Tuesday, February 26
Bush Censors His Library, Our Mentality, September 2001 Iraq War Plans--But Gives 2008 Election to McCain
Just casting about the outer news realm of The Empire and fastened upon more Bush fasci-nuggets sure to produce acid burn in your craw.
A Book in the Bush is Worth....Nada
Bush's ideological-activist library, according to one academic, "is opposed to the mission of the university." (Can that really come as a "news-at-6" news flash among allegedly intelligent people--in 2008?)
The Center for American Progress Action Report's 26 February's "Progress Report" described it this way:
Last week, officials at Southern Methodist University (SMU) announced that the Dallas-based university will be home to President Bush's $200 million library -- despite protests from faculty, administrators, and staff. Two unusual features will accompany the George W. Bush Presidential Center at SMU. First, the library will feature "an institute -- independent of academic governance of the university -- to sponsor research and programs designed to promote the vision of the president" and "celebrate" Bush's presidency. Second, an executive order Bush signed in 2001 could result in material at the library "being censored." One presidential memorial scholar said academics "should be concerned" that the institute is included in the library because it "goes against the idea of dispassionate inquiry." Susanne Johnson, associate professor of Christian education at SMU, said the point of a presidential library is to analytically reflect on the presidency, "not to cheer-lead for a particular president." Rev. William McElvaney, professor emeritus of preaching and worship at SMU's theology school, asked, "What self-respecting university would accept a censored library?"Good question, Rev. EcElvaney.
George Understands My Mentality? *&!x?*
Today, Bush indicated the GOP will win the White House, Senate and House of Reps. "When I say I'm confident, I am so because I understand the mentality of the American people." (Look in the mirror and tell me what you understand, UnCurious George.)
That Old Familiar, Forgotten Feeling...for War
From a French blog I get the following tip of Amy Goodman's 2 March 2007 Democracy Now! interview with former U.S. General and Democrat presidential wannabe Wesley Clark, who told the host the Iraq War was a certainty by 20 September 2001 instead of being "fixed" :
Bush, Diebold Want John McCain in November 2008
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Remember, you heard it here second.... (Caveat: 5-second Old Spice promo before the program; another 15-sec product placement afterward....)
But the 110th Congressional House Democrats could care less about elections.
Monday, February 25
More Than 1 in 10 US Homeowners Upside Down on Mortgage
The Center for American Progress Action Fund offered this spooky stat in its 25 February 2008 daily "Progress Report":
A new report from Moody's Economy.com states that 8.8 million homeowners, or 10.3 percent of the total, are "underwater," meaning they owe more on their homes than the homes are worth. Mark Zandi, the site's chief economist, observed, "The last time we saw so many homeowners with so many home values that were worth less than the amount of mortgage they owed was back in the Great Depression."... read more
Pentagon Mind Games: So You're Hearing Voices Now...
Playing those mind games...forever."--John Lennon
The Washington Post actually carried this 14 January 2008 story. Apparently staff writer Sharon Weinberger did some pre-interview research on Project MK-ULTRA, the CIA's post-WWII mind control program for staying competitive with the Soviets during Cold War espionage and counterespionage.
New on the Internet: a community of people who believe the government is beaming voices into their minds. They may be crazy, but the Pentagon has pursued a weapon that can do just that.
IF HARLAN GIRARD IS CRAZY, HE DOESN'T ACT THE PART. He is standing just where he said he would be, below the Philadelphia train station's World War II memorial -- a soaring statue of a winged angel embracing a fallen combatant, as if lifting him to heaven. Girard is wearing pressed khaki pants, expensive-looking leather loafers and a crisp blue button-down. He looks like a local businessman dressed for a casual Friday -- a local businessman with a wickedly dark sense of humor, which had become apparent when he said to look for him beneath "the angel sodomizing a dead soldier." At 70, he appears robust and healthy -- not the slightest bit disheveled or unusual-looking. He is also carrying a bag.
Girard's description of himself is matter-of-fact, until he explains what's in the bag: documents he believes prove that the government is attempting to control his mind. He carries that black, weathered bag everywhere he goes. "Every time I go out, I'm prepared to come home and find everything is stolen," he says.
