Information Warfare Using Aggressive Psychological Operations:

The Pentagon's plans for psychological operations or PSYOP in the global information environment of the 21st century are wide ranging and aggressive. These desires are outlined in the 2003 Pentagon document signed by Donald Rumsfeld in his capacity as the Secretary of Defense called the Information Operation Roadmap.

More detail about the origins and purpose of this document can be read in the first part of this series here. Also, a description of the Pentagon's desire to dominate the entire electro-magnetic spectrum and their need to "fight the net" as outline in the Information Operation Roadmap were previously described.

What is a PSYOP?

A PSYOP is not specifically defined in this document but it does provide some insight into the wide ranging activities that are considered PSYOP.

"The customary position was that "public affairs informs, while public diplomacy and PSYOP influence." PSYOP also has been perceived as the most aggressive of the three information activities, using diverse means, including psychological manipulation and personal threats." [emphasis mine] - 26

"One result of public affairs and civil military operations is greater support for military endeavors and thus, conversely these activities can help discourage and dissuade enemies, which PSYOP does more directly with its own tactics, techniques and procedures." [emphasis mine] - 10

"PSYOP messages disseminated to any audience except individual decision-makers (and perhaps even then) will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public." [emphasis mine] - 26

"A PSYOP force ready to conduct sophisticated target-audience analysis and modify behaviour with multi-media PSYOP campaigns featuring commercial-quality products that can be rapidly disseminated throughout the Combatant Commanders area of operations." [emphasis mine] - 63

"PSYOP products must be based on in-depth knowledge of the audience's decision-making processes and the factors influencing his decisions, produced rapidly at the highest quality standards, and powerfully disseminated directly to targeted audiences throughout the area of operations." [emphasis mine] - 6

"Better depiction of the attitudes, perceptions and decision-making processes of an adversary. Understanding how and why adversaries make decisions will require improvements in Human Intelligence (HUMINT) and open source exploitation, as well as improved analytic tools and methods." [emphasis mine] - 39

"SOCOM [Special Operations Command] should create a Joint PSYOP Support Element to coordinate Combatant Command programs and products with the Joint Staff and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] to provide rapidly produced, commercial-quality PSYOP product prototypes consistent with overall U.S. Government themes and messages." [emphasis mine] - 15

"SOCOM's ongoing PSYOP Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration and modernization efforts should permit the timely, long-range dissemination of products with various PSYOP delivery systems. This includes satellite, radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices, the Internet and upgrades to traditional delivery systems such as leaflets and loudspeakers that are highly responsive to maneuver commanders." [emphasis mine] - 15

"PSYOP equipment capabilities require 21st Century technology. This modernization would permit the long-range dissemination of PSYOP messages via new information venues such as satellites, the Internet, personal digital assistants and cell phones:

- (U) PSYOP ACTD. Commencing in FY04, SOCOM [Special Operations Command] initiates an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) to address dissemination of PSYOP products into denied areas. The ACTD should examine a range of technologies including a network of unmanned aerial vehicles and miniaturized, scatterable public address systems for satellite rebroadcast in denied areas. It should also consider various message delivery systems, to include satellite radio and television, cellular phones and other wireless devices and the Internet." [emphasis mine] - 65

"Rapid, fully integrated nodal and network analysis providing Combatant Commanders with holistic kinetic and non-kinetic solutions for a full range of electromagnetic, physical and human IO [information operations] targets." [emphasis mine] - 39

"Capabilities such as physical security, information assurance, counter intelligence and physical attack make important contributions to effective IO." [emphasis mine] - 23

Third Party PSYOP

The Pentagon is also willing to use third parties for their PSYOP.

"Identify and disseminate the views of third party advocates that support U.S. positions. These sources may not articulate the U.S. position the way that the USG [US Government] would, but that may nonetheless have a positive influence." [emphasis mine] - 27

Under recommendation number 48 - "Create a Joint PSYOP Support Element" - is the following:

"Contract for commercial sources for enhanced product development." [emphasis mine] - 64

The use of third party advocates or front groups for the dissemination of US government propaganda is well documented. A couple of recent examples include the illegal payment of $1.6 billion for domestic fake news and similar activities in Iraq using the Lincoln Group among others.

Virtual PSYOP

Not only is the Pentagon exploiting new and old technology for aggressive behavior modification, they can also practice and refine their techniques in a virtual simulation of the entire world.

From an article by Mark Baard:

"U.S defense, intel and homeland security officials are constructing a parallel world, on a computer, which the agencies will use to test propaganda messages and military strategies."

"Called the Sentient World Simulation, the program uses AI routines based upon the psychological theories of Marty Seligman, among others. (Seligman introduced the theory of "learned helplessness" in the 1960s, after shocking beagles until they cowered, urinating, on the bottom of their cages.)"

"Yank a country's water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next."

"The sim will feature an AR avatar for each person in the real world, based upon data collected about us from government records and the internet."

How useful do you think your new MySpace or Facebook account is in helping the Pentagon develop a detailed psychological profile of you? Do you think they would be shy in exploiting such a valuable source of personal data?

AIDS Awareness

PSYOP in the past, however, often was used to support U.S. Government public diplomacy and information objectives with non-adversarial audiences. These actions include counter-drug, demining and AIDS awareness programs in friendly countries." [emphasis mine] - 25

It is a minor point in the context of this document, but it is worth reflecting on why US military PSYOP were used for AIDS awareness.

Are There Any Limits to Information Warfare?

An obvious question arises from the description of PSYOP described by the Information Operation Roadmap, are there any limits? Can PSYOP be conducted on the American public or just foreign audiences? On adversaries or non-adversaries? Can they be performed during peacetime? My next article will attempt to show just how few limits there actually are.

Source

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant

 Sakka attempts to plug holes in 9/11 official story, claims Hanjour did not pilot Flight 77

The man who claims to have trained six of the 9/11 hijackers is a paid CIA informant according to Turkish intelligence specialists, who also assert that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to foment a strategy of tension around the world.

In a London Times report, Louai al-Sakka, now incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, claims that he trained six of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp in the mountains near Istanbul from 1999-2000.

Sakka was imprisoned in 2005 after being caught making bombs that he planned to use to blow up Israeli vessels.

Sakka asserts that he is a leading Al-Qaeda operative, having directed insurgency attacks in Iraq and also the beheading of Briton Kenneth Bigley in October 2004.

Some of Sakka's account is corroborated by the US government's 9/11 Commission. It found evidence that four of the hijackers – whom Sakka says he trained – had initially intended to go to Chechnya from Turkey but the border into Georgia was closed. Sakka had prepared fake visas for the group's travel to Pakistan and arranged their flights from Istanbul's Ataturk airport. The group of four went to the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar and the other two to Khaldan, near Kabul, an elite camp for Al-Qaeda fighters.

When Moqed and Suqami returned to Turkey, Sakka employed his skills as a forger to scrub out the Pakistani visa stamps from their passports. This would help the Arab men enter the United States without attracting suspicion that they had been to a training camp.

"But, as with many things in the world of Al-Qaeda, there might be smoke and mirrors," reports the Times. "Some experts believe that Sakka could be overstating his importance to the group, possibly to lay a false track for western agencies investigating his terrorist colleagues."

However, when one considers what other experts have said about Sakka, it appears that his intentions towards "western agencies" are anything but deceptive - since Turkish intelligence analysts concluded that Sakka has been a CIA asset all along.

Prominent Turkish newspaper Zaman reported that Sakka was hired as a CIA informant in 2000, after receiving a large sum of money from the agency. This would explain why he was "captured" but then released on two separate occasions by the CIA during the course of 2000.

