as a child and to anyone who develops Alzheimer's. Gun owners fear that in time the diagnosis of any kind of mental affliction could end with rights being stripped.

Another of those behind the legislation is Senator Chuck Schumer who, according to Gun Owners of America, is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill:

This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!

But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE single senator can block it.

The proposed legislation is another case that hinges on the government's incessant creation of psychological profiles for everything that are then used to categorize people and accordingly strip rights.

Section 102((1)©(iv) in HR 2640 provides for dumping raw medical records into the system which will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America has compared the veteran's disarmament bill to actions undertaken by the Clinton Administration in the late 90s:

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

Pratt explains that the bill radically redefines key legal terms to allow gun ownership rights to be stripped on the findings of a psychiatric diagnosis, where in the past gun rights could only be withdrawn through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court with the protections of due process.

Pratt also points out that although veterans affected by the bill could seek expungement under its terms, the expungement process in general has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by Schumer himself.

The veterans disarmament act is tantamount to declaring the fear of an authoritarian government, the cornerstone of the second amendment, a mental illness. Once again we are witnessing another all out attack on the basic founding principles of the American Republic.

The following action is recommended by Gun Owners of America:

Please contact your two U.S. Senators RIGHT AWAY and urge them to OBJECT to Senator Chuck Schumer's "unanimous consent agreement" to steamroll H.R. 2640, the McCarthy anti-gun bill.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

----- Pre-written letter-----

Dear Senator:

Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy's anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.

If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:

* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or

* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.

Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.




Anger at Giuliani 9/11 fundraiser

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has been criticised over a fundraising party at which participants are being urged to donate $9.11.

The International Association of Fire Fighters accuses him of exploiting the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

Mr Giuliani rose to national prominence as New York's mayor on 9/11.

The Giuliani campaign says it did not plan the event, which is due to take place on Wednesday evening in California at the home of a supporter.

Nevertheless, the firefighters association said the stated theme of the fundraiser - "$9.11 for Rudy" was in poor taste.

"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero," said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF president.

Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd described the fundraiser's theme as "unconscionable, shameless and sickening."


A Giuliani campaign spokesman said the idea was selected without the campaign's knowledge.

But the host of the party, Abraham Soefer, also said the theme was not his responsibility, and referred other questions to Mr Giuliani's campaign team, the Associated Press reports.

The event is one of several Giuliani house party fundraisers across the US on Wednesday.

Mr Giuliani is seen as one of the frontrunners in the race for the Republican nomination.

But the BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says that Mr Giuliani's appeal as the man who led New York through the terrorist attacks is occasionally over-emphasised in his campaign.

This fundraiser looks like a big blunder, our correspondent adds.



The Communist Plan For Women

We have established that many of today's women are a lot crazier than nature meant them to be, and we are searching for the reason. Our thesis of course is that the disorder is not accidental, that it is the product of a carefully orchestrated plan. Let's begin by looking at that plan and then comparing it to what we know is happening.

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that with the introduction of Communism, "The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course." The authors explain that the "bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child," is "disgusting." The Communists "desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized, community of women."

Why have the Communists been so hostile to the family from the beginning? Because, politically, the family is a rival center of power. Communism is totalitarian and tolerates no rivals. It prefers disconnected individuals it can pick off at whim without repercussions because the victims have no backup. The stronger the families, the harder it is to impose totalitarian dictatorship. So Communism has always worked to weaken the family, if not destroy it. How could you destroy the family? How could you destroy the idea of family in the minds of the people?

How about dragging women out of the house? A woman is the heart of a family. Without a woman your house, however fancy, is a mere place to flop. Only a woman can make it a home. Yes, it's a cliché, but remember that a saying becomes a cliché only because it makes so much sense that people keep repeating it. A cliché begins as a flash of originality, but, because its wisdom contains the seeds of its own destruction, it ends as the humdrum, as a . . . as a . . . cliché.

You could destroy the family – you could at least drastically reduce its importance – by changing women from mothers at home to women in common, in a "legalized, community of women." How could you do that? Why not try this:

"We are immensely wealthy, powerful men, but we are not satisfied with our wealth and power. We want it all. We want total power so we can force you to do as we like. You represent a rival source of power, so we have decided to drag you out of your home, because with you gone your family would fall apart." Hmm! Would this work? No. However crazy some women are, they are not stupid. They wouldn't fall for it.

