Papers, please...

We are getting closer to modern version of Nazi Germany.

The privacy afforded to American citizens prior to the events of 9/11, leading up to the "War on Terror", is all but gone. One layer of privacy taken away at a time, all the while the media and the majority of Americans sit idly.

Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness, No-Fly Lists, Patriot Act II, and now a National ID.

Yesterday, the US Senate approved an "emergency" military spending package containing an unpublicized line item called the Real ID Act. The Real ID Act will require a federally approved ID card for travel, opening a bank account, any activity involving the federal government, to name a few.

Primarily pushed by the Bush administration as a means to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licenses, it actually affects ALL Americans.

Here's the reasoning behind the Act, directly from the mouth of it's sponsor, Republican James Sensenbrenner:

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and Real ID Act sponsor, applauded the Senate vote on Tuesday. "The Real ID is vital to preventing foreign terrorists from hiding in plain sight while conducting their operations and planning attacks," Sensenbrenner said. "By targeting terrorist travel, the Real ID will assist in our war-on-terror efforts to disrupt terrorist operations and help secure our borders."

There are those damn terrorists again! Am I one of the few who realizes how this entire blame-the-terrorists-in-order-to-apply-further-controls-on-American-citizens game is being played out? I sure hope not.

Notice that Representative Sensenbrenner's reason for the Act contradicts what that of the Bush administration which states the Act was primarly to address illegal immigration. I guess it doesn't matter, illegal immigrants, terrorists, take your pick... just don't point out that the target of the investigations should be the Israeli infiltration of the American political system and the compromise of national security at the hands of Israeli spy rings.

You can find answers to FAQs about the Real ID Act here. Here are a few of the highlights (or, more appropriately, lowlights):

• Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.


• At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on [will be stored on the ID card].


• The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."


• Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those.


• In exchange for federal cash, states must agree to link up their databases.

Below are some comments from Representative Ron Paul from Texas, one of the more vocal opponents to not only this legislation, but other pieces of legislation that have resulted in an erosion of civil liberties and individual rights:

Terrorism is the excuse given for virtually every new power grab by the federal government, and the national ID is no exception. But federal agencies have tried to create a national ID for years, long before the 9-11 attacks. In fact, a 1996 bill sought to do exactly what the REAL ID Act does: transform state drivers’ licenses into de facto national ID cards. At the time, Congress was flooded with calls by angry constituents and the bill ultimately died.

Proponents of the REAL ID Act continue to make the preposterous claim that the bill does not establish a national ID card. This is dangerous and insulting nonsense. Let’s get the facts straight: The REAL ID Act transforms state motor vehicle departments into agents of the federal government. Nationalizing standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates in a federal bill creates a national ID system, pure and simple. Having the name of your particular state on the ID is meaningless window dressing.

Federally imposed standards for drivers' license and birth certificates make a mockery of federalism and the 10th amendment. While states technically are not forced to accept the federal standards, any refusal to comply would mean their residents could not get a job, receive Social Security, or travel by plane. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.

One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.

Everyone should be paying close attention to this! Yet, I find no mention of this Act anywhere in mainstream media!

Here are some pieces out of Representative Ron Paul's speech before the House of Representatives in February 2005:

I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.

H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.

Read it and weep. America, in the not too distant future, will no longer be the land of the free. In order to be truly free, one will have to leave or become an outcast, not living by the rules imposed upon the masses.

I'll finish with a couple of comments from an opinion article I read a while back on the Cassiopaea web site. The title of the article is "America - Who is Responsible?".

Each of us finds ourselves in the position we are in, not as a result of some cruel twist of fate or the "hand of god" but rather as a result of who we are and what we see.

There seems to exist a strong desire (natural or otherwise) within human beings in general to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and their resulting life situation. It could be said that if people were to apply the same, (often considerable) skill for finding something else to point the finger at for their own troubled life situation, to accepting responsibility for and resolving their issues, the world and the people that inhabit it would likely be much happier.

Today, with the wealth of facts and evidence available, many Americans must surely be feeling extreme discomfort as they are forced to resort to increasingly illogical and irrational explanations to allow them to hold on to the idea that they are living in a democracy or that their "elected leaders" are working in their best interests. At some point it becomes too much, and as the mind weighs up the enormous size of that square peg and the pinprick size of the round hole the realisation dawns that it can simply no longer be done.

With all the proof that those in power are making decisions which are definitely NOT in our best interest, why is it that no one is doing anything to prevent the downward slide from continuing?

For a long time we have been able to convince ourselves that our view of the world and our place in it was viable, basically because to some extent, up to now, things were more "open", the future was perhaps more "open" and we could allow ourselves the luxury of "maybe".

No longer it seems.

Denial of the objective reality of this will get us nowhere, leading only to either depression as we, in vain, attempt to shut out the truth staring us in the face; or anger as we subconsciously realise that our sacred cows are ultimately bound for the slaughterhouse anyway. Indeed, it seems that depression and/or anger is the overriding emotion pervading many America cities these days.

The truth, it seems, is that "lock down" is in operation, things are being steered in a very definite direction, and those at the wheel are not really trying very hard anymore to hide the destination.