Sakka was later captured by Turkish intelligence but again ordered to be released after which he moved to Germany to assist the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Shortly before 9/11, Sakka was allegedly hired by Syrian intelligence - to whom he gave a warning that the attacks were coming on September 10th, 2001.

In his book At the Center of the Storm, former CIA director George Tenet writes, that "a source we were jointly running with a Middle Eastern country went to see his foreign handler and basically told him something big was about to go down."

"This is very likely a reference to Sakra, since no one else comes close to matching the description of telling a Middle Eastern government about the 9/11 attacks one day in advance, not to mention working as an informant for the CIA at the same time. Tenet's revelation strongly supports the notion that Sakra in fact accepted the CIA's offers in 2000 and had been working with the CIA and other intelligence agencies at least through 9/11 ," writes 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson, who was also interviewed for the London Times article.

Were the alleged "interrogations" of Sakka on behalf of the CIA merely a smokescreen to enable instructions to be passed on? This is certainly the view of Turkish intelligence experts, who go further and conclude that "Al-Qaeda" as a whole is merely a front group for western intelligence agencies used to foment a "strategy of tension" around the world.

Is Sakka still in the employ of western intelligence agencies? His apparent effort to plug the holes in the official 9/11 story is fascinating.

According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane (Hani Hanjour) "could not fly at all" according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how "adept" he was on his first flight.

Exactly how "adept" one has to be to pull off maneuvers that would be impossible for veteran crack fighter pilots is not explored in the Times report.

Source

Flight School Head Admits Neither He Nor 9/11 Hijackers Could Fly 9/11 Planes

According to the owner of a flight school at which 2 of the 4 accused 9/11 hijack pilots trained on simple aircraft with questionable ... all » competence, neither he nor the 9/11 hijackers implicated in the attacks, could pilot the 757 and 767 aircraft that they are alleged to have flown into targets on September 11, 2001.

The alleged hijack pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which reportedly crashed into the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, was deemed unfit for a solo flight on board a single engine Cessna aircraft, less than 1 month earlier.

Were the accused hijack pilots of the 9/11 planes, sponsored for flight school training by some unknown party, simply to create the appearance of an ability to pilot the aircraft used to strike symbolically significant U.S. targets that day?

Source

Pathetic Ron Paul Brothel Media Smear Fails

Another crass and pathetic smear attempt against Ron Paul failed yesterday as some news organisations, including the AP, attempted to link the Congressman to a pimp without making it clear that the entire charade was an idiotic stunt set up by MSNBC's Tucker Carlson.

The AP put out a story simply titled Paul Endorsed by Nevada Brothel Owner which began "Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, an underdog Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, has picked up an endorsement from a Nevada brothel owner," Dennis Hof.

The obvious suggestion here was that Ron Paul has been soliciting such endorsement. However, as mentioned and somewhat glossed over at the very end of the article, it was Tucker Carlson who contacted Hof to ask him to check out Ron Paul and arrived with him at Ron Paul's Reno news conference along with two of Hof's prostitutes. The media in attendance jumped on the opportunity to focus in on the ridiculous publicity stunt which had nothing to do with Ron Paul's campaign whatsoever.

It is clear that the provocative headline from the AP, which was also displayed during an MSNBC interview with Ron Paul himself, broadcast earlier today (see video below) was designed to give readers the impression that Ron Paul is the presidential candidate of pimps and prostitutes.

However, Ron Paul laughed off the pathetic smear attempt by sarcastically suggesting that he was going to have a meeting later on regarding the matter and that he hoped MSNBC wouldn't be bombarded with too many Ron Paul bumper stickers.

While Dr Paul stressed that he believes law-enforcement and moral issues should not be decided upon by the federal government, he expertly explained that personally he does not condone such activity.

This latest smear attempt again proves the fact that Ron Paul and his campaign message is untouchable as the establishment media continues to go after him by association.

Source

Fox hypes shaky story on border tunnel jihadists

A report Monday on potential terrorist infiltration of the US was based largely on "raw, uncorroborated information" from a source of "unknown reliability."

Given the opportunity to fear-monger, though, the folks at Fox & Friends ignored those caveats and painted a picture of weapon-wielding terrorists who are plotting an attack on a US army base as we speak.

"It was one base in particular ... Fort Huachuca, they have tunnels that go right into it, they have 60 people ... Iraqis and Afghanis, some of which made it through and are still here, coming through with high-powered, lethal weapons to bomb out some of the 12,000 that are housed at that fort," anchor Brian Kilmead warned in that ominous-yet-cheerful tone that is a hallmark of the Fox News morning crew.

Of course, the idea that Mexican smugglers have tunnels that go "right into" a fortified US Army base is ridiculous on its face, although authorities have discovered more than 20 drug-smuggling tunnels leading from Mexico into the US since Sept. 11, 2001.

Also unmentioned by the 'Fox friends' was the fact that the terror warnings, which were reported Monday in the Washington Times, were from May of this year -- six months ago, despite the urgency with which the anchors drummed up the terror threat.

According to the reports, terrorists paid the drug cartels $20,000 per person to smuggle them into the US. Fort Huachuca changed its security procedures following the warnings from various law enforcement agencies and does not appear to be in danger of an imminent attack.

The information on the terror smuggling came from a Drug Enforcement Agency informant who had been reliable in the past, although that informant apparently received his or her information from a "sub source" within a Mexican drug cartel whose credibility could not be verified.

The sub-source was affiliated with the Gulf Cartel, one of Mexico's most dangerous drug-trafficking organizations, according to the Times and is of "unknown reliability," according to the FBI. The source identified a rival cartel, the Sinaloa, as assisting the terrorist smuggling.

"This led the DEA to caution the FBI that its information may be a Gulf Cartel plant to bring the U.S. military in against its main rival," the Times noted in the penultimate paragraph of its article. "The Sinaloa and Gulf cartels have fought bloody battles along the border for control of shipping routes into the U.S."

These details were conveniently omitted from Monday's Fox report.

This video is from Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast on November 26, 2007.

Source

Ron Paul Wins WorldNetDaily Poll

As much as I do not like worldnewsdaily.com's editorial policy of consistently giving Ron Paul the short end of the stick and pushing the 'Huckster', they do have a new on-line poll at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/

If you support Dr. Paul then give it a click. If you don't, then don't bother to vote because you know they are just going to claim Ron Paul supporters 'hacked' the poll anyway…so support Ron Paul's win to prove their point. {heh, heh, heh}

On 11/24/2007 at 2:07 AM MST the votes looked like this:

Ron Paul 23.48% (77)
Hillary Clinton 21.04% (69)
Mike Huckabee 17.07% (56)
Rudy Giuliani 16.77% (55)
Mitt Romney 7.93% (26)
Fred Thompson 5.18% (17)
Other 4.88% (16)
Barack Obama 2.44% (8)
John Edwards 0.91% (3)
John McCain 0.30% (1)
TOTAL VOTES: 328

Source

 

Do 9/11 Conspiracies Stem from a Distrust in the Government?

Why do two-thirds of all Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks, but took no action to prevent those attacks?

The defenders of the official version of 9/11 argue that "the high percentage is a manifestation ... of an American public that increasingly distrusts the federal government." In other words, they argue that the approximately 200 million people who say that the emperor has no clothes have an illogical distrust of the emperor, and so they are seeing things.

They've got the whole cause-and-effect backwards.

In fact, the American public increasingly distrusts the federal government because it is becoming more and more obvious that elements of the government carried out -- or at the very least -- aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks. Despite the say-nothing media, the American public is getting the fact that the government's story about 9/11 just doesn't add up and that the vast majority of people in every relevant field who have examined 9/11 say so.