How about this instead? William Zebulon Foster was General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, the number one red in this country. Foster was also one of the founders of the American Communist Liars Union (ACLU), the executive director of which for many years was Roger N. Baldwin, who said, "Communism is the goal." Is there any part of that you don't understand? That is why ACLU has always attacked Christianity. Communists hate God.

In Toward Soviet America (New York, International Publishers, 1932) Foster explained how this country would get there: ". . . The so-called freedom of the American woman is a myth. Either she is a gilded butterfly bourgeois parasite or she is an oppressed slave."

This is supremely revealing. Consider that before Communist strategist Foster launched this campaign, any idea that an American wife and mother, a "homemaker," if you will, was a "parasite," someone who did not earn her own way, but, rather, feasted on the blood of a host, would have been labeled insane stupidity.

Remember your mother, or, if you are still wearing pigtails, your grandmother. She was an august personality with immense authority. You were a tad scared of her when you were still wearing pigtails, because her "word was law." If you didn't believe that and needed convincing, you could disobey, but then, like a royal, she would make a sign or maybe nod or say a word and a male fist would come out of the darkness and nail you to the wall, which brought an unbeliever to religion real quick.

Such is the status Christianity confers on a mother. It would have been inconceivable, impossible to call such a dignitary a "parasite." Notice also in passing that a parasite is not a victim. The host is the victim, the oppressed. The parasite is the oppressor, the bloodsucker. In this case, the man would be a victim of the woman. So, this Communist jargon devised by Foster is convoluted and contradictory.

But a Communist scheme need not include logic if it inflames. Foster here introduced the crazy idea that all the things a woman does in the home are worthless, that she can take no satisfaction in them, that they are forced on her and that because she sucks the life blood from her husband she is "oppressed." This would take some time to sell because, remember, Foster is not talking about Saudi women but about Americans, by far the freest women who have ever lived anywhere.

In the face of that happy fact, Foster sets forth in detail the arguments his Communists would use to achieve Marx's destruction of the family. For decades they labored to "prove" that something systemic was wrong. "The life of the working class woman and poor farmer's wife is one of drudgery and exploitation. . . . The boasted American home, enslaving the woman through her economic inferiority and her children, makes her dependent upon her husband. . . ."

If a woman cannot find satisfaction at home, then obviously, in this Communist logic, she must find it elsewhere. Foster exults: "The Russian woman is free economically, and this is the foundation of all her freedom. Every field of activity is open to her. She is to be found even in such occupations as locomotive engineer, electrical crane operator, machinist...."

Imagine! Instead of beautifying her home, raising vegetables in her garden, inculcating wisdom in her children, advancing the community (maybe sleeping in of a morning) and parasitically sucking the tired blood from her boring, old husband, she could be dressing in grungies and machining her machine. How thrilling and feminine! Just what every little girl wants to grow up to do. Notice here the unspoken assertion that the genders are the same. Remember that we have already torn the head off that preposterous notion.

"The Russian woman is also free in her sex life," says Foster. "When married life becomes unwelcome for a couple they are not barbarously compelled to live together. Divorce is to be had for the asking by one or both parties. . . ." Wow! Free love! A lot more sex than poor, old Dad can provide, exhausted by a day's work and then by Parasite Mom sucking his tired, old blood. No wonder Dad suffers from E.D.

But now here comes the kicker. What's the worst thing a woman does at home, does every day? What does every woman hate? It's housework, of course! "In freeing the woman, Socialism eliminates the drudgery of housework. . . . Great factory kitchens are being set up to prepare hot, well-balanced meals for home consumption by the millions; communal kitchens in apartment houses are organized widespread...."

Wow! Foster sure is an expert on women. Who could have guessed that because they hate housework so much, what women want are communal kitchens, in which other women would be doing the cooking while the female machinists slap on some Gunk to get rid of the grease on their fingers. I sure didn't know that.

Foster probably figured women would jump on his idea because, however clever they are, women have not been able to get men to do sustained housework – other than take out the garbage – but recall that, since he wrote, men have invented endless labor-saving appliances for women, so house work is less of a problem.

Finally, there are the kids. Communist ACLU founder William Z. Foster says this: "To free the woman from the enslavement of the perpetual care of her children is also a major object of Socialism. To this end in the Soviet Union there is being developed the most elaborate system of kindergartens and playgrounds in the world . . . ."