The bag aside, Girard appears intelligent and coherent. At a table in front of Dunkin' Donuts inside the train station, Girard opens the bag and pulls out a thick stack of documents, carefully labeled and sorted with yellow sticky notes bearing neat block print. The documents are an authentic-looking mix of news stories, articles culled from military journals and even some declassified national security documents that do seem to show that the U.S. government has attempted to develop weapons that send voices into people's heads.
"It's undeniable that the technology exists," Girard says, "but if you go to the police and say, 'I'm hearing voices,' they're going to lock you up for psychiatric evaluation."
The thing that's missing from his bag -- the lack of which makes it hard to prove he isn't crazy -- is even a single document that would buttress the implausible notion that the government is currently targeting a large group of American citizens with mind-control technology. The only direct evidence for that, Girard admits, lies with alleged victims such as himself.
And of those, there are many.
IT'S 9:01 P.M. WHEN THE FIRST PERSON SPEAKS during the Saturday conference call.
Unsure whether anyone else is on the line yet, the female caller throws out the first question: "You got gang stalking or V2K?" she asks no one in particular.
There's a short, uncomfortable pause.
"V2K, really bad. 24-7," a man replies.
"Gang stalking," another woman says.
"Oh, yeah, join the club," yet another man replies. (click page 2 of 5)
Big Dickie C. to America: "Lay Back & Enjoy It; Big Oil is Large and in Charge"
After the October 1973 oil crisis when a unified Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, including Egypt and Syria) reduced their US exports during the Yom Kippur War to scare hell out of gas-guzzling America, Shell --yes, one of those rapacious Big Five Oil Sisters-- sponsored a national competition to see who could squeeze the most mileage out of a gallon of gas.
The winner? A 1959 Opel T-1 (photo). You would think that if a car got over 370 miles to a gallon of gasoline, that American ingenuity would have been sparked to build a car based on the Opel template, right? It didn't happened.
Last week, the Seattle Post Intelligencer--certainly with an eye to record fourth quarter oil profits across the Big Oil industry board--updated readers on that 35-year-old competition, asking this winning question:
"Why didn't this technology find its way into the mainstream? Why did the car sit unremarked, unremembered for so long?". Last December, Milkhouse Mouse offered a partial answer to these questions. (Read: "General Motors.")
Hmmm. I wonder, too, if....Can you spell D-I-C-K or B-U-S-H? Or C-L-I-N-T-O-N? Or R-E-A-G-A-N?
And I wonder why a Democrat-controlled 110th Congress dares not to inquire--beyond public posturing--into the record oil profits?
The PI article is titled "Hybrids, meet your rival--it gets 376.59 mpg."
MIKE LEWIS (206-448-8140 or email@example.com)
Finally something to wipe the smug off you hybrid owners, you high-mileage acolytes, you global-cooling zealots who wash your Priuses (Prii?) with graywater while wearing reclaimed plastic fleece and hemp undies.
Don't choke on your organic soy-double-decaf-fair-trade-carbon-neutral macchiato, but how does 376.59 miles per gallon sound? Makes your Honda Civic hybrid look Hummeresque, doesn't it?
That number doesn't come from some manta ray-shaped, wind tunnel-vetted carbon fiber space car. No, it's from a chop-top, steel-frame 1959 Opel T-1 (think melting jelly bean, but uglier). And the record was set in 1973 in a contest sponsored by Shell Oil Co.
Evan McMullen, owner of Seattle-based Cosmopolitan Motors, rediscovered the Guinness world-record-setting but forgotten car in Florida.
The buzz of the automotive engineering circles in the early 1970s and winner of the Wood River Competition for the planet's top mileage car, the little Opel had been bought by the France family, owners of NASCAR, and gifted to the museum at Talladega raceway.
And there it sat, mostly in anonymity, until McMullen, 45, heard about it and made his move. He now owns the car and hopes to sell it, maybe to a technological museum at an auction in September in Indiana....read more
Tuesday, February 19
U.S. Supreme Court Mum on Appeals Court's "Catch-22" Warrantless Wiretap Ruling
Earlies this afternoon (19 February), Wired News blogged this new development on the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping on all US electronic communications, a program that was activated--contrary to White House claims and public belief- well BEFORE 9/11:
Supremes Won't Hear Warrantless Wiretapping Case
By Ryan Singel February 19, 2008 | 12:52:58 PMCategories: NSA, The Courts
The Supreme Court turned down Tuesday a request to take up a challenge to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program, adding to the Administration's string of legal victories in challenges to the controversial, five-year-long program.