The reason two-thirds of the American public believe the emperor has no clothes is because he doesn't . . . and yet he and his cabinet are demanding that we compliment him on his clothes. That's why we distrust him.

What do we trust? Our eyes and our brains.

And for those who think that the majority of Americans who question 9/11 are crazy, psychoanalyze THIS!

Source

 

Psychiatrists and Psychologists: Government’s 9/11 Story is Crazy

Should people who question the government's version of the events of 9/11 have their heads examined?

Well, the following psychiatrists and psychologists have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

Clinical psychologist, Ed.D., Harvard University, Gwendolyn Atwood

Psychology researcher, M.A., Psychology Victoria Ashley

Psychotherapist, M.S. Clinical Psychology, Greg Henricks

M.S. in educational psychology, Roy Holcombe

M.A. in Counseling Psychology Tova Gabrielle

There are literally thousands of other mental health professionals who have reached the same conclusions. So who is out of touch with reality: those who question 9/11 or those who believe the government's version without question?

Postscript: In addition to mental health professionals, the following highly-credible people question the government's version of 9/11:

Military leaders

Legal scholars

Scientists

Members of Congress

9/11 Commissioners

And should you think that questioning 9/11 shows political or religious bias, take a look at how broad the coalition is questioning 9/11:

Liberals

Conservatives

Christians

Jews and Muslims

 

Source

 

Denying the North American Union

Now that Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi, and others have exposed the plot to establish a "North American community," that is to say eradicate the national sovereignty of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in favor of a "United Nations of America" based on the European Union, the corporate media and globalist apologists have kicked into over-drive with a propaganda effort to deny reality.

"Nobody is proposing a North American Union," declared Robert Pastor, correctly identified as the father of the NAU and author of "Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New," a book published by the Council on Foreign Relations Press in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. Pastor may insist the elite of the three countries, at the behest of transnational corporations, are not interested in a merged superstate, but his argument betrays the fact the former national security advisor dreams of an American version of the European Union.

Pastor is an advocate of NAFTA on steroids, or "NAFTA Plus." According to Miguel Pickard, in "the early 1990s, when NAFTA negotiators were still wrangling over arcane language, Pastor was proposing ways to 'improve' the treaty. According to Pastor, NAFTA was off to a bad start, since negotiators were mostly seeking to dismantle trade tariffs. For Pastor it was crucial to find ways of integrating the three countries, similarly (but with important differences) to what the Europeans had done since the 50s. Years later, Pastor would bemoan that NAFTA's promise had gone unfulfilled, since it lacked a 'grand vision' for the three countries, i.e., a much richer perspective than the emphasis put on trade." In other words, NAFTA was simply a trade treaty minus the "grand vision" of global integration.

But there is a problem with Pastor's "grand vision," namely the people of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are reluctant to give up their national sovereignty.

Pastor, in a conversation with Jerome R. Corsi, "was careful to distinguish that his proposals were designed to create a North American Community and that he never has proposed to create a North American Union as an EU-style regional government," thus Pastor's insistence "nobody is "proposing a North American Union."

But this is, to say the least, deceptive. "The idea seems to be to put new structures in place that change the look of the landscape," writes Corsi. "[WorldNetDaily] pointed out to Pastor that this step-by-step approach is the same approach taken to create the European Union. The memoirs of Jean Monnet, regarded as the architect of European unity, finally disclosed he had used a strategy of deceit, knowing his plan to form a European Union would never succeed if it were openly disclosed."

"Pastor in an article entitled 'NAFTA is Not Enough,' argued for an incremental process that could head toward the creation of the NAU, all the while providing cover for participating politicians and governments to deny that creating the NAU was their goal," Corsi argues in a News with Views editorial. In the article, Pastor provides key details on how this stealth process works:

While the three governments of North America are unlikely to step into the debate on long-term goals at the current time, nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, and universities should fill the void with new ideas and old-fashioned cross-border dialogue.

Short of this sort of shadowy incrementalism, the NAU project may be dropped on the fast track by other means, according to Corsi. "Dr. Pastor seems to prescribe that a fear formula is all that is needed for the American people need to begin begging SPP to produce the NAU right now. Pastor openly writes as if the next 9/11 terrorist attack or a future outbreak of some health epidemic such as the avian flu could be just what the NAU doctor ordered as the prescription for the American people to abandon sovereignty in favor of super-regional government control, all in the interest of 'security' leading to 'prosperity.' Or, is it 'prosperity' which necessitates more 'security' via surrender to Big Brother government?"

In predictable fashion, the corporate media is tasked with characterizing those who document the emerging NAU as tinfoil hatters, nut cases, mental patients, conspiracy theorists, etc.

For instance, neocon Charles Krauthammer told Fox News: "I love this stuff because if you ever doubt your own sanity, all you have to do is read this stuff and realize that you're okay" (see video), while "conservative" Michael Medved lamented what he calls the "paranoid and groundless frenzy… fomented and promoted by a shameless collection of lunatics and losers; crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, who claim the existence of a top secret master plan to join the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one big super-state," never mind the above, well-documented. "I'm sorry to sound cynical and intolerant about this stupidity, but I'm furious, actually – ashamed to be part of a proud medium (conservative talk radio) that increasingly encourages this paralyzing, puerile paranoia," apparently a reference to Alex Jones and others who continue to flesh out the "incremental" conspiracy Medved refuses to acknowledge.

Drake Bennett writes for the Boston Globe:

Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU — that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence — has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe, coloring political press conferences and candidate question-and-answer sessions, and reaching a kind of critical mass on the campaign trail. Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues.

Government officials of the sort, no doubt, that told us Saddam Hussein was about use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or that the air at Ground Zero in New York was safe to breathe.

Finally, it is no mistake the Boston Globe has rolled Ron Paul into its diatribe of transparent denial, as Paul must be roundly discredited and characterized as a kook, primarily because a Paul presidency would most certainly put an end to Robert Pastor's dream of an American version of the European Union once and for all.

Source

Terrorism Awareness Project: The 21st Century’s "Red Scare" Movement

A radical faction of the right is attempting to reconstitute McCarthyism in the 21st century by spreading exaggerated falsehoods to college campuses, eschewing accuracy and espousing hysteria about Islam and the honest threat of terrorism. Their aim is simple: Envelope the next generation of young minds under the umbrella of constant panic and indoctrinate them with deceptive and ignorant fear.

The last bastion of Bush proffers has once again trotted out a long ago debunked, inaccurate and xenophobic phrase, "islamo-fascists", once glibly coined by Donald Rumsfeld. Calling their cause, Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a radical right alarmist group called, the Terrorism Awareness Project, wants to use old fashion fear and propaganda to persuade college students into this histrionic idea: that amorphous, rogue cells of terrorists operating in the Middle East are, "the greatest danger Americans have ever confronted."

Now consider these alternatives to so-called "islamo-fascists." Hitler killed all total 12 million Jews, dissenters and infirmed people, amassed a state-sponsored, mechanical-backed army of millions that wreaked havoc on numerous continents for 12 years. Stalin held the world's collective stage hostage under a repressive regime replete with thousands of nuclear missiles that came within minutes of incendiary obliteration of the Earth, as we know it.

When in view of the heinous atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, the demagoguery and utter mendacity of the Terrorism Awareness Project should immediately be dismissed. Yet, over two million misinformed and deluded people have visited their site just this year alone. Adding to the sensational theatrics this fringe group is trying to propagate across college campuses are wild assertions such as "the academic left has mobilized to create sympathy for the enemy" and "the nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever - Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses."

Claiming to have organized speaking engagements at over 200 campuses, through the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Terrorism Awareness Project has lined up a premier delicatessen of right-winged demagogue polemicists. The astounding list is as distinguished as is the disingenuous message they tout. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Melanie Morgan and Rick Santorum are but a few of the invited partisan hacks and hypocrites who plan to extol the virtues of the Terrorism Awareness Project and proclaim terrorism is a greater threat to America than global warming is to the world at large.