Here, Foster really spills the frijoles. Notice that for a mother to take care of her own children is "enslavement." Apparently it is not enslavement for someone else – a different mother – to take care of them, while their own mother works as a machinist. Remember, we have established with exhaustive documentation that the genders are basically different, and Foster's Communist idea flies in the face of everything we know about women.

Yes, his idea was hard to sell, but, after decades of daily repetition by our Communist media and schools, millions of mothers have bought it. Certainly millions of others have not, but the advocates of his idea today control the culture and have put those others on the defensive. Motherhood today is running scared.

Because of his system, women no longer need stay at home. So, Foster planted the seeds of what we now call day care. Mom has nothing to worry about, he says: "While she is at work she can be sure that her child is being well taken care of, and that it is supervised by trained nurses and teachers, and gets wholesome food at regular hours."

That was and is the Communist plan for women. Ask yourself, does any of it look familiar? Do you see any of Foster's proposals at work on the landscape? In fact, if you go down the list of what Marx demanded in the Communist Manifesto, you will see that, without exception, we have installed it.

You are living in a Communist country.


America’s Police Brutality Pandemic

Bush's "war on terror" quickly became Bush's war on Iraqi civilians. So far over one million Iraqi civilians have lost their lives because of Bush's invasion, and four million have been displaced. Iraq's infrastructure is in ruins. Disease is rampart. Normal life has disappeared.

Self-righteous Americans justify these monstrous crimes as necessary to ensure their own safety from terrorist attack. Yet, Americans are in far greater danger from their own police forces than they are from foreign terrorists. Ironically, Bush's "war on terror" has made Americans less safe at home by diminishing US civil liberty and turning an epidemic of US police brutality into a pandemic.

The only terrorist most Americans will ever encounter is a policeman with a badge, nightstick, mace and Taser. A Google search for "police brutality videos" turns up 2,210,000 entries. Some entries are foreign and some are probably duplications, but the number is so large that a person could do nothing but watch police brutality videos for the rest of his life. A search on "You Tube" alone turned up 2,280 police brutality videos. PrisonPlanet has a selection of the most outrageous recent cases.

Police brutality has crossed the line from using excessive force against a resisting Rodney King to unprovoked gratuitous violence against persons offering no resistance, such as the elderly, women, students, and elected officials. Americans are not safe anywhere from police. Police attack Americans in university libraries, in public meetings, and in their own homes.

Last week we had the case of the University of Florida student who was repeatedly Tasered without cause for asking Senator Kerry some good questions in the question and answer period following Kerry's speech. Two days after the Florida student was gratuitously brutalized, Senate Republicans defeated Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy's bill to restore habeas corpus protection.

A UCLA student was Tasered by police without cause for studying in the university library without having his student ID on his person. Following police orders to leave, the student was walking toward the door when police grabbed him and repeatedly Tasered him.

On September 19, 2007 a young woman was repeatedly Tasered without cause by a large brutal cop in a parking lot outside a night club in Warren Ohio.

On September 14, 2007, Roseland, Indiana, city council member David Snyder was ejected from a council meeting by dictatorial council chairman Charlie Shields. Snyder had protested being limited to one minute to speak. Police goon Jack Tiller escorted Snyder out, and as Snyder exited the building, Tiller, following behind, pushed Snyder to the ground and without cause began beating Snyder in the head with a nightstick. Snyder was hospitalized.

Local TV news stations throughout the US offer an endless stream of police brutality videos, which are then posted on the stations' web sites, often with an opportunity for citizens to express their opinion of the incidents.

There are many disturbing aspects to police brutality cases.

One disturbing aspect is that the police always arrest the people that they have gratuitously brutalized. There was no justification whatsoever to arrest councilman Snyder, or the UCLA student, or the University of Florida student. The cops committed assault against innocent citizens. The cops should have been arrested for their criminal acts. Instead, the cops cover up their own crimes by arresting their victims on false charges that are invented to justify the unprovoked police violence against citizens.

Another disturbing aspect is that no one tells the police to stop the brutality. "Free" Americans are so intimidated by police that on February 19 of this year male customers in a Chicago bar stood aside while a drunk cop weighing 251 pounds beat a 115 pound barmaid, knocking her to the floor with his fists and repeatedly kicking her, for obeying the bar rules and not serving him more drinks.