There exists, however, an opportunity for us all to do something about this decidedly negative situation in which we find ourselves. It has only been by our acceptance of, and support for, this illusory worldview our leaders have presented to us, that they have been able to bring the world to the brink of disaster upon which it now sits.

All of life serves knowledge. Simply by being alive we are learning. It is our choice to seek to learn either Truth, that which IS, or to attempt to force the "truth" to conform to the limited simplistic, beliefs foisted upon us by those men that would have all of reality reflect their own twisted imaginings.

The time will come to decide for those who "see"... serve truth or serve another.

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Police State, Politics

Odigo 9/11 Announcement and Israeli Spy Ring Investigation Coincidence?

In an article from today's Haaretz, "Odigo says workers were warned of attack", comes the admission from the company's CEO that two employees received messages warning of an attack at the World Trade Center.

This same information was reported by the Washington Post and discounted as conspiracy theorist material at the time. Yet, here we are, almost 4 years later and NOW the admission is made.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

So the FBI is notified. Then, Obido provides information after the event which could be used to identify the source of the messages, but what ever came of the investigation?

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.

What gives?

Why is it that such an admission comes so late after the event?

Why is it getting publicity now?

Could it be to create some headlines to distract from the brewing scandal of Israeli Spy Rings embedded and working within the US for decades?

1947. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADL’s reports on suspected communists as “hearsay."

1950 John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets.

1954 A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv.

1956 Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attaché in Tel Aviv.

1954 "The Lavon Affair". Israeli agents recruit Egyptian citizens of Jewish descent to bomb Western targets in Egypt, and plant evidence to frame Arabs, in an apparent attempt to upset US-Egyptian relations. Israeli defense minister Pinchas Lavon is eventually removed from office, though many think real responsibility lay with David Ben-Gurion.

1965 Israel apparently illegally obtains enriched uranium from NUMEC Corporation. (Washington Post, 6/5/86, Charles R. Babcock, "US an Intelligence Target of the Israelis, Officials Say.")

1967 Israel attacks the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering vessel flying a US flag, killing 34 crew members. See "Assault on the Liberty," by James M. Ennes, Jr. (Random House). In 2004, Captain Ward Boston, Senior Legal Counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack swears under oath that President Lyndon Johnson ordered the investigation to conclude accident, even though the evidence indicates the attack was deliberate. Given the use by Israel of unmarked boats and planes, and the machine-gunning of USS Liberty’s lifeboats, the most likely explanation is that USS Liberty was to be sunk with all hands, with evidence left to frame Egypt for the sinking. This would have dragged the US into the war on Israel’s side.

1970 While working for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Richard Perle is caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel. Nothing is done.

1978, Stephen Bryen, then a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, is overheard in a DC hotel offering confidential documents to top Israeli military officials. Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped. Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle.

1979 Shin Beth [the Israeli internal security agency] tries to penetrate the US Consulate General in Jerusalem through a “Honey Trap”, using a clerical employee who was having an affair with a Jerusalem girl.

1985 The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting [former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.] Mr. [Raymond] Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute.

1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86).

1987 April 24 Wall Street Journal headline: "Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won't be Explored in Detail by Panels"

1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system.

1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant -- with security clearance -- on exports of sensitive US technology.

1992 "The Samson Option," by Seymour M. Hersh reports, “Illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: "Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts."

1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash.

1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that "Israel aggressively collects [US] military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties" of US citizens.

1996 A General Accounting Office report "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors" found that according to intelligence sources "Country A" (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 2/22/96) "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." The Jerusalem Post (8/30/96) quoted the report, "Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country." The report described "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was "a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM [Office of Special Tasks] espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information."

The GAO report also noted that "Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes."

1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" reported that "US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology." Jane's Defense Weekly (2/28/96) noted that "until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the transfer of US technology [via Israel] to China." The report noted that this "represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military aviation." (Flight International, 3/13/96)

1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, "inadvertently" gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).

1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as “Dov”, had commented that they may get the letter from "Mega”, the code name for Israel’s top agent inside the United States.

1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents.

1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinsky’s phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBI’s hunt for “Mega” is called off.

2001 It is discovered that US drug agents’ communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.

2001 The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence.

2001 JDL’s Irv Rubin arrested for planning to bomb a US Congressman. He dies before he can be brought to trial.

2002 The DEA issues a report that Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government offices.

2002 police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to "deliver furniture." The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were “false positived” by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes.

2003 The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and several boxes. The Israelis are handed over to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public.

2003 Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest.

2004 Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake Ids. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released.

2004 Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives.
(Read entire article here)

Could it be to preempt some pending announcements to mitigate the impact on certain Israeli organizations somehow involved, directly or indirectly, with fore-knowledge of the WTC attacks?

Once again, I have to refer you to another great analysis of putting all the pieces together by the folks at Signs of the Times. Go here to read the assembly of articles and commentary.


Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Espionage, Israel, Neocons, Politics, Zionist

Control the Media, Part II

As if it's not enough that the media is directed on what to say/print and what not to, when an item is reported, the information goes unchallenged and is presented as reliable and factual.

Here's an example of how damaging information, in this case compromising the credibility of the Bush administration's Iraq message, gets coverage outside the US, yet no coverage in major news outlets within the US.