Incredulously, this group of firebrand, paranoid propagandists tenaciously tries again to tie Saddam Hussein with the attacks on September 11, 2001. They also falsely claim Iraq was a "second base of terror" long before American forces destabilized that country and provided the catalyst of chaos under which a new and minority faction of unconnected Al Qaeda groups formed.

Flagrant and desperate, the entire website is filled with intimidating and goading terms as well as foreboding phrases. "Islamo-facism", "apologists for radical Islam" and "anti-Americans who are part of today's academic environment", litters the site and sends any rational mind reeling. The inanity and outright obtuse mindset of these shrinking-violets, who found the Cold War ostensibly a minor infraction, can only be realized by visiting the website of the Terrorism Awareness Project. Only then, after a thorough examination, can the full effects of the use of scare tactics and the unnecessary consternation be realized.

Reminding the reader beforehand, that the attacks on 9/11 occurred during the Bush administration - and that same President smugly dismissed a daily presidential briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" - do we find instead the old saw that "Clinton did it" amongst the many other apocryphal allegations.

To make the point that the endeavor of this organization is reckless and insipid, certainly a platitude, might seem wasted to the other 219 million Americans who have already rejected the Bush doctrine of fear. Furthermore, only 27% of Americans now - Bush's unshakeable and dutiful base - find the initiative of democracy through a climate of unwarranted fear anything less than odious. However, exposure is the best sanitizer and it ensures that imprudent groups, such as the Terrorism Awareness Project, are brought under the spotlight for scrutiny and proper dismissal as anxiety-ridden, provocative hacks.

To be clear, everyone lucid person should be offended by blatant suggestions that academics are undesirables or that the vast majority of Americans somehow just "don't understand" the enormity of the specious adversary we face. Reasoned Americans do not endorse or express sympathy to any deed of extremism or group of fanatics, including the Terrorism Awareness Project.

Quite simply, the time has come for all Americans to choose reason, restraint and modesty, over the present zeitgeist of aggression and extreme nationalism, shrouded in obedience through panic and fear, brought upon us by the Bush regime.

Source

 

Glenn Beck Confronted, Protagonists Questioned By Secret Service

Ron Paul supporters threatened with arrest for asking CNN host about recent tirade linking them with terrorists

Members of We Are Change Ohio were threatened with arrest and questioned by members of the Secret Service before and after confronting CNN host Glenn Beck this past weekend about his efforts to link Ron Paul supporters with terrorists, during public appearances at which Beck was promoting his new book.

Pro-Ron Paul demonstrators were waiting for Beck as he arrived at two separate events in Ohio, but those who tried to question Beck about his recent tirade about the Congressman's supporters being a "physical threat" that should be dealt with by the U.S. military were quickly booted out by security and threatened with arrest by police if they re-entered the bookstore.

Beck and his mindless sycophants applauded as Change members were frog-marched out of the building for asking a question.

During one more low-key exchange, Beck did agree to have Ron Paul on his CNN show. Attempts to give Beck a V For Vendetta DVD were unsuccessful.

Watch the videos.

U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for four police to man the event at the second appearance in Columbus, along with several other plain clothed officers and even Secret Service officials who, according to demonstrators, questioned Ron Paul supporters.

Activists claimed that Beck's employees admitted Secret Service were chaperoning Beck, leading to charges that Beck is being directly bankrolled and protected by the government to spew his propaganda.

One man was questioned about Ron Paul as he lined up to meet Beck.

"I know it wasn't one of these people (the Ron Paul supporters)," he remarked.

"They looked like former military officers," he added.

Source

The only terrorists that exist in America are those who accuse others as being "terrorists". We have now reached a new level McCarthyism; where Americans are no longer threatened with being associated with Communism, but are now associated with Terrorism, for not agreeing with the establishment. But unlike the days of McCarthyism, our so called leaders have attacked the constitution in order to take your rights away so that you and I can't protect ourselves from this witch hunt.

Against the war? You're a terrorist. Want to exercise your god given and constitutional rights? You're a terrorist. Give out FREE movies and you are a terrorist. Is this the country you want to live in? Do you want to go through the same fear mongering our older generation went through? Is this not state sponsored terrorism on the people?

If terrorism is such a big problem, why are the borders wide open 6 years after 911? Why is the government supporting Pakistan; the very country that not only has the bomb, but also harbors CIA's favorite asset - Osama bin Laden? Why was his family allowed to fly home when no American was allowed to fly after all aircraft were grounded? Do investigators ignore a criminal's family if the criminal is on the loose? Why were they allowed to leave? Why was John O'Neill stone walled by the Bush admin regarding his investigation into Osama bin Laden prior to 911?

With all these questions, and many many more that have not been answered, why has the governmedia turned on the American people? It's the media's reresponsibility to question the establishment. Why have they layed down regarding 911 and the attack on our rights?

It is now the people of America who must do the media's job in order to expose the true terrorists within our borders; such as Glenn Beck, George W. Bush, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and anyone else who condone the distruction of our god given and constitutional rights.

Protect your liberties for a change, Vote Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Wins Nationwide Zogby Blind Poll

Sizeable majority of Americans looking to vote for candidate who protects liberty, shrinks government, brings troops home

A new nationwide Zogby telephone poll reveals that a sizeable majority of Americans are looking to vote for a candidate who protects liberty, wants to shrink government and immediately withdraw troops from Iraq - all traits common to Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

As part of a spread poll commissioned by Jones Productions, respondents were provided with descriptions of four different candidates and asked to choose who they would vote for based on each one's attributes and political platform.

Candidate A is a 10-term US Congressman from a large Southern state who is an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty. This candidate believes in strictly following the Constitution and has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted in favor of the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible. As a former doctor, this candidate has delivered more than 4,000 babies. One of this candidate's goals is to return America to the gold standard, and he believes that the current monetary policy needs to be drastically overhauled because of the dollar's decline.

Candidate B is a former governor from a Democratic state in the Northeast. Before that, he was credited for essentially saving the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is a Mormon and family man who is considered a moderate-to-conservative member of the GOP. While Governor, he signed the first state laws in the nation requiring all citizens of this state to obtain health insurance. He is a strong supporter of keeping troops in Iraq although he has been critical of how the war has been handled.

Candidate C is a former two-term senator from a Southern state who was a long-time lobbyist before running for public office. He was chief Republican council for the Congressional committee that investigated Watergate in the early 1970s. He was an actor playing supporting roles in several major motion pictures before entering the Senate, and returned to a prominent role as a New York City prosecutor in a popular network television series after leaving office. He has mostly supported the war in Iraq, but has said he would have managed it differently.

Candidate D is a former two-term mayor of a major city in the Northeast, and is considered a moderate member of the party on social issues. As Mayor, he presided over a dramatic drop in crime in his city, and is best known for his leadership in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He established a worldwide security consulting business after leaving public office at the end of 2001 He has been a supporter of President Bush since leaving office and supports the war in Iraq.

RESULTS

32.8 per cent chose the description matching Ron Paul, while just 18.6 percent chose the description matching Rudy Giuliani. Just 12.6 per cent went for Fred Thompson's description while 15.1 per cent went for Mitt Romney.

The results clearly illustrate that the country is crying out for Ron Paul, which is why the establishment have launched a PR offensive to marginalize him in order to suppress the Congressman's name recognition.

The sample used for the poll had mainly never or rarely used websites popular with Ron Paul supporters, such as You Tube, MySpace and Facebook, showing that if Internet users who don't use land lines were more fairly represented, the numbers would be even more in favor of the Congressman.