Yet another disturbing aspect is that a minority of citizens will justify each act of police brutality no matter how brutal and how unprovoked. For example,'s poll of its viewers found that 64.2% agreed that Snyder was a victim of police brutality, but 27.8% thought that Snyder got what was coming to him. "Law and order conservatives" and other authoritarian personalities invariably defend acts of police brutality. Perhaps the police brutality pandemic will bring the day when we will be able to say that a civil libertarian is a law and order conservative who has been brutalized by police.

The most disturbing aspect is that the police usually get away with it.

I remember decades ago when civil libertarians in New York City tried to stop police brutality by establishing civilian review boards to introduce some accountability into the police's interaction with civilians. Law and order conservatives at William F. Buckley's National Review went berserk. Accountability was "second-guessing" the police. The result would be a crime wave. And so on.

Police forces have always attracted bullies with authoritative personalities who desire to beat senseless anyone who does not quake in their presence. In the past police could get away with brutalizing blacks but not whites. Today white citizens are as likely as racial minorities to be victims of police brutality.

The police are supreme. The militarization of the police, armed now with military weapons and trained to view the general public as the enemy, against whom "pain compliance" must be used, has placed every American at risk of personal injury and false arrest from our "public protectors."

In "free and democratic America," citizens are in such great danger from police that there are websites devoted to police brutality with online forms to report the brutality.

Nine years ago Human Rights Watch published a report entitled, "Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States." The report stated:

"Police abuse remains one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States. The excessive use of force by police officers, including unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and rough treatment, persists because overwhelming barriers to accountability make it possible for officers who commit human rights violations to escape due punishment and often to repeat their offenses. Police or public officials greet each new report of brutality with denials or explain that the act was an aberration, while the administrative and criminal systems that should deter these abuses by holding officers accountable instead virtually guarantee them impunity.

"This report examines common obstacles to accountability for police abuse in fourteen large cities representing most regions of the nation. The cities examined are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Providence, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Research for this report was conducted over two and a half years, from late 1995 through early 1998.

"The brutality cases examined, which are set out in detail in chapters on each city, are similar to cases that continue to emerge in headlines and in survivors' complaints. It is important to note, however, that because it is difficult to obtain case information except where there is public scandal and/or prosecution, this report relies heavily on cases that have reached public attention; disciplinary action and criminal prosecution are even less common than the cases set out below would suggest.

There is no way to hold police accountable when the president and vice president of the United States, the attorney general, and the Republican Party maintain that the civil liberties and the separation of powers mandated by the US Constitution must be abandoned in order that the executive branch can keep Americans safe from terrorists.

Even before the "war on terror," federal police murdered 100 people in the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, and no one was held accountable.

Who is a terrorist? If the police and the US government have the mentality of airport security, they cannot tell a terrorist from an 86-year old Marine general on his way to give a speech at West Point. Retired Marine Corps General Joseph J. Foss was delayed and nearly had his Medal of Honor confiscated. Airport security regarded the pin on the metal as a weapon that the 86-year old Marine general and former governor of South Dakota could use to hijack an airliner and commit a terrorist deed.

In America today, every citizen is a potential terrorist in the eyes of the authorities. Airport security makes this clear every minute of every day, as do the FBI and NSA with warrantless spying on our emails, postal mail, telephone calls, and every possible invasion of our privacy. We are all recipients of abuse of our constitutional rights whether or not we suffer beatings, Taserings, and false arrests.

The law makes it impossible for Americans to defend themselves from police brutality. Law and order conservatives have made it a felony with a long prison sentence to "assault a police officer." Assaulting a police officer means that if a police thug intends to beat your brains out with his nightstick and you disarm your assailant, you have "assaulted a police officer." If you are not shot on the spot by his backup, you will be convicted by a "law and order" jury and sent to prison.

No matter how gratuitous and violent the police brutality, a "free" American citizen can defend himself only at the expense, if not of his life, of a long stay in prison. Osama bin Laden must wish that he had such power over Americans.


Sarkozy calls for UN-led ’new world order’

New York - The United Nations should avail itself as an instrument for a "new world order of the 21st century," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday in his first address to the General Assembly. Sarkozy, who won the presidency this year on a strong reform platform to modernize France, urged the world body to embark on programmes ranging from equal wealth distribution to fighting corruption in his speech full of references to France's past revolutionary ideals.