The ACLU, representing lawyers, journalists and Muslim groups, challenged the program in 2006, arguing that the warrantless spying on international communications violated the Fourth Amendment and put a chill on the free speech of journalists.
The suit started in a Detroit federal court room, where in 2006 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued an injunction against the spying, which she found to be unconstitutional.
In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision simply on the issue of standing -- in layman's terms, having the right to sue. The court found that the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were spied on, so therefore could not sue.
In October, the ACLU asked the Supreme Court to review that 2-1 decision, which it called a Catch-22.
However, the Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case, effectively blessing the appeals court decision.
That rankles Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, who says the courts are abdicating their oversight role.
"The president violated the law for more than five years and we don't think that should go unremarked on by the Supreme Court." Jaffer said. "The effect is to let the executive branch police itself."
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case effectively puts an end to one of the most successful direct challenges to the surveillance program, which the government retroactively dubbed the "Terrorist Surveillance Program."
That program targeted both foreigners and Americans and listened in on their communications using wiretaps inside the U.S.. The New York Times revealed the existence of the program in 2005, and was soon followed by revelations about phone companies turning over all Americans' phone records to the government.
Then just prior to Democrats taking over the leadership role in Congress in 2007, Bush submitted the program for court approval. Within months, the secret spying court declared the program to be illegal.
The Bush Administration, citing a high threat level, then pushed Congress over the summer to give it warrantless domestic wiretapping powers, which were given for six months. Republicans and Democrats are now battling over an extension of those powers, as well as proposed immunity for the telecoms being sued for helping with the program.
Telecoms are facing some 40 lawsuits for their alleged participation in the massive violation of federal privacy laws. Despite the government's claim that the lawsuits would jeopardize national security, a federal judge in San Francisco has let a suit against AT&T proceed, ruling that the government can't declare the whole subject of the suit a secret when it admitted the program exists.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hand down a decision in that case at any time. But any ruling could be moot, if Congress grants immunity to the telecoms.
The Senate voted for that get-out-of-court card last week, but the Democratic leadership in the House opposes that provision and wants to negotiate with the Senate.
In another challenge, lawyers for a now-banned Islamic charity were given a Top Secret document by the government, which they say proves they were spied on illegally. The Ninth Circuit dealt a blow to that case in November, sending it back down to the District Court, which has to decide if a law passed by Congress overrules the government's state secrets privilege.
UPDATE: Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin says the department is "pleased with the court order."See Also:
- House Democrats Stand Up To Bush, Refuse to Rubber Stamp Domestic Spying
- Gov Seeks Spy Suit Dismissal - Says It Now Gets Warrants
- Judge Halts NSA Snooping
- U.S. 9th Circuit Deals Setback to NSA Surveillance Victim
- ACLU Asks Supremes to Let Anti-NSA Spying Case Continue
- Appeals Court Tosses Anti-NSA Spying Suit
- Analysis: Spy Ruling Portends Hurdles for AT&T Eavesdropping Case
Monday, February 18
Plame's Repreive: Sibel Edmonds' 9/11 Story Finally Going Mainstream?
Ah, the plot thickens, and Big Dick Cheney must feel a noose tighten around his defibrillator.
Valerie Plame, former CIA covert officer who tracked loose nuclear weapons around the world via front company Brewster Jennings only to be outed by White House types, recently characterized former FBI linguist's Sibel Edmonds' 9/11 story as "stunning."
Plame learned that her company apparently was outed two years earlier (in 2001 by Marc Grossman) than she and American news consumers originally were led to believe.
Of course, what with America's moribund media, Plame had to learn about this explosive development in a London newspaper, though a diluted version less offensive to the White House has been making its dutifully sanitized rounds in some mainstream markets.
Phillip Giradi, a former CIA officer raised the question outside the blogsphere in the American Conservative's 28 January online issue. Rightfully so, he asks why former FBI linguist Sibel Edmonds' remarkable 9/11 story is being covered-up and not receiving the media cover it deserves.
Excerpted below in its entirety, the story apparently appeared only in the Dallas Morning News' 17 February (Sunday) online edition; read it on the newspaper's website here.
And the truly strong hearted also may wish to watch the 2007 French documentary Kill the Messenger embedded below (in English, 52 minutes). That film adroitly links Edmonds' 9/11 story to the White House's outing of former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame.