The Pentagon publishes a report on the findings of the "accidental" killing of Italian secret agent Nicola Calipari and wounding of kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Several areas are blacked-out electronically. Then someone finds that by selecting the entire text of the document, copying, and pasting into another document one can actually read the blacked-out portions.

Contained withtin the document is some disturbing information about the number of attacks on US forces in Iraq. And, so far today, none of this has made the main media outlets. There is still news about the Italian dispute with the results of the findings, but nothing about how the stability and progress in Iraq is not as positive as has been reported by the administration or the media.

From an article in Asia Times Online:

The uncensored Pentagon report at least allows the international public to know that there were no less than 15,527 attacks on the occupation forces from July 2004 to March 2005. In Baghdad alone, from November to March 12, there were 2,404 attacks. These numbers confirm that when US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his minions spin that the situation in Iraq is under control they are essentially lying. In the three months since the Iraqi elections there may have been fewer American casualties, but there were countless more assassination attempts against the so-called Iraqi security forces, all of them based on precise intelligence. Every day, there are at least 20 bomb attacks in Baghdad alone, and at least 60 throughout Iraq.

I guess if the American public never sees it in the major US outlets (e.g. CNN, Fox, USA Today, MSNBC, etc.), it must not be happening. If Americans continue to stick their collective heads in the sand, by not looking beyond the selective and biased "news" reported on American outlets, they will only have themselves to blame when the rest of the world responds.

Turn to objective, independent sources for news:

• American Free Press


• CounterPunch


• Independent Media Center


• Information Clearing House


• Signs of the Times


• t r u t h o u t

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Censorship, Iraq, Media, Politics, War on Terror

Proof: Control of the Media

The media is being controlled. Here's proof...

RE: Iraq
Request for inquiry into a planned attack on Iraq before the WMD announcement gets back seat to "missing" bride. Major media does nothing.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers [Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)] writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."
(more ...)

RE: "War on Terror"
So why are comments like this not picked-up by the larger media outlets?
Brigadier shocks and awes: There is no war on terror

The so-called global war on terrorism does not exist, a high-ranking Australian Army officer has declared in a challenging speech.

Brigadier Justin Kelly dismissed several central tenets of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism, saying the "war" part was about politics and terrorism was merely a tactic.

Though such wars were fuelled by global issues, they were essentially counter-insurgent operations fought on a local level, he said.

RE: Media Choice of Words
Editor's Note from t r u t h o u t:

The Republican Party has directed journalists to drop the word "nuclear" in describing the GOP plan to revise long-standing Senate rules and eliminate any possibility of Democrats filibustering Mr. Bush's most right-wing judicial nominees. The GOP prefers to speak of "the Constitutional option," and now accuses anyone who uses "the nuclear option" of showing "liberal bias."

Molly Ivins: Christian Right Goes Nuclear and The nuclear option and judicial activists

I was all set to write a column about the nuclear option -- the proposal to change the rules of the Senate in order to get President Bush's most questionable judicial appointments through -- when, lo, word came that there is no nuclear option anymore. It is now called "the constitutional option."

Who changed it? Why, the Republican Party, of course. Having found that "nuclear option" does not poll well, the Republicans simply decreed the rules change can no longer be described by that name. Further, the Republican Party sent media operatives around to major news organizations to inform them that anyone who fails to obey the new diktat on usage will be demonstrating the dread "liberal bias."

RE: 9/11
Hijackers on the FBI list found to be alive and the media does not confront the FBI.
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

Why doesn't any of this make the main outlets? If it does make it out, why doesn't someone run with it? Why is its lifespan so short?

Because it is not being allowed!

Some small voices are trying to get the news out, although not without paying a price. The concern of "when" they will be shut down, shut up, or put down.

One example, Deer in the Headlights by John Kaminski.

Never have I heard so much talk as over the past few years about people wanting to escape from warmongering America. I get postcards from Costa Rica, cryptic e-mails from Thailand, letters about how nice it is in Denmark or Portugal or Brazil, all from people who have shucked that furtive sense of panic that still grips many people with actually functioning souls who remain uneasily in their decaying United States.

Once I wrote that we shouldn’t run off to foreign places, that the best of us should stay and fight for what is truly ours. But who can blame those of us who are intimidated by the widespread lack of support for values and actions that are truly humane. What’s the score now? About six people in the entire Congress who are apt to tell the unvarnished truth about anything? And not a single newspaper.

To not be afraid is to be stupid.

What keeps one going? What keeps one from giving up and throwing ones hands up in the air out of frustration?

People (them again) always ask me, "How can you read all those horrible stories day after day and not be affected by them; how can you keep from slitting your wrists?" or something along those lines. It's a question I don't usually answer.

But when I try to, I think of that series of photos taken at a checkpoint in Iraq in which triggerhappy U.S. troops shot first and asked questions later, later to find six terrified and bleeding children in the car that rolled to a stop. I think of that little bleeding girl screaming over her butchered parents, and U.S. soldiers wearing masks to hide their identities from the photographer. That little girl is my boss. And the rage I feel at the people who put her in that position, I'm telling you, is simply more than you want to hear. Why do I do what I do, and how can I stand what I have to look at? I work for that little girl, and if you don't too, then you have a problem with me.

Because if you don't work for her, that means you're an accomplice to mass murder...