In another poll question, the survey found that the majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to begin an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Over 49% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who would begin immediate withdrawal, compared to just under 41% who said they would vote for staying the course and around 10% who were not sure.

Zogby released the numbers to us this morning and have indicated that due to the level of interest in the poll, they will be issuing a press release tomorrow.

Source

 

Ron Paul Winning Strategy Based on Three Strategic Pillars

The success of the campaign of presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) is based on numerous strong political and philosophical pillars. But three important strategic ones have emerged recently.

First, there is the "(Governor Mike) Huckabee factor," and the resultant diminishment of support for GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. Second, there is the Internet and the support it is providing via young people exposed to Ron Paul and enthused by his message. Third are many, upcoming "open primaries" and the possibilities of wooing independent voters to support Ron Paul.

Of course these three factors exist extant of the increasingly powerful free-market, small government message of Ron Paul – and would not come into play without its remarkable success – and the money it is raising for the Jeffersonian conservative candidate. But given the attractiveness of the Ron Paul's small government philosophy, these factors are increasingly relevant, sources close to the campaign say.

Huckabee's Rise: Former Arkansas GOP Governor Mike Huckabee continues to make progress in the polls, so much so that he might take votes away from Mitt Romney in upcoming primaries - to Ron Paul's benefit. This is because the big-government, pro-war, high-tax approach of Huckabee is nearly identical to Romney. Those apt to vote for such a platform may well split their votes between Romney and Huckabee, leaving small-government candidate Ron Paul with the balance.

The Internet and Young Voters: Another advantage operating for Ron Paul: Youngsters who receive most of their information from the Internet are increasingly being motivated to campaign for Ron Paul – whose message is distinctly different from the rest of the big-government GOP candidates. These youngsters often have an impact on their siblings and even their parents.

Open Primaries: Finally, there is the factor of "open" primaries themselves and the possibilities for Independents and even Democrats to vote for Ron Paul. There are are perhaps 15 of these open primaries in the early going. If Ron Paul does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he could head into Super Tuesday with a good deal of momentum.

Source

 

Unlikely allies unite for Paul’s quixotic bid

PHILADELPHIA — They are crusty Iowa farmers enticed by doing away with the income tax, libertarian-minded college students in heavy-metal band T-shirts, antiwar Republicans looking for a champion, and folks worried about the Federal Reserve Board and paper money.

They say they are the disaffected in politics, and this year they are finding a political home with Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who is shaking up the Republican presidential contest with phenomenal fundraising and the potential to convert that into enough votes to be a spoiler come January.

Even without the fife-and-drum players, they are the loudest of crowds. Even without the "Don't Tread on Me" flags and cloak-and-mask movie costumes, they are the most colorful. And Mr. Paul's supporters certainly are the most suspicious of the political process.

"I don't want to sound like one of these nut cases, there are probably some of them here," said Tom Levins, waving his arm toward 2,000 fellow supporters rallying with Mr. Paul on Nov. 10 in Philadelphia. "But you have to wonder about the establishment. I've had it cross my mind, could he be the next political person knocked off?"

For Mr. Levins and other supporters, Mr. Paul is more than just a choice on the Republican primary ballot. He is talismanic, a 72-year-old 10-term congressman who transcends partisan politics. For them, he's the man who can restore the Constitution, end the Iraq war, bring back the gold standard for money and stop an erosion of civil rights.

Before his political career, Mr. Paul was a doctor — first an Air Force flight surgeon and later an obstetrician — and his frequent votes against spending bills and ever-expanding federal programs earned him the nickname "Dr. No." He also was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988, running a distant third.

His supporters cheer his willingness to stand up to institutions of power, and his recent tussle with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke at a congressional hearing has become a cult hit among the candidate's supporters on YouTube.

"It's not about the issues, it's about the Constitution," said Michael Hamme, one of the rally-goers. "Basically, as I see it, we're run by the Federal Reserve system, which is actually not legal."

Full article here.

 

Source

Fox host ’for Tasing anyone in Code Pink’ after Hillary heckled

A Fox News morning host has a novel idea to handle those pesky Code Pink protesters who disrupt political events and Congressional hearings: 50,000 volts of electricity.

Brian Kilmead shared his ever-so-evolved views on crowd control Monday morning in a Fox & Friends discussion of a Code Pink-disrupted Hillary Clinton speech. His answer to annoying anti-war types? Tasers or Billy clubs.

"They should Tase this guy," Kilmead says. "At one point with security so high and tensions on edge, don't you think they're going to get at the very least Tased or beaten to a pulp by somebody? These people look threatening."

Kilmead's Taser-lust came one day after a 20-year-old Maryland man died after being shocked by police.

The other hosts argue for some restraint when dealing with feisty, pink-clad protesters.

"Why should they tase him? He's not resisting arrest," co-host Steve Doocy says, injecting some much-needed rationality into the conversation.

The protest-of-the moment, came during a recent Clinton speech in Los Angeles on global warming.

"Were you invited to speak here this afternoon?" Clinton scolds the protester as he is removed by security.

The Fox hosts used the disruption to remind viewers of Code Pink's habit of disrupting Capitol Hill hearings, and they re-played the famous "don't Tase me bro" sound-bite from a University of Florida student earlier this year. The student's screams seemed to delight the hosts, and Kilmead clearly wanted to hear more of them.

"I would be for Tasing anyone in Code Pink," he says. "I'm pro-Pink Tasing."

The following video is from Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast on November 19, 2007.

Source

Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate to Challenge the American Empire

Flying under the radar of mainstream media coverage, supporters of Dr. Ron Paul, a seventy-two year old ten-term congressman and obstetrician from Texas, have staged a political revolution. Despite little publicity, they have raised over $15 million, mostly in small donations, giving Paul more money in the bank than John McCain.

In a November 5 "money bomb" (inspired by Guy Hawkes Day as depicted in the film, "V for Vendetta") the Paul Revolutionaries raked in $4.3 million. In doing so, they set a new one-day record for all Republican candidates. In addition, Paul's backers have spontaneously organized over 1,100 meet-up groups. That's more than any other candidate in the race including the youthful and photogenic Barak Obama. By all indications, most of the meet-up group members, now numbering over 60,000, are under age twenty-five. Paul's appeal can be attributed to his no-holds-barred small government, pro-liberty message as well as his consistent call to bring home the troops.

Reporters are right to emphasize the wide gap between Paul and the pro-war Republican presidential field but they should not stop there. If they dig a little deeper, they will find that his disagreements with Democrats are equally great. Paul is the only candidate in either party who wants to shut down the entire American overseas political and military Empire.

Rather than "isolationist" in foreign policy, however, Paul embraces as his own Thomas Jefferson's stated goal of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." But, unlike our third president, Paul appears bound and determined to apply these words across-the-board. His voting record shows a consistent support for free trade and legislation to redirect the military strictly to home defense rather than foreign occupation. The Democrats, by contrast, largely share the bi-partisan post-World War II consensus of spreading democracy, human rights, or "vital interests" by military force.

Few subscribe to this consensus more zealously than Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who has considerable credentials as a hawk dating back to her husband's administration. Most notably, she was an aggressive cheerleader for the bombing campaigns against both Iraq and Serbia in Kosovo. Paul, like many Republicans at the time, opposed both. Although Hillary later broke with Bush on Iraq, she rejects a non-interventionist approach. She wants to leave U.S. troops behind in Iraq to fight al Qaeda as well as keep them in the region. When asked in a recent debate whether she would promise that the troops would be home from Iraq by the end of her first term, Clinton refused. Although Barak Obama opposed the war from the outset, his current views are not much different. He also intends to station U.S. forces permanently in the region and reserves the right to put them back in Iraq again in full force to stop "genocide" (a term he never defines). John Edwards advocates the same approach.