Philip Giraldi: What FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds found in translationFrench Documentary: Kill the Messenger (Also check out Edmonds's Just a Citzen website for additional info on the documentary, including interviews with the film's two French directors.)
Why is her story being covered up?
12:14 PM CST on Sunday, February 17, 2008
Most Americans have never heard of Sibel Edmonds, and if the U.S. government has its way, they never will.
The former FBI translator turned whistle-blower tells a chilling story of corruption at Washington's highest levels – sale of nuclear secrets, shielding of terrorist suspects, illegal arms transfers, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, espionage. She may be a first-rate fabulist, but Ms. Edmonds' account is full of dates, places and names.
And if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.
But Congress has refused to act, and the Justice Department has shrouded Ms. Edmonds' case in the state-secrets privilege, a rarely used measure so sweeping that it precludes even a closed hearing attended only by officials with top-secret security clearances. According to the Department of Justice, such an investigation "could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States."
After five years of thwarted legal challenges and fruitless attempts to launch a congressional investigation, Sibel Edmonds is telling her story, though her defiance could land her in jail. After reading its November piece about Louai al-Sakka, an al-Qaeda terrorist who trained 9/11 hijackers in Turkey, Ms. Edmonds approached the Sunday Times of London. On Jan. 6, the Times, a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper that does not normally encourage exposés damaging to the Bush administration, featured a long article. The news quickly spread around the world – but not in the United States.
Ms. Edmonds is an ethnic Azerbaijani, born in Iran. She lived there and in Turkey until 1988, when she immigrated to the United States. Nine days after 9/11, she took a job at the FBI as a Turkish and Farsi translator. She worked in the 400-person translations section of the Washington office, reviewing a backlog of material dating to 1997 and participating in operations directed against several Turkish front groups, most notably the American Turkish Council.
The ATC, founded in 1994 and modeled on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was intended to promote Turkish interests in Congress and in other public forums.
The FBI was interested in the ATC because it suspected that the group might be tangentially tied to drug trafficking and because of reports that it had given congressmen illegal contributions or bribes. Moreover, as Ms. Edmonds alleged in the Times, the Turks have "often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's spy agency, because they were less likely to attract attention."
(In 2005, a spokesperson for the ATC denied to Vanity Fair magazine that the organization has ever been involved in illegal payment or espionage activities.)
Over nearly six months, Ms. Edmonds listened with increasing unease to hundreds of intercepted phone calls between Turkish, Pakistani, Israeli and American officials. When she voiced concerns about the processing of this intelligence – among other irregularities, one of the other translators maintained a friendship with one of the FBI's "high value" targets – she was threatened.
After exhausting all appeals through her own chain of command, Ms. Edmonds approached the two Department of Justice agencies with oversight of the FBI and sent faxes to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy on the Judiciary Committee. The next day, she was called in for a polygraph. According to a DOJ inspector general's report, the test found that "she was not deceptive in her answers."
But two weeks later, Ms. Edmonds was fired. Her home computer was seized. Her family in Turkey was visited by police and threatened with arrest if they did not submit to questioning about an unspecified "intelligence matter."
When Ms. Edmonds' attorney sued to obtain the documents related to her firing, Attorney General John Ashcroft imposed the state-secrets gag order. Since then, she has been subjected to another federal order, which not only silenced her but retroactively classified the statements she eventually made before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 9/11 commission.
Passionate in her convictions, Ms. Edmonds has sometimes alienated her own supporters and ridden roughshod over critics who questioned her assumptions. But despite her shortcomings in making her case and the legitimate criticism that she may be overreaching in some of her conclusions, Ms. Edmonds comes across as credible. Her claims are specific and fact-based, and they can be documented in detail. There is presumably an existing FBI file that could demonstrate the accuracy of many of her charges.
Her allegations are not insignificant. Among them: Ms. Edmonds claims that a former top State Department official was a person of interest to the FBI and had his phone tapped by the bureau in 2001 and 2002. Because of his senior-level position, this man had access to classified information of the highest sensitivity from the CIA, NSA and Pentagon, in addition to his own State Department.
Ms. Edmonds alleges to have heard evidence linking him to bribery from an ATC contact, to his intervening with the FBI to halt the interrogation of four Turkish and Pakistani intelligence operatives, and helping seed U.S. nuclear facilities with Turkish and Israeli Ph.D. students who in turn sold nuclear secrets abroad, primarily to Pakistan. The accused, who emphatically denies Ms. Edmonds' charges, is now a senior executive at a Washington lobbying firm.