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Censorship, Iraq, Media, Politics, War on Terror

Israeli Spies in the US

Today, another arrest and one more piece of damning evidence against Israel.

A Pentagon analyst (Larry Franklin) was arrested and charged with delivering classified information to an Israeli intelligence cover, AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). The information was related to potential attacks on US troops in Iraq.

From the CNN article:

Franklin has been at the center of a lengthy FBI and Justice Department investigation into possible spying involving Israel and several officials of AIPAC.

Israel's spying on the US is nothing new. Recall Jonathan Pollard and, more recently, Golen Cipel.

How about a Trojan Horse scenario...

What if the current US administration consisted of individuals who conducted business and made decisions in a manner consistent with the best interests of Israel? Perhaps, even hiding behind false flag operations to fulfill a religious ideology.

Try reading this ...

Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S. soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in the region--Iran and Syria.

Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?

and this ...

The neocon advocacy of dramatically altering the Middle Eastern status quo stood in stark contrast to the traditional American position of maintaining stability in the area — though it did, of course, mesh perfectly with Israel's long-established goal of destabilizing its enemies.

...the vision of "regime change" in the Middle East through external, militant action originated in Israel, and its sole purpose was to advance the strategic interests of Israel. It had nothing to do with bringing "democracy" to Muslims. It had nothing to do with any terrorist threat to the United States.

The United States has tarnished its international reputation through its militarily aggressive actions in contravention of prevailing international norms. It has also had to pay significant costs in blood and money: rather, the American people have had to pay those costs. And the United States has made itself, and the American people, a major target of international terrorism. In short, the benefits derived by the United States from its Middle East military adventure are highly questionable; but that is easily understood if one recognizes that the policy the Bush II administration has pursued did not originate as one to benefit the interests of the United States but rather to benefit those of Israel, as those interests have been perceived by the Israeli Right.

Then, put it all together HERE.


Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, Espionage, Israel, Neocons, Politics, Zionist

Military Might Makes Right

Just as history is written by the victors, military actions against civilians usually go unpunished until the military power is brought down. At that time, there exists the potential for accountability for actions at some level.

Those were my thoughts as yet in another military action against civilians, in this case during the escort of the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena out of Iraq, US forces were found "not culpable".

In a BBC World News article, Italian hostage blasts US report, Ms Sgrena described the US investigators' findings as a "slap in the face".

The incident involves the shooting of the vehicle transporting Ms Sgrena and her escort, Italian agent Nicola Calipari who helped secure her release, as they approached a checkpoint even though Italy had made advance contacts with the US for safe passage. Mr Calipari was shot dead as he threw himself over Ms Sgrena to protect her when the shooting started.

Ms Sgrena disputes the details of the report (Differing accounts).

We'll see how much political clout Italy has to reverse the findings of the US military. Don't plan on expecting any changes to the findings any time soon.

Interesting comment from the Signs of the Times site:

The information that Sgrena and Calipari were not traveling on the main highway to the airport, but on a road reserved for traffic that had been secured by American authorities tends to belie the American version of events. It is not a fact that has been widely reported in the US where many pundits discredit Sgrena's testimony because she is a journalist for a communist newspaper.

It is clear from the start that the US authorities would exonerate the troops. It might lead to the unearthing of unpleasant facts about the shooting, such as that it was planned in advance. Sgrena had been working on an article about the war crimes at Fallujah.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Military, War

Verbalizing Truth Against Israel Abuses Makes One an Anti-Semite

Every time I read an article where someone is accused of anti-semitism, my ears perk up.

Why? Because in the majority of the cases I have read, the articles are factual and not complimentary to Israeli politics.

Say anything which condemns Israel and you are a racist, an anti-semite, a holocaust denier. Take your pick.

Do this often enough and people should begin to pick up on the tactic. But, why is it that we don't hear about this in the media? Think deeply about that questsion and it becomes self-evident.

Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post, BBC Reporter's Award Stuns Israel, where it becomes quite evident how it all works.

Israeli officials have expressed dismay that BBC reporter Orla Guerin, who has come under sharp attack for what some perceive as an anti-Israeli bias in her coverage, will receive an MBE [Member of the British Empire] honor from the British government for "outstanding service to broadcasting."

Diaspora Affairs Minister Natan Sharansky, who last year wrote a formal letter of complaint to the BBC over Guerin's coverage, said it is a pity that the absence of anti-Semitism was not a criterion for the award.

If it were, he said, Guerin would not be receiving the honor.

I wonder what tye of reporting led to such a comment from Mr. Sharansky?

Last year, in response to one of Guerin's dispatches about Israel's capture of a mentally challenged 16-year-old would-be suicide bomber, Sharansky wrote the BBC that it employs a "gross double standard to the Jewish state" that smacks of anti-Semitism.

Sharansky protested that Guerin, in her report, portrayed the event as "Israel's cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes." He said this "reveals a deep-seated bias against Israel. Only a total identification with the goals and methods of the Palestinian terror groups would drive a reporter to paint Israel in such an unflattering light instead of placing the focus on the bomber and the organization that recruited him."

The report, he said, "has not only set a new standard for biased journalism, it has also raised concerns that it was tainted by anti-Semitism."