While it is true that the Democrats are dovish on Iraq when compared to Bush, they blow bugles on the Darfur region of Sudan. The frontrunners demand tougher sanctions, imposition of a no-fly zone, and U.S. aid for more UN troops. Edwards pledges to work with NATO and deploy U.S. "military assets" to enforce the zone. Clinton has even suggested a blockade of the Port of Sudan, an act of war under international law. The truculence of the Democrats on Darfur defies logic given their objections to the Iraq War. The same conditions apply in Darfur that also led to the Iraq quagmire including a history of Islamic sectarian strife, a long civil war, and no real tradition of the rule of law and democracy. Despite widespread violence and Sunni fundamentalism in Sudan, there has never been a suicide bombing there. Were the Democrats to spread the War on Terror into Darfur, that statistic would certainly change.

Rather than avoid all foreign political entanglements, as would Paul, the Democratic frontrunners promise to extend them. All three, to quote Edwards, hope to exercise "American leadership to forge powerful alliances-with longtime allies and reluctant friends, with nations already living in the light of democracy and with peoples struggling to join them." In contrast to Paul, they do not intend to scale down foreign American bases, much less reconsider the merits of George McGovern's old dream to "Come Home America." As Obama puts it, the United States "cannot afford to be a country of isolationists right now....we need to maintain a strong foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world." Woodrow Wilson could not have said it better.

If Americans expect a "great debate" about foreign policy fundamentals in 2008, absent an upset by Paul and his campaign against the American empire and for free trade, they will not get it. That would be a pity. As examples of "blowback" from previous and ongoing interventions continue to mount, such as spiraling oil prices, the free-fall in the value of the dollar, and the current strife in Pakistan and Kurdistan, Americans need such a debate more than ever before.

Source

 

A Response to the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Mark Weitzman

AE911Truth.org is extremely concerned about the recent portrayal of our peaceful organization and website by the Simon Wiesenthal Center alongside Taliban militant websites at the recent "Homeland Security Hearing" hosted by Congresswoman Jane Harman. By implication we and other 9/11 Truth organizations are branded as terrorists. We are therefore actively pursuing non-legal and legal remedies. The following letter written to the SWC by John Stevenson is posted in order to also express our concern. We will post updates as events unfold. Thank you for your overwhelming show of support!

Richard Gage, AIA

(edited slightly for spelling, punctuation, formatting...)

From: Nila S.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:48:07 -0800
To: All
Subject: A brilliant letter

Written, by a friend, to Mark Weitzman at the Simon Wiesenthal Center re: his efforts to equate 9/11 Truth with Terrorism. Should you need to, feel free to forward it verbatim to Weitzman, here:

Better yet, send it to every newspaper or media outlet you know. This really nails it dead center...

Dear Mr. Weitzman,

While I respect your efforts to prevent terrorism in all its forms, your suggestion that the 9/11 Truth Movement is in any way related to terror organizations, or could foment such interests, is ridiculous and dangerous.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is a non-violent effort by thousands (if not tens of thousands) of highly respected professionals in numerous areas of expertise (and potentially millions of other concerned citizens) to demand a legitimate and impartial investigation into the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. There are countless weaknesses, flaws, and overt misrepresentations in the official account that are painfully obvious to those who actually KNOW something about the Systems and Material science involved in building collapse, as well as the numerous suspicious activities by government and various other domestic groups to suppress and even destroy evidence involved in this crime, for reasons at this point unknown. There are far too many important questions unanswered that can be answered with a legitimate investigation, rather than simply sweep this tragic crime under the rug. Is that what you suggest we do?

And if you are suggesting that simply demanding that a woefully inadequate investigation be conducted properly can in any way be aligned with terrorism, you do so in direct conflict with everything this country was founded upon, and in direct opposition to the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution — and that IS in some circles considered a crime.

While I believe your efforts are well-meaning, I strongly request, before you promote such assumptions, that you actually INVESTIGATE for yourself the aspects of 9/11 which are questioned by these experts I mention previously, and, regardless of your conclusion, refrain from incorrectly and libelously suggesting that anyone involved in this movement has any connection to terrorist activities or threats, simply based on their opinions or completely legal efforts in this regard. In doing so you denigrate the noble work the Simon Wiesenthal Center has done in the past, and the lives of those who died over the centuries for our freedoms. The right to freely question and investigate our government at any time and about ANYTHING is critical to the survival of our freedom and this country I love.

Sincerely,

John Stevenson
California, USA

Source

 

CNN, Et tu, Brute? Glenn Beck, Debate Me If You Dare!

Today, unfortunately, CNN joined ranks with Fox News, known to freethinking individuals as "Faux News", or my favorite, "The Republican Learning Channel." If you want to hear political spin and propaganda, then keep your TV tuned to Fox, and now, it appears that CNN is joining their ranks, leaving citizens who seek truth and facts with very few alternatives other than turning off their TV's and reading the alternative news on the Internet.

Rather than rewriting a story that has already been excellently documented, I'll quote a few paragraphs of importance and allow the readers to see the actual video, a partial transcript of the Glenn (Neo-Conservative) Beck segment when he teams-up with ex-Marxist David Horowitz. I am choosing a few choice excerpts, but this is a site you will want to visit to get the whole story, not my interpretation thereof:

Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists

Why are Glenn Beck and David Horowitz a threat to America?

a) They openly call for the U.S. military to be used to suppress freedom of speech, a complete violation of the first amendment and everything that America stands for. This in itself exposes them as anti-American traitors.

b) They openly state, without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim, that Lew Rockwell, libertarian and anti-war groups are "totally in bed with the Islamofascists," which could prompt their nutcase followers into physical violence and perhaps even assassination attempts against anti-war and libertarian leaders as well as Ron Paul supporters.

c) If there are real terrorist groups in America, as we are constantly told, then Beck and Horowitz are diverting attention away from them by fingering peaceful protest and activist groups, leaving genuine terrorists under less scrutiny by law enforcement and the FBI.

Beck and Horowitz are the only ones doing harm to America - they are anti-American traitors. MUCH MORE

At first glance, you may believe that CNN is simply being "fair and balanced" by hosting Glenn Beck's anti-American right-wing ranting and distortion of the truth - but the river runs much deeper than that! Even before this incident happened, I was working on an article where I caught CNN distorting the truth today, for the second time in less than two weeks LINK, something that Media Matters normally attends to - however, the breach of trust was so obvious by their omission of pertinent facts in an important story that I decided to expose them myself in case Media Matters didn't catch their obvious distortion of the facts by omitting known and relevant issues that would have entirely changed the meaning and perception of the story they were reporting upon. This is their version of the news:

Telecoms that helped warrantless spying could get off the hook

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A bill that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies helping out in a no-warrant eavesdropping program authorized by President Bush and reinstate some court oversight to surveillance was OK'd by a Senate panel Thursday.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's 13-2 vote on Thursday could heighten tensions about the disputed program between the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider the measure next.

After the 9/11 attacks (Emhasis added.), President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept communications of terror suspects overseas with people inside the United States without obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. MUCH MORE

As I have pointed out before, which CNN is well aware of, there is evidence that President Bush began his planning and implementation of illegal wiretaps long before 9-11, and in fact began the second month he was in office! The issue has been well-documented, CNN knew it, but rather than reporting the whole story so America would be apprised of the truth, CNN has now mirrored Faux News by refusing to report information that won't reflect negatively upon the Bush administration; why you ask? Who knows, and their rationale for hiding information from the public can only be speculated upon, however, whether it's because of rank cowardice, complicity with the Bush administration, or the insistence of their owners, Time Warner, the result is the same; Americans are being mislead by a news organization that once was one of the better media outlets on the MSM. Ever since Ted Turner sold CNN, there's been a downward spiral of the credibility of CNN, another symptom that fascism is rearing its ugly head in the United States!