A low-level contractor might seem poorly positioned to expose major breaches of national security, but the FBI translators' pool, riddled with corruption and nepotism, was key to keeping these secrets from surfacing. Ms. Edmonds' claims that the section was infiltrated by translators who should never have received security clearances and who were deliberately failing to translate incriminating material are supported by the Justice Department inspector general investigation and by an FBI internal investigation, which concluded that she had been fired after making "valid complaints."
Ms. Edmonds' revelations have attracted corroboration in the form of anonymous letters apparently written by FBI employees. There have been frequent reports of FBI field agents being frustrated by the premature closure of cases dealing with foreign spying, particularly when those cases involve Israel, and the State Department has frequently intervened to shut down investigations based on "sensitive foreign diplomatic relations."
Curiously, the state-secrets gag order binding Ms. Edmonds, while put in place by DOJ in 2002, was not requested by the FBI but by the State Department and Pentagon – which employed individuals she identified as being involved in criminal activities. If her allegations are frivolous, that order would scarcely seem necessary. Under the Bush administration, the security gag order has been invoked to cover up incompetence or illegality, not to protect national security.
Both Mr. Grassley and Mr. Leahy – a Republican and a Democrat, who interviewed her at length in 2002 – attest to Ms. Edmonds' believability. The Department of Justice inspector general investigation into her claims about the translations unit and an internal FBI review confirmed most of her allegations. Former FBI senior counterintelligence officer John Cole has independently confirmed her report of the presence of Pakistani intelligence service penetrations within the FBI translators' pool.
Ms. Edmonds wasn't angling to become a media darling. She would have preferred to testify under oath before a congressional committee that could offer legal protection and subpoena documents and witnesses to support her case. She claims that a number of FBI agents would be willing to testify, though she has not named them.
Prior to 2006, Rep. Henry Waxman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee allegedly promised Ms. Edmonds that if the Democrats gained control of Congress, he would order hearings into her charges. But following the Democratic sweep, he has been less forthcoming. It is suspected that Mr. Waxman fears that the revelations might open a Pandora's box, damaging Republicans and Democrats alike.
Ms. Edmonds' critics maintain that she saw only a small part of the picture in a highly compartmentalized working environment, that she was privy to only a fragment of a large operation to penetrate and disrupt the groups that have been stealing U.S. weapons technology. She could not have known operational details of what the FBI was doing and why.
That criticism is serious and must be addressed. If Ms. Edmonds was indeed seeing only part of a counterintelligence sting operation to entrap a nuclear network like that of A.Q. Khan, the government could now reveal as much in general terms, since any operation that might have been running in 2002 has long since wound down.
Regarding her access to operational information, Ms. Edmonds' critics clearly do not understand the intimate relationship that develops between FBI and CIA officers and their translators. Operations run against a foreign target in languages other than English require an intensive collaboration between field officers and translators. The translators are invariably brought into the loop because it is up to them to guide the officers seeking to understand what the target, who frequently is double talking or attempting to conceal his meaning, is actually saying.
That said, it should be conceded that Ms. Edmonds might sometimes have seen only a piece of the story, and those claims based on her own interpretation should be regarded with caution.
Still, Sibel Edmonds makes a number of accusations about specific criminal behavior that appear to be extraordinary but are credible enough to warrant official investigation. Her allegations are documentable; an existing FBI file should determine whether they are accurate.
It's true that she probably knows only part of the story, but if that part is correct, Congress and the Justice Department should have no higher priority. Nothing deserves more attention than the possibility of ongoing national-security failures and the proliferation of nuclear weapons with the connivance of corrupt senior government officials.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy. This essay was adapted from a longer version that appears on the Web site of The American Conservative magazine (www.amconmag.com).
Warning: Milkhouse Mouse accepts no responsibility for any medical contingency occurring to faint-hearted viewers of this film.
*While I was composing this post an unwelcomed intruder happened aboard my site, wreaking minor havoc (but mostly just lurking). URL address: www.sab.hq.af.mil. When I tried to access the site, I got a message indicating I had to access the page through a secure server. But this search turned up some interesting partial info. (If you have input, email firstname.lastname@example.org.)