In his letter, Sharansky quoted Guerin as describing to viewers how the IDF "paraded the child in front of the international media," then "produced" the child for reporters, "posed" him a second time for the cameras, and then "rushed him back into a jeep."

Is this true?

I found an interesting analysis of the use of the "anti-semitic" label and the events surrounding the example provide by Mr. Sharansky at this site. Here is an example:

Unsurprisingly, the main thrust of the Israeli government's objection to the award being given to Guerin is that her reporting from Israel has been biased because she is clearly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Most right-wing Israeli politicians never miss an opportunity to link anti-Semitism to a bias against Israel, yet to do so is clearly a manipulation and a distortion of the truth.

Anti-Semitism is defined as a hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews. Over the past number of years Israeli politicians have been at pains to associate anti-Israel bias with anti-Semitism and/or a bias against the existence of the state of Israel. The truth however, is that most people that are labeled, "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Israel" by Israeli politicans and lobby groups bear no grudge against the existence of Israel as a nation and certainly do not hate Jews simply because they are Jews! Rather, they deplore the policies of the current Israeli government and its army and oppose the victimisation and brutalisation of innocent civilians, regardless of ethnic or religious background or geographic location. In fact, members of the Israeli government would be well advised to avoid insisting on associating anti-Semitism and "anti-Israelism" with each other and with the actions of the Israeli government and army. The entire world can see that the Israeli government and army sanction the murder of innocent Palestinian children. Does Sharon really want the Jewish people and the Jewish state to become synonymous with such wanton acts of murder? On second thoughts...

Objective journalism is allegedly achieved through simply reporting the facts of any given event without undue input or opinion of the reporter. It is not reasonable, however, to expect a reporter in all circumstances to remain completely detached from the events they are witnessing and reporting. In order to really bring home the reality of any given event, the reporter may find it necessary to employ particular language that best conveys the reality on the ground. For example, a reporter might use strong and somewhat emotional language when reporting on a murder scene. A "biased" word like "brutal" might be used instead of the more objective "violent", or the murder might be described as a "slaying" instead of a "killing", yet these words may be much more appropriate and accurate in conveying a real taste of the actual events to the viewer/reader. Equally, when referring to people, it is not unreasonable that a reporter would use strong "biased" language to describe a murderer for example, particularly if his or her crime were marked by a particular callousness.

It follows then that, due to the brutality and viciousness with which the Israeli government and military treat the Palestinian people, emotionally charged reports are not only to be expected but often required if the true horror of the the atrocities that are regularly visited upon the Palestinian people are to be conveyed to viewers and readers. Orla Guerin's reports from Israel and Palestine won her a prestigious honor from the British government for "outstanding service to broadcasting" because she was dedicated to bringing the truth of Palestinian people's plight to public attention.

As we have seen time and time again, the Israeli government is desperate to ensure that the crimes it permits in Palestine remain largely hidden from view. On a number of occasions the IDF has resorted to murdering specific journalists who were attempting to report the truth about Israeli state-sponsored murder of innocent Palestinian civilians. Naturally, the guilty soldiers are never punished. In the case of Orla Guerin and those other journalists that they are unable to silence in this way, the Israeli government is forced to resort to defamation and ridiculous accusations of anti-Semitism.

Every time there is a report that is in any way critical of Israel, Israeli politicians decry the "one-sided" nature of media reporting on Israeli actions in Palestine. The simple fact however is that, given the extreme bias in the US mainstream press TOWARDS Israel (which is a direct product of Israeli influence within the US government), the public is exposed to only a tiny portion of Israeli crimes in Palestine. The Israeli government desires 100% control on the reporting of events in the occupied territories, when they can only manage 90% they accuse the 10% of bias and anti-Semitism.
(more)

I strongly urge the reader to visit the link to read the entire commentary.

Technorati Categories: Anti-Semitism, Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionist

Latest BS: Top Military Brass Cleared on Abu Ghraib

Just when you think things can't get any more blatantly obvious... here's another.

The Army's Inspector General, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, has determined the "allegations are unsubstantiated" and cleared four commanders of allegations of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

What a bunch of BS!

From the BBC article Top Brass Cleared Over Iraq Abuse:

The US Army inspector general's report says only Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, commander at the jail, has been found guilty and reprimanded over the abuse.

She told the BBC last year that had been made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others at the top, including Gen Sanchez.

Click here for more Iraq abuse photos from BBC News

I find it difficult to believe knowledge of the activities and intimidation techniques used at the Abu Ghraib prison stopped at the commander of the jail. In such a hierarchical structure as the military, it is inconcievable Karpinski approved of the activities without approval from her superiors or at least receiving a nod or a wink of approval.

There's no doubt approval came from the top... ALL the way from the top. Now, I'll bet it was handled via indirect references with understood intentions so that, if questioned later, one could say "I never approved the torture of prisoners" when the likely instruction was something like "Do whatever you have to in order to get results."

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is being sued by two civil liberties group for allegedly authorising torture and then failing to stop it.

Will anyone at the top, Rummy or Bush, ever pay? Doubtful.

"What this decision unfortunately continues is a pattern of exoneration and indeed promotion for many of the individuals at the heart of the torture scandal," said Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett.

"It only serves to underscore the desperate need for an independent investigation that will scrutinize the policy decisions and the individuals who made and implemented them in a manner that will expose the truth," Mr Hodgett told Reuters news agency.