"In the name of France, I call upon all states to join ranks in order to found the new world order of the 21st century on the notion that the common goods that belong to all of humankind must be the common responsibility for us all," he told the General Assembly.

The UN should ensure access for all human beings to vital resources, such as water, energy, food, medication and knowledge, he said. He called for "more morality" in "financial capitalism" and a fairer distribution of profits, earnings in commodities, raw materials and new technologies.

"There must be a change of mindset and behaviour," Sarkozy said in a long list of demands to the international community.

Known for his admiration of the United States and its culture, Sarkozy said France will remain loyal to its friends and the values it shares with them.

But he warned that loyalty should not be equated with submission, a reference to Paris' disagreement with the US-led war in Iraq.

"What I want to say to the world is that France, faithful to its friends, stands ready to talk to all people, on every continent," he said.


Next Firefox will tell Google all about you

THE FORTHCOMING version of the Firefox browser, Gran Paradiso, will ship with a function that will tell Google all about your browsing habits.

The feature is supposed to be designed to allow the browser to check the URL against a list of phishing sites which is stored at Google.

The downside is that while the punter gets some form of malware protection, Google is getting shedloads of information on the sorts of sites you are visiting.

It can sell this information or offer advertising companies lucrative product information packages.

As it has been pointed out on Slashdot, the "feature" is disabled by default so any user who is daft enough to actually think it is pretty nifty is going to have to press a few buttons to make it happen.


Iran Nuke Strikes Are Out, Regime Change Is In On FOX News

Just as predicted by The New Yorker's George Packer, FOX News is assisting the Bush administration with a post-Labor Day PR campaign against Iran. The first half of Hannity & Colmes was devoted to it last night (9/25/07), complete with a preview of a FOX News special "Iran: The Ticking Bomb" to air on both Saturday and Sunday. And despite the fact that the public favors diplomacy as a solution, the network that claims "We like America" offered only hawkish guests hawking regime change. The only debate was over how to do it. With video.

In Part 1, John "I want war against Iran" Bolton was the sole analyst regarding Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations. "Democratic strategist" Kirsten Powers, subbing for Alan Colmes, once again was more eager to brandish her conservative talking points (Columbia should not have allowed Ahmadinejad to speak, he's a very dangerous man, etc.) than to offer any real debate or balance. The video is currently posted on the Hannity & Colmes website.

After Bolton, there was a preview of the upcoming special in which Hannity narrated a film about "what a strike against Iran would look like." Surprisingly, even FOX News admitted that a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would not be the cakewalk Iraq was supposed to be. So in the following discussion, the debate was about the narrow question of bringing about regime change. Author Michael LeDeen, whom I caught lying about his views on the Iraq war just a few weeks ago, advocated military strikes on "terrorist training camps" in Iran and Syria, along with action (presumably covert) to foment unrest. FOX News military analyst Chuck Nash, whose affiliation with the regime-change-pushing Iran Policy Committee was undisclosed, advocated "empowering the Iranian opposition and causing an internal revolution." He didn't rule out military action; he just thought "regime change" was a better option.

Powers, a former inmate of the News Hounds dog house, repeatedly distanced herself from liberals, repeatedly agreed with the conservatives and Republicans on the show, and her only "advocacy" on behalf of Democrats was to question the practicality of strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Coincidentally, that stance was the same one both guests put forth. Hannity was on the edge of his seat, hoping for military action - with other people doing the fighting, of course.

Nash told Powers, "The (International Atomic Energy Agency) has admitted that about a year and a half ago they found traces of enriched uranium that they could not tag to known facilities. So we're pretty much convinced that Iranians have facilities we do not know about."

Maybe so. But that doesn't mean the facilities are producing nuclear weapons. That point eluded Powers who either didn't know or didn't care that Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA head, said a week ago, "I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy."

Diplomacy was never offered as an option by anyone on the "we report, you decide" network's prime time debate show.


Iran Nuke Strikes Are Out, Regime Change Is In On FOX News

Just as predicted by The New Yorker's George Packer, FOX News is assisting the Bush administration with a post-Labor Day PR campaign against Iran. The first half of Hannity & Colmes was devoted to it last night (9/25/07), complete with a preview of a FOX News special "Iran: The Ticking Bomb" to air on both Saturday and Sunday. And despite the fact that the public favors diplomacy as a solution, the network that claims "We like America" offered only hawkish guests hawking regime change. The only debate was over how to do it. With video.