Friday, February 15
"Big Money" Ready for Truth on North American Union
The advent of the North American Union is old news, really--financial business as usual--in London, where one financial expert confirms on a November 2006 CNBC report the ho-hum evolving development of the Amero, the NAU's unification currency.
And the US Department of Agriculture appears to be clued in to the NAU:
"In January 2008 NAFTA enters its last stage of implementation in which all remaining tariffs on corn, beans, and other sensitive agricultural products will be eliminated. With severely negative impacts predicted for Mexican farmers and an accumulation of social problems in all three countries, this phase obliges policymakers to finally take NAFTA to task for how it has affected the daily lives of North American citizens."--Laura Carlsen, Center for International Policy, Americas Program, Standing Up to NAFTAAnd this news from the StopTheNAU.org website about American state-level political action against the NAU:
Any questions? If so, call your congressperson or senator in DC, whose staff are instructed to feign ignorance on the topic.
19 States CAN'T be WRONG! In 2007, 16 states had Anti-NAU legislation and 3 states passedStates: Alabama | Arizona | Colorado|Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Missouri Montana | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | North Carolina | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee |Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington
Anti-NAU or Anti-SPP legislation in both their House and Senate!!!
The fact that over 1/3 of the state legislatures introduced resolutions opposing the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP), the NAFTA Superhighway, and the developing North American Union (NAU), is a GREAT success!
Extra: "Got Chips?" A 9-minutes clip on NAU radio frequency ID chipping.
Extra II: Watch Jim Henson's Kermit the Frog do Veri-Chip commerical on childrens' TV safety.
Wednesday, February 13
BBC Reports CIA Assassinated RFK, Too
Anybody here seen my old friends
Gordon, George and David?
They were CIA killers
and helped two Kennedys die young.
According to the BBC:
CIA role claim in Kennedy killingIn a companion article appearing in the UK Guardian's 20 November 2006 edition, filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan clarified his startling findings on the three CIA agents, including these details:
New video and photographic evidence that puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of Robert Kennedy's assassination has been brought to light.
The evidence was shown in a report by Shane O'Sullivan, broadcast on BBC Newsnight.
It reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968.
The CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers were based in South-East Asia at the time, with no reason to be in Los Angeles.
Kennedy had just won the California Democratic primary on an anti-War ticket and was set to challenge Nixon for the White House when he was shot in a kitchen pantry.A 24-year-old Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested as the lone assassin and notebooks at his house seemed to incriminate him.
However, even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time.
Witnesses placed Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy but the autopsy showed the fatal shot came from one inch behind.
Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University, believes Sirhan may have been hypnotically programmed to act as a decoy for the real assassin.
The report is the result of a three-year investigation by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan. He reveals new video and photographs showing three senior CIA operatives at the hotel.Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro.
David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends:
"I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."
Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations.
Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated.
Monday, 20 November would have been Bobby Kennedy's 81st birthday. In Los Angeles, his son Max has just broken ground on a new high-school project in memory of his father on the old Ambassador Hotel site.
Paul Schrade, a key figure behind the school project, was walking behind Robert Kennedy that night and was shot in the head. He believes this new evidence merits fresh investigation:
"It seems very strange to me that these guys would be at a Kennedy celebration. What were they doing there? And why were they there? It's our obligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigate this."
Ed Lopez, a former Congressional investigator who worked with Joannides in 1978, says:
"I think the key people at the CIA need to go back to anybody who might have been around back then, bring them in and interview them, and ask - is this Gordon Campbell? Is this George Joannides?"
This report was shown on Newsnight on Monday, 20 November, 2006.
Three years ago, I started writing a screenplay about the assassination of Robert Kennedy, caught up in a strange tale of second guns and "Manchurian candidates" (as the movie termed brainwashed assassins). As I researched the case, I uncovered new video and photographic evidence suggesting that three senior CIA operatives were behind the killing. I did not buy the official ending that Sirhan acted alone, and started dipping into the nether-world of "assassination research", crossing paths with David Sanchez Morales, a fearsome Yaqui Indian.Related: With U.S. investigative journalism one of the casualties of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the British apparently have taken over some of the more historically-based reporting for Americans still paying any attention. In 1995, for example, Nigel Turner produced a documentary implicating former CIA officer and President George H. W. Bush in the assassination of JFK.