At the beginning of today's entry, I said that things couln't be more obvious. What's so obvious you ask?

The current attitude within both the military and political structure of the US where all actions are justified and their objectives will not be denied. It is obvious there will be no accountability for any actions. Nothing will happen from within the US.

Unfortunately, any effort from the international community will be discounted as meddling in affairs the US can handle on its own. No country, group of countries, or organization seems to be able to hold the US accountable for anything.

Since no action will be taken by the people of the US to put an end to this attitude, it will ultimately lead to only one scenario: other countries will unite to work against the US. First, economically, then, if necessary, militarily.

For some interesting comments and compilation of articles on the prison abuse and accusations of torture, go to this issue at the Signs of the Times site.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Military, Prisoner Abuse, War

Cost of War

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.
Liz Sidoti - AP

War is costly, both in dollars and lives. Tax payers ultimately carry the financial burden either directly (by increases in taxes) or indirectly (by loss of services due to government cuts in spending on services). Soldiers and, tragically, innocent civilians (or impersonally referred to as "collateral damage" by the military) pay with their lives.

War is also very profitable, if you are a member of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC). You stand to make boatloads of money from supplying the military with all equipment, supplies, and logistical support necessary to conduct a war. Also, if you are a politician with financial interests, either through shares in the company or contributions to one's political ambitions, you stand to gain from the war as well.

To give you some idea of the costs, focus on the Iraq War. A war for which the reason for going to war (i.e. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction which he could deploy within 45 minutes and use against the US) was never proven as valid.

Here's a brief summary from George Ure's daily update on his UrbanSurvival site (which I recommend as a fresh perspective on economic, political, and environmental issues affecting our world):

With the latest pitch for another $80 billion or so, we notice that total spending for the Iraq war - Bush's War - has climbed past the $300,000,000,000 mark.

Now, to repeat what we have calculated previously: Take $300,000,000,000 and divide it by the population of Iraq. Which is:: 25,374,691 according to the CIA World Fact Book online. As of today, it would have been way cheaper to give everyone in Iraq a check for $11,800 - which pencils out to about $40,000 per household, rather than going to war with the whole country when our problem was with a single leader.

If Saddam was such a bad guy, I figure a sniper team with a single .50 round could take him out from a safe distance - costing us a couple of bucks, but certainly not this. One bullet and $40,000 per family of spending money, yeah, that might have been a lot cheaper...

Naturally, I'm sure folks will say "George is crazy - what about Saddam's rights?" I would hasten to point out that Saddam doesn't seem to be on trial yet, and he has been locked up for how long with no trial? If we're trying to show the world "how democracy is done right" I have to ask about the speedy trial concept, jury of peers, and, as long as we're at it, protection of Constitutional rights which were thrown out wholesale in the Patriot Act frenzy.

So, in the end, the war is not about making economic sense, but rather using it as a fine tool of socioeconomic control, which is fine, as long as you see the game labeled clearly.

War is about "socioeconomic control" imposition upon a group of people. Not just for Afghans and Iraqis, but for Americans.

The difference is in the knowing you are being controlled.

Technorati Categories: Afghanistan, Iraq, Military, Military-Industrial Complex, Politics, War

Investigate Only When Favorable

Well, it seems that Tom DeLay has been buying time. All the denials of ethical improprieties have actually been stall tactics to allow his fellow Republican House Ethics Committee members time to make the necessary changes, rules and such, so Mr DeLay can get off easy.

Yesterday, the Republicans offered to open an investigation of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The Democrats declined.

A little history is in order. Tom DeLay is accused of several instances of inappropriate use of monies and position. Last year, DeLay was admonished three times on a unanimous vote of the Republican-led House Ethics Committee.

Timothy Noah, at Slate's Chatterbox, zeros in on the bribery accusation which resulted in the Ethics Committee deciding DeLay "did not believe he acted improperly under House rules". So, DeLay gets what equates to a slap on the wrist.

Since when does a psychopath believe he is acting improperly? His behavior is always justified.

When the new Congress convened in January, Republicans unilaterally pushed through
three basic changes:

• Allow the dismissal of a complaint if a majority of the panel cannot agree on how to proceed after 45 days


• Allow lawyers to represent multiple participants in any inquiry


• Allow lawmakers a chance to respond if they are to be named in committee reports

Democrats contend the changes were designed to shield DeLay from further scrutiny.

The change requiring dismissal of a case unless a bipartisan majority votes for an investigation within 45 days was especially troubling to Democrats. The Ethics panel has an even distribution of Republican and Democrat, five each. Thus, neither side, by itself, has a majority.

Currently, a tie vote or disagreement on how to proceed would automatically dismiss the case, allowing either party on the evenly divided committee to stop an investigation.

If I were a Democratic member of Congress, I would want to wait until the previous rule is restored before aggreeing to the investigation.

Let's see how the GOP spins this. Perhaps they will make it seem as if they are willing to begin the investigations yet it is the Democrats waffling and the most likely reason given will be the lack of proof, therefore it would only be fair to drop the investigations altogether. Right?

Watch the media...


Technorati Categories: Government, Politics

DeLay is Out-of-Control

Has House Majority Leader Tom DeLay lost his mind? It appears so.