What irritates me is that I and other Bloggers have posted this information before; in fact, I even wrote an article that detailed this incident: With This New Evidence, Congress Must Impeach Bush and Cheney This was the reference I quoted which is far from being unknown, and I have made it a point to bring this matter to CNN's attention, but they still choose to ignore factual evidence that if was included in the above article - would have changed the scope and emphasis of the story itself!

Bush can't have it both ways.

Impeachment, not immunity, or blank war checks without aggressive congressional checks and balances, is more warranted than ever now. As first reported on Daily Kos, and summarized by Bob Fertik on Democrats.com, the Bush administration has been pursuing dragnet data mining operations well in advance of September 11, 2001. Of course, once again, Bush has been mendacious and totally erroneous about when the illegal warrantless wiretapping began and for what purpose.

Quoting Mr. Fertik,

"This week Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, revealed the Bush Administration started muscling telephone companies to wiretap American citizens without a warrant on Feb. 27, 2001. When Qwest refused, they were cut out of government contracts and Nacchio was prosecuted for insider trading.

So we now know Bush began violating FISA and the 4th Amendment just 1 month after stealing the White House. And since the 9/11 attack was 7 months later, Bush has lied about 9/11 being the justification for warrantless wiretapping for the past two years." MORE

"This week Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, revealed the Bush Administration started muscling telephone companies to wiretap American citizens without a warrant on Feb. 27, 2001. When Qwest refused, they were cut out of government contracts and Nacchio was prosecuted for insider trading.

So we now know Bush began violating FISA and the 4th Amendment just 1 month after stealing the White House. And since the 9/11 attack was 7 months later, Bush has lied about 9/11 being the justification for warrantless wiretapping for the past two years." MORE

In this writer's opinion, CNN is deliberately refusing to report extremely important news stories and information, factual accounts on a multitude of subjects that if told to the general public, would cause almost immediate outrage by American citizens and the calls to impeach Bush and Cheney would dominate every MSM outlet worldwide - but CNN and the rest of the cowards in the MSM still refuse to be honest with the people - and I believe they have a duty to their viewers to return to honest journalism, not spouting propaganda, promoting lies that emanate from the White House they know are false, and generally being complicit with the Bush administration as they destroy our rights and trample on the Constitution.

CNN, I'm sure the Bush administration believes you've "done a heck of a job" and hell, maybe he will nominate your organization for the Medal of Freedom, a coveted award that since Bush has been in office is usually awarded to those who aid Bush in destroying our country!

Oh, and let's not forget Glenn Bigot, Anti-American Beck, the Neo-concervative hypocrite and enemy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that you've graciously given an hour to further trash our rights, make outrageous remarks and label us that do work to defend the constitution and the rule of law as "terrorists"; believe me, I'm sure that this site is certainly one of those that Beck and Horowitz claim are "dangerous to America" and label me and others who fight for the return to the rule of law as "totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country!"

To that I say BS, and if you were really fair, you would allow me or another articulate Liberal/Progressive equal time to refute Mr. (sic) Beck and Horowitz's outrageous statement, or even better - let me debate both of them On Beck's own show! I'm surely the "weakest link" of all the Liberal and Progressive Bloggers - so Beck, if you're up to it, see if you can convince viewers all over America via a televised debate with me, and keep it on the issues, not personal attacks and remarks that don't even relate to the actual issues, one of your favorite tactics to lead people away from the real news whenever facts actually stray on your (sic) show. I know it won't happen, because Beck's basically a coward, can't deal with facts rather than misinformation and propaganda, and now we find out that CNN can't be trusted either.

Give us equal time to refute and debate the actual facts, or make Bigot Beck offer America and those who support our constitution and rule of law an apology - do that, or face the loss of millions of your viewership, because based on what I've read throughout the Internet, CNN has completely lost its credibility - and now you have lowered yourselves to be compared with Fox News, and everyone knows it can't get much worse than that!

Source

 

Are Ron Paul Supporters “Constitutional Terrorists”?

In the wake of Glenn Beck calling Ron Paul supporters "terrorists," we should remember that the FBI—at least the FBI's Phoenix anti-terrorism task force—believes those of us who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are terrorists.

"A disturbing flyer purportedly authored by the FBI's Phoenix anti-terrorism task force has been circulating in the conservative community. The flyer instructs the reader to report as a possible terrorist anyone who asks why they were stopped by police or anyone who dares to defend "the U.S. Constitution against federal [sic] government,'" Declan McCullagh wrote back in November, 2001.

So I gave the FBI field office a call. FBI spokesman Ed Hall confirmed the flyer was produced by the joint anti-terrorism task force in Phoenix. But he said it dealt with domestic terrorism: "That flyer was put out two years ago. Someone picked it up, and put it on the Internet like it was put out this week."

Hall admitted the section that said anyone spotting a defender of the U.S. Constitution "should call the Joint Terrorism Task Force" was perhaps a tiny bit ill-advised. "It could have been a bit better foundation worded saying you're not a right-wing extremist if you defend the Constitution… or if you ask a police officer why they're stopping you. There's some misinterpretation there."

He added: "Not that a person who defends the Constitution is a criminal or terrorist, or a person who askes you, 'Why did you stop me' may be a terrorist, but certain things, I don't want to use the word common, certain characteristics that these people who were legitimately investigated reflect it."

Is it possible the FBI considered its COINTELPRO "a tiny bit ill-advised" and that's why it went on, undiscovered and uninterrupted, for decades, destroying countless lives, including the actress Jean Seeberg and any number of less famous activists?

In fact, the brochure in question is quite explicit and reading it leaves little room for "misinterpretation."

Al Lorentz, chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas, writes:

Many of you have no doubt heard of the FBI's pamphlet on identifying domestic terrorism. Perhaps you saw as I did the black and white copies floating around but wondered if these were simply manufactured on someone's personal computer. I frankly thought the same when I first saw them and so I wrote to the FBI's office in Phoenix and received an anonymous and official reply from a nameless individual there.

The tone of the letter I received back was both officious and rude. "Yes" the brochure was printed by them but it went on to explain "the general public was not supposed to see it". I wonder if that would be a defense to a traffic ticket "Yes officer, I was speeding but you weren't supposed to see me".

The letter also went on to assure me that the brochures were never in fact distributed even though I and hundreds of others have seen them which begs the question: "How did I get a copy of this brochure?"

Now a color copy has surfaced and we have it here for all to see. We ask that instead of copying the picture, you distribute a link to the page because we want to make people aware of more than just the brochure, we want to make them aware that there is a political party that is legitimate with a long history that is not only aware, it is doing something. In addition to this brochure, those who receive the link from you will also find a website that is dedicated to the preservation of our Constitutional Republic and provides insight, commentary and resources to that cause.

Follow this link to see a reproduction of the color brochure.

Indeed, it appears the FBI campaign against "Constitutional terrorists" has gone prime-time—from the Joint Terrorism Task Force to corporate media neocon shills such as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, the latter who wants to lock up "leftist loons" in opposition to the occupation of Iraq, including filmmaker Brian DePalma and billionaire Mark Cuban.

Finally, it is likely no coincidence O'Reilly characterizes his enemies as "loons," a noun defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as follows: "One who is crazy or deranged." And "liberal" Bill Mahr believes those who talk about reality—Building 7 was not brought down by fire alone—are in need of Paxil.