Morales was a legendary figure in CIA covert operations. According to close associate Tom Clines, if you saw Morales walking down the street in a Latin American capital, you knew a coup was about to happen. When the subject of the Kennedys came up in a late-night session with friends in 1973, Morales launched into a tirade that finished: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." From this line grew my odyssey into the spook world of the 60s and the secrets behind the death of Bobby Kennedy.
Working from a Cuban photograph of Morales from 1959, I viewed news coverage of the assassination to see if I could spot the man the Cubans called El Gordo - The Fat One. Fifteen minutes in, there he was, standing at the back of the ballroom, in the moments between the end of Kennedy's speech and the shooting. Thirty minutes later, there he was again, casually floating around the darkened ballroom while an associate with a pencil mustache took notes.... read more
JFK Anticipated Bush Fascism
Sunday, February 10
Post-Bush White House Retirement Tip: Granny Grower Dope Guide
But some forwarding-looking Californians have a retirement idea to help us forget our plight in old age.
Your Guide to Making Money in the Multi-Billion-Dollar Marijuana Market
|The Granny Grower Guide|
Are you looking for an easy way to supplement your Social Security, pension, or other retirement income? You should consider growing marijuana. As a part-time business, it has many advantages:
Discover why thousands of retirees and other people living on fixed incomes are growing marijuana to pay the bills. You never had a job so good.
Coming Soon! The Granny Grower Guide
Your guide to the easiest and quickest methods to grow good quality marijuana for sale. Stop scraping and scratching to get by when there is an easy home business that can put you on Easy Street!
(Ah, but wait; there's more.)
Marijuana is Quickest Path to Millions:
The New California Gold Rush
The quickest and most reliable way to make a million dollars is currently the marijuana business, and thousands are rushing to cash in, according to research conducted by MarijuanaBusinessNews.com.
In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medical use. The only requirement was that users obtain a recommendation from a doctor. In the following years hundreds of thousands of people have obtained recommendations for medical marijuana. Along with them came an entirely new kind of business – the marijuana compassion clubs. What started as a few small patient’s clubs in the San Francisco Bay area has grown to the point where there are estimated four hundred medical marijuana outlets openly operating in the City of Los Angeles alone. Statewide, there may be as many as a thousand – not counting delivery services.
While the legalities surrounding these clubs are uncertain, the profits are not, according to Clifford Schaffer, Editor of MarijuanaBusinessNews.com. He says that the number of new millionaires being created dwarfs the California lottery. “The California lottery is advertising that they will make five new millionaires on New Year’s Day. According to our research, the marijuana business does that about twice a week in California,” said Schaffer. “The marijuana business is in absolutely phenomenal shape right now. It is the equivalent of being able to grow solid gold in your closet. It is the new California Gold Rush, and it is way bigger than the last one.”
The time to make a million can be extremely short. “Our research shows that a smart operator can be a millionaire after taxes in less than a year,” said Schaffer. . “That’s not just our guess. We have found numerous examples where it already happened.”
To prove the point, MarijuanaBusinessNews.com features two pages that show how fast someone can make a million dollars. One page allows users to calculate how money they will make growing marijuana, while another page gives estimates for retail sales. Users enter their basic business assumptions and the web pages show the financial results before and after taxes.
Schaffer says that the opening up of the medical marijuana market has also produced a change in the kind of people in the business. “We are finding more and more small entrepreneurs going into the business,” said Schaffer. “The new entrepreneurs are not the thugs and professional criminals that have dominated the industry in the past. The majority of the people running these operations are natural-born US citizens who are both patriotic and law-abiding – with the exception of the marijuana business, of course. Except for the fact that they are in the marijuana business, they are no different than the people running any other legitimate small business. They are no different than the people you knew in high school.”
As for the risks of getting busted, Schaffer says the research shows that the risk of being put out of business by law enforcement is low. “Proposition 215 removed much of the threat from local law enforcement,” said Schaffer, “and the Federal Government doesn’t have the resources. The DEA has been reduced to sending letters to landlords and throwing temper tantrums.”
Schaffer points to a number of recent instances in which the DEA has raided marijuana stores but haven’t arrested anyone. “They just take all the cash and marijuana and trash the place,” said Schaffer. “They just loot the places because they don’t have the resources to do anything else. They don’t even bother to account for the money they take.”
“Marijuana is de facto legal in California,” said Schaffer, “and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men are not going to change it. Economics has won. The entrepreneurs have effectively negated government policy.”