He continues to deny charge of unethical behavior, even though there have been numerous and well-documented events.

He continues to push for removal of Supreme Court justices.

He alleges the "left-wing syndicate", "liberal media", "judicial activism", "journalistic activism" are after him.

He believes he can do no wrong, is always in the right, and others are out to get him.

Such actions are the behavioral symptoms normally associated with a psychopathic individual.

Why is this man still in office? Obviously due to his relationship to the President and fellow Republicans.

CNN: Rove: White House 'strongly' behind DeLay

"We strongly support Tom DeLay. He's a good man, a close ally of this administration," Rove said in a rare television interview.

Washington Post: DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said DeLay "has always had, and continues to have, the strong support" of the party. "His leadership and dedication to maintaining and growing our numbers are a significant reason for our Republican majority," he added.

Republican leaders had thought they had built a fortress against future trouble by changing House rules in January and by changing the House ethics committee's Republican membership in February to include members closer to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and DeLay.

DeLay's legal defense fund received contributions from two of the new ethics committee members, Smith and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). The committee admonished DeLay three times last year. Republican leaders later sought the rule changes that made it more difficult to bring new ethics charges against Republicans.

Not only is DeLay out-of-control, so is the entire political structure.

Technorati Categories: Government, Politics

Small Revolutionaries: Environmental and Political

Earlier this week I received my bimonthly Making Waves issue from the Surfrider Foundation and was awakened to a fact communicated in the Editor's Notes.

First off, Surfrider Foundation is "a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's waves, oceans and beaches for all people, through conservation, activism, research and education."

Now to the editorial.

The monthly magazine's editor, Joe Mozdzen, astutely compares the world reaction and response to the tragic tsunami disaster late last year in the Indian Ocean to the lack of reaction to a slower, insidious disaster occurring with more far-reaching human mortality implications.

Here are some extracts from the editorial titled "Hidden Tsunamis and Small Revolutionaries":

The South Asian tsunami disaster was particularly compelling because it was such a quick, violent and immediate loss. We could all see it, understand the scope, and the random but concrete loss. And not to sound flippant, but it also lacked something. It lacked a spokesperson, a spin doctor, or a group of attorneys to deny it. The tsunami wasn't able to hire a PR firm to cast doubt that perhaps it wasn't the wave at all who killed those people.

So with all due respect, I submit that there are great losses that happen all the time which go unnoticed because they are gradual, incremental and often happen out of sight, and which are denied by lobbyists, attorneys, and public information officers. Pesticides seep into our groundwater; toxic mines and plants leak poisons downstream; urban run-off pollutes the ocean; our cars warm and pollute the earth; coastal armoring erodes shorelines all over the world; and development destroys irreplaceable habitat. Millions die every year, not from one giant event, but from the slow insidious tainting of everything from our shoreline to human breast milk. Horrible
tragedies that are often invisible because there is no easy sound bite, no dramatic footage of the destruction, nor any simple solution. Instead, there is a host of corporate scientists, apologists and deniers who leave you wondering if maybe, just maybe, you might have it wrong.

Unfortunately, money, power, political agendas, all at work behind the scenes, impact every living person on the planet. Money buys influence. Influence paves the path for opportunities to make more money or implement political agendas. Power is achieved by possessing the money and political influence.

How do we, with less money and even less direct political influence, effect a change in the current, destruction direction mankind is heading with respecct to the environment? By taking some action. Any action, but do act! Contribute to groups active in pursuing polluters and environmental law violaters. Buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Use organic products instead of those with chemicals not naturally absorbed by the environment.

In politics, we also have a serious problem which requires action. The Bush administration is out of control. More than likely the administration will find "proof" to attack Iran. Is the American public going to be so naive as to believe the "proof" after being lied to about the 9-11 attacks? About Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction?

Everything has gone down hill since 9-11. Civil liberties and privacy rights have been compromised for the sake of national security. When the government does not feel like answering a question, they hide behind the "we cannot answer that questions for national security reasons" line.

Since it all started with the 9-11 attacks, let's look at a few articles which shed some light on a group which everyone in media is afraid to talk about for fear of being accused of being a racist or denier.

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9/11

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The men set up cameras by the Hudson River and trained them on the twin towers. (1)

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)
"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)

The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were all joking about the attacks.
The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through." (19)

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (20).

It was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents (21). They were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement for 40 days.(22)
[S]everal of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (23)

The US government immediately attributed Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit WTC 1 CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." (24)

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, “experts”, and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.

But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and he suggested they were orchestrated by Zionists. The BBC published his statement of denial, in it he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.

[...]

The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." (26)

Here's more...

HUNDREDS OF MOSSAD AGENTS CAUGHT RUNNING WILD IN AMERICA!

What happened to the five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge. We also know about the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his “moving company” and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly released and deported.

In October of 2001, three more Israeli "movers" were stopped in Plymouth, PA because of their suspicious behavior. These "movers" were seen dumping furniture near a restaurant dumpster! When the restaurant manager approached the driver, a "Middle Eastern" man later identified as Moshe Elmakias fled the scene. The manager made note of the truck's sign which read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and called the police. When the police spotted the truck, two other Israelis - Ayelet Reisler and Ron Katar began acting suspiciously. The Plymouth police searched the truck and found a video. The Israelis were taken into custody and the video tape was played at the police station. The video revealed footage of Chicago with zoomed in shots of the Sears Tower. The police quickly alerted the FBI and it was also discovered that the Israelis had falsified travel logs and phony paperwork on them. They were also unable to provide a name and telephone number for the customer that they claimed to have been working for.