In Part 1, John "I want war against Iran" Bolton was the sole analyst regarding Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations. "Democratic strategist" Kirsten Powers, subbing for Alan Colmes, once again was more eager to brandish her conservative talking points (Columbia should not have allowed Ahmadinejad to speak, he's a very dangerous man, etc.) than to offer any real debate or balance. The video is currently posted on the Hannity & Colmes website.

After Bolton, there was a preview of the upcoming special in which Hannity narrated a film about "what a strike against Iran would look like." Surprisingly, even FOX News admitted that a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would not be the cakewalk Iraq was supposed to be. So in the following discussion, the debate was about the narrow question of bringing about regime change. Author Michael LeDeen, whom I caught lying about his views on the Iraq war just a few weeks ago, advocated military strikes on "terrorist training camps" in Iran and Syria, along with action (presumably covert) to foment unrest. FOX News military analyst Chuck Nash, whose affiliation with the regime-change-pushing Iran Policy Committee was undisclosed, advocated "empowering the Iranian opposition and causing an internal revolution." He didn't rule out military action; he just thought "regime change" was a better option.

Powers, a former inmate of the News Hounds dog house, repeatedly distanced herself from liberals, repeatedly agreed with the conservatives and Republicans on the show, and her only "advocacy" on behalf of Democrats was to question the practicality of strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Coincidentally, that stance was the same one both guests put forth. Hannity was on the edge of his seat, hoping for military action - with other people doing the fighting, of course.

Nash told Powers, "The (International Atomic Energy Agency) has admitted that about a year and a half ago they found traces of enriched uranium that they could not tag to known facilities. So we're pretty much convinced that Iranians have facilities we do not know about."

Maybe so. But that doesn't mean the facilities are producing nuclear weapons. That point eluded Powers who either didn't know or didn't care that Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA head, said a week ago, "I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that requires we go beyond diplomacy."

Diplomacy was never offered as an option by anyone on the "we report, you decide" network's prime time debate show.


Tuesday, September 25, 2007

United Nations UNCED Earth Summit 1992: Elitist Plan for Population Reduction

The dark side of the sustainable development movement George Hunt, a business consultant, was present at the earlier mentioned 1987 Fourth World Wilderness Congress as a member of the staff.

At the conference he noticed it had very little to do with the conventional environment movement and was surprised to see people like Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild (Pilgrims Society), David Rockefeller (Pilgrims Society), and James A. Baker (Pilgrims Society; Cap & Gown; trustee American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Atlantic Council of the United States; National Security Planning Group; Bohemian Grove; CFR; Carlyle; advisor George W. Bush in his 2000 election).

New World Order Quotations

New World Order Quotations

A collection of quotations from elite figures, media heads, government officials, persons from history, authors and more on the subject of the move toward a new world order under a one world government and a reduced human population.


It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.

- George Washington


"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."

- Senator William Jenner, 1954


"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future."

- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.


"The case for government by elites is irrefutable."
Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?


"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933


"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law


"The United States must stay involved in the world and we must lead. Today there is a strange coalition at work in Washington and across the country consisting of people on the political right and the political left coming together to keep us from staying involved. Big labor and liberal Democrats are joining some Republicans on the right in calling for America to come home, (saying) we have done our part and that it's time for others to do the heavy lifting on international leadership. And we must not listen to that siren's call of protection and isolation.

Former President George Bush
Addressing Duke University Graduates May 17, 1998
USA Today May 29, 1998


"Rarely have Americans lived through so much change, in so many ways, in so short a time. Quietly, but with gathering force, the ground has shifted beneath our feet as we have moved into an Information Age, a global economy, a truly new world."

- President William Clinton State of the Union Address 1998


"...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives...from the White House.... The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

- H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., President - Ford Foundation (as told to Norman Dodd, Congressional Reese Commission 1954)


"The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive 'policies' and 'Plans' of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word 'socialism', but what else can one call it?"

- H.G. Wells The New World Order 1939


"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."

- Richard Salent, former president, CBS News


"Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."

- President George Bush Texas A&M University 1989


"We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order - where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance."

- President George Bush State of the Union Address 1991


"Under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner. . . ." [This is compassionate liberalism.]

- Fabian Socialist Bernard Shaw in his Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928.


"Since March 9, 1933, the United states has been in a state of national emergency. A majority of the people of the United States have their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (now 72 years) freedoms and governmental procedures, guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought forth by states of national emergency."