Recall Bush's "New Freedom Initiative," a blatant violation of the Fourth and Tenth Amendments, designed not only to test children for inappropriate thoughts—for instance, thoughts inculcated by home schooling parents—but potential dissidents as well. "It will also help the fascists who are controlling our government to keep our dissidents and independent thinkers under chemical restraints just like they've done to so many children in foster incarceration facilities," explains the Fight CPS website. "It will help them break down the will and autonomy of the population, forcing more beautiful souls to become mindless, over-medicated sheep."

As Dr. Rima Laibow notes in the film "One Nation Under Siege," it is a distinct possibility the government may one day forcibly medicate the "politically insane," for their own good as well as society. Bill O'Reilly's task is to prepare for this possibility right out of the Soviet Union—where dissidents and other "socially undesirable people" were sent to Psikhushka psychiatric-prisons.

But then, as the United States increasingly resembles the Soviet Union, this development is to be expected. After all, former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov were hired by the Ministry of Homeland Security for a specific reason.

Source

Ron Paul Wins Republican Party Straw Poll in Fresno

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA--- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul won yesterday's straw poll at the Salute to Republican Leaders fundraiser hosted by the Fresno County Republican Party. Congressman Paul won with 35 percent, beating Rudy Giuliani, who garnered 33 percent of the vote. This win attests to the strength of the Paul campaign in California.

There are over 140 registered Ron Paul volunteers in Fresno among thousands of registered volunteers throughout the Golden State. "Across California, the Paul campaign is energizing new voters to register Republican and is re-registering disaffected Republicans who are excited about Ron Paul's candidacy and his support of traditional Republican principles," said Jeff Greenspan, Ron Paul's regional coordinator.

In his address to the Fresno County Republican Party, Greenspan said, "We are pleased to support Republican party ideals in California, the Republican party of Fresno County, and the party of Ronald Reagan." The Ron Paul campaign was one of two major sponsors of the event.

Of 41 recent straw polls across the U.S., Ron Paul has won 21, with numerous second and third place finishes.

Source

 

TV News Coverage of the Ron Paul Liberty Dollar Raid

"My name is Phil Schmitt and I am the organizer of the Ron Paul Meetup in Evansville, IN; home of the Liberty Dollar. A dedicated fellow member of the group, Brad Linzy, posted these two local newscast covering the Liberty Dollar Raid. He is also the man on the scene that they interviewed…The Fox affiliate actually did a pretty good job and are to be commended."

Source

Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists

Neo-Con and ex-Marxist demonize founding fathers, Ron Paul supporters as terrorists in outrageous attack on free speech, urge use of U.S. military against domestic enemies, anti-war left, libertarians, talking points have roots in September 2006 White House strategy document, demands for retraction flood CNN, sponsors boycotted

Complaints and demands for a retraction and an apology are flooding CNN today after Neo-Con host Glenn Beck and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive.

This is part of an ongoing propaganda assault which has also been mimicked by other anti-American Neo-Con talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war, claiming that those he would later identify as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left and link with terrorists, were a "physical threat."

"When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you're gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic - we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats - maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one....the physical threat may be developing domestically as well," said Beck.

Beck then goes on to make the absurd insinuation that Ron Paul supporters are a terrorist threat because they are causing disenfranchisement with the government. His evidence? The November 5th donation drive coincided with a 400-year-old piece of British history and Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

Beck then introduces his guests, the great grandson of Winston Churchill, and admitted former Marxist and now Neo-Con ideologue David Horowitz.

Watch the video.

We are forced to digest the bizarre and abhorrent spectacle of a British elitist, "former" Marxist Horowitz and anti-American Neo-Con Glenn Beck infer that 1776, the founding fathers and the very birth of freedom in America is somehow evil and affiliated with terrorism and extremism.

This brought back memories of a July 2001 FEMA training meeting in Missouri where a FEMA representative was caught on video instructing local police that the American people were the enemy and that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were a terrorist organization.

Watch the video below.

Ex-Marxist Horowitz and Beck then go on to link the anti-war left, Ron Paul supporters on the right and libertarians like Lew Rockwell, with "Islamofascists" and terrorists.

Horowitz states, "I think it's very significant he (Ron Paul) chose Guy Fawkes as an image."

This in itself is a complete lie - the Ron Paul campaign did not create the November 5th donation drive, it was created by one individual and the November 5th motif was merely a gimmick to make people remember to donate. To suggest it was a thinly veiled expression of sympathy with a 17th century terrorist is manifestly ridiculous.

Horowitz then claims, "There are plenty, unfortunately, libertarian websites which are indistinguishable from the anti-American left these days - LewRockwell.com and others like that - they are totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country."

This is a completely fallacious, slanderous and damaging lie, but Horowitz and Beck are still laboring under the illusion that the American people buy their bellicose smear attacks which are completely devoid of any substance and delivered only with the aid of discredited sound bites and rhetorical clichés.

During the course of the segment, Beck also repeated the contention that another Timothy McVeigh would emerge from one of the groups he demonized.

Beck's diatribe is just the latest in a series of smear attempts to equate 9/11 truthers, Ron Paul supporters and other activists with violence and terrorism, or otherwise discredit them. Bill O'Reilly has been doing it for weeks.

What is the origin of the talking points that are now being disseminated by the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and others?

Back in September 2006, we reported on a White House strategy document for "winning the war on terror," in which conspiracy theorists were targeted as a wellspring of terrorism. The document threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.

The document states that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."

The Neo-Con talking heads are actually parroting White House propaganda handed down to them by the Bush administration.

You can even trace the legacy right back to Bush's November 10, 2001 speech to the U.N., in which he said that "outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th" should not be tolerated.

Watch the video.

In the current context, this unified assault also dovetails with the advance of H.R. 1955, entitled the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007", which is vaguely worded and could easily be used to label activist groups as terrorist recruiters.

As Kurt Nimmo writes, "The only serious threat to the neocons and their neolib partners in crime emanates from the patriot and 9/11 truth movements—and that is why, as increasing numbers of patriotic and politically diverse Americans rally around the Ron Paul presidential campaign, we are witnessing increasingly virulent and desperate attacks against Paul, who is now absurdly conflated with "Islamo-fascist" terrorists."

"If they are able to successfully characterize Ron Paul as a terrorist and thus sabotage his political campaign, there will be no end to the state-sponsored domestic terrorism they will unleash against the American people stripped of all advocates," he concludes.

It also coincides with a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week, broadcast on C-Span, which featured a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.

Why are Glenn Beck and David Horowitz a threat to America?

a) They openly call for the U.S. military to be used to suppress freedom of speech, a complete violation of the first amendment and everything that America stands for. This in itself exposes them as anti-American traitors.

b) They openly state, without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim, that Lew Rockwell, libertarian and anti-war groups are "totally in bed with the Islamofascists," which could prompt their nutcase followers into physical violence and perhaps even assassination attempts against anti-war and libertarian leaders as well as Ron Paul supporters.

c) If there are real terrorist groups in America, as we are constantly told, then Beck and Horowitz are diverting attention away from them by fingering peaceful protest and activist groups, leaving genuine terrorists under less scrutiny by law enforcement and the FBI.

Beck and Horowitz are the only ones doing harm to America - they are anti-American traitors.

TAKE ACTION

- Use this form to contact CNN and demand that Glenn Beck issue a retraction and an apology for his wrongful and damaging characterization in linking Ron Paul supporters with terrorists.

- Spread this article to the four corners of the Internet and let anti-American trash like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and their followers know that we will not be intimidated into silencing our support for Ron Paul. Every time they pull one of these stunts, re-double your activism.

- Boycott CNN's sponsors until they issue a retraction and an apology.

 

 Source