Senate Report 93-549 (1973).


"Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."

- Sir Julian Huxley, first Director General of UNESCO, 1946-1948.


"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

- Margaret Sanger, outspoken atheist and socialist, founder of the Voluntary Parenthood League in 1914, and responsible for opening the first birth control clinic in the United States in New York City.


"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and CFR member.


"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

- Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation


'They came first for the Communists...
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews...
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Jews...
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Unionists...
but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics...
but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me...and by that time...
there was no-one left to speak up for me.

- Rev. Martin Niemoller, commenting on events in Germany 1933-1939


"I reject the idea that humans are superior to other life forms. . . Man is just an ape with an overly developed sense of superiority."

- Paul Watson, director of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and a founder of Greenpeace


"You know the one thing that is wrong in this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."

- President Bill Clinton


"There is no such thing as an independent press in America, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

"I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."

- John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune.


"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with."

- Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS political news.


"In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs."

- Dr. R. J. Rummel, Death by Government.


"The people will be crushed under the burden of taxes, loan after loan will be floated; after having drained the present, the State will devour the future."

- Fredric Bastiat


"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis."

- Text of article in The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)


"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God."

- American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in The New York Times (December 1942)


"There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper."

- Norman Thomas, in his book What Is Our Destiny? (1944)


"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach."

- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962)


"He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building 'a new world order."

Excerpt from an article in The New York Times (February 1972)


"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

- Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)


"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund."

Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)


"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."

- Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, l936 issue of The New York Times.


"The truth of the matter is that you do have those standby provisions, and the statutory emergency plans are there whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps."

- U.S. Representative Henry Gonzalez, August 29, 1994


"We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road."

- Mikhail Gorbachev 1987


"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order."

- Adolph Hitler during World War II


"To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less.
Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighbourhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance."

- United Nations Our Global Neighborhood 1995


"[E]ducation should aim not so much at acquisition of knowledge. . . [today] there is less need to know the content of information. . . . [There should be a] transformation of life in totality . . . [a] profound commitment to social tasks. . . . Achievement of socialist countries . . . have laid the foundation of a way of life which makes everyone understand its [sic] individual relevance. . . [whereas capitalism] lays the foundation of rivalry and aggression and encourages exaggerated consumption, [making] man a slave of ambition and social status symbols. . . [Lifelong learning promotes] equality of end result, and not merely of opportunity . . . [and] fosters equality in terms of opinions, aspirations, motivation, and so on. . . . There is a dilemma -- if lifelong education were to be based on the aim of increasing the yield of business enterprises and economic growth, it would merely serve to establish a totalitarian, one-dimension society."

- Foundations of Lifelong Education, a UNESCO publication in 1976.


"There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international . . . network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies . . . but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

- Professor Carroll Quigley, in his book Tragedy and Hope, 1966.


"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

- Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.


"We in the press like to say we're honest brokers of information and it's just not true. The press does have an agenda."

- Bernard Goldberg, as quoted by Harry Stein in the June 13-19, 1992 TV Guide.


"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties."

- New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922


"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws."

Meyer Nathaniel Rothschild in a speech to a gathering of world bankers February 12, 1912. The following year, the USA subscribed to the 'services' of the newly incorporated Federal Reserve, headed by Mr. Rothschild.


"We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. . . Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. . . . We must electronically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electronic stimulation of the brain."

- Dr. Jose M.R. Delgado, Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School, Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974.


"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order."

From The National Educator, K.M. Heaton


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas, for many years U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate.


"The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty...has passed; its theory was never matched by reality."

UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, 1992.


"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind."

- George Herbert Walker Bush


"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief


"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and Bilderberger


"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

- Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.


"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.


"I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus."

Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.


"It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions."

Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.


"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the 'cull' to the size of the surplus population."

Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.


"This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."

Tony Blair, Tuesday, 2 October, 2001


"Other countries will not take lectures about the so-called new world order from a British prime minister who cannot deliver basic public services run by his own failing government."

Tony Blair, 5th January, 2002


"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991


"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

- David Rockefeller


"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

President George Bush, 1991


"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."

David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations


"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

- Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991


If the new world order is a conspiracy theory, why are these so called 'officials' speaking and writing about it since the early 1920s?

Because it's real, and you need to wake up!


TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.

TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.