In November of 2001, 6 more suspicious Israelis were detained in Florida. They had in their possession box cutters, oil pipeline plans, and nuclear power plant plans. The local police called in the Feds and Immigration officials took over the scene and released the men without calling the FBI. The Jerusalem Post ran this story under the headline "FBI Suspects Israelis of Nuclear Terrorism". The Miami Herald and the Times of London also carried this amazing story and all revealed how furious FBI officials were that these Israeli terror suspects with nuclear power plant plans were set free by INS officials. Of course, the corruption riddled FBI would only have caved into Zionist pressure from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division boss, Michael Chertoff, and also from the ADL’s “partner”, FBI boss Robert Mueller - who would no doubt have found a way to eventually release those Israeli terror suspects anyway.

In May of 2002, yet another moving van was pulled over in Oak Harbor, Washington near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. Fox News reported that the van was pulled over for speeding shortly after midnight. The passengers told the police they were delivering furniture, but because it was so late at night, the police weren't buying the story. A bomb sniffing dog was brought in and the dog detected the presence of TNT and RDX plastic explosives in the truck (great stuff for demolishing buildings!) Both Fox News and the Ha'aretz newspaper of Israel reported that the two "movers" were Israelis.

In December, 2002, Ariel Sharon made the amazing claim that Al-Qaeda agents were operating inside of Israel. But when Palestinian authorities apprehended the suspects, they turned out to be Palestinian traitors impersonating Al-qaeda agents for the MOSSAD! From the Sydney Morning Herald of Austrailia:

"Palestinian security forces have arrested a group of Palestinians for collaborating with Israel and posing as operatives of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, a senior official said yesterday. ..The arrests come two days after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon charged al-Qaeda militants were operating in Gaza and in Lebanon.

It was considered a surprise because the Gaza Strip is virtually sealed off by Israeli troops. The hardline Israeli leader also charged other members of the terror group were cooperating with Lebanon's Shi'ite militia Hizbollah"

According to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. It was the largest spy ring to ever be uncovered in the history of the United States. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation. US. Carl Cameron of FOX News Channel did a excellent four part, nationally televised, series of investigations into this blockbuster scandal. But FOX pulled the investigative series after Zionist groups complained to FOX executives. FOX even went so far as to remove the written transcripts of the series from its website! In it’s place was posted a chilling, Orwellian message which reads: "This story no longer exists." Fortunately for the sake of history, the FOX transcripts were copied onto to many other websites and all four parts are available for your review.

The FOX series and other mainstream news media sources revealed that many of these Israelis were army veterans with electronics and explosives expertise. Many of them failed lie detector tests. FBI agents told FOX that some of their past investigations were compromised because suspects had been tipped off by Israeli wiretapping specialists. It was discovered that Israeli companies such as Comverse and Amdocs have the capability to tap American telephones (great for blackmailing all those wife-cheating politicians!) FBI agents also told FOX they believed the Israelis had advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. (which certainly would explain why no Israelis died in the WTC) Still another US official informed FOX that some of the detained Israelis actually had links to 9-11, but he refused to describe the nature of those links. The FBI official told FOX's Carl Cameron:

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about the evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information."

Then there was that small army of Israeli "art students" who were arrested for trying to sneak into secured US Federal buildings and staking out 36 Department of Defense sites. Ron Hatchett, a Department of Defense analyst, told Channel 11, KHOU news in Houston that he believed that the “art students” were gathering intelligence for future attacks. Here’s an excerpt from the October 1, 2001 KHOU investigative report by Anna Werner:

Could federal buildings in Houston and other cities be under surveillance by foreign groups? That's what some experts are asking after federal law enforcement and security officials - nationally and in Houston - described for the 11 News Defenders a curious pattern of behavior by a group of people claiming to be Israeli art students.

Hatchett says they could be doing what he would be doing if he were a terrorist, sizing up the situation: "We need to know what are the entrances to this particular building. We need to know what are the surveillance cameras that are operating. We need to know how many guards are at this operation, when do they take breaks?" Says Hatchett: "This is not a bunch of kids selling artwork."

"Some organization, thinking in terms of a potential retaliation against the U.S. government could be scouting out potential targets and … looking for targets that would be vulnerable."

And a source tells the Defenders of another federal memo, stating that besides Houston and Dallas, the same thing has happened at sites in New York, Florida, and six other states, and even more worrisome, at 36 sensitive Department of Defense sites. "One defense site you can explain," says Hatchett, "well that was just a serendipitous, ... Thirty-six? That's a pattern."

In a follow up report a few days later, KHOU Channel 11 revealed that Dallas was also targetted:

"11 News reported how people claiming to be "Israeli art students" might be trying to sneak into federal buildings and defense sites, and even doing surveillance. And at least one expert said he thought it could all be preparation for an attack. Well, now federal sources say they are not ruling out that all of this could be connected with the hijackings on September 11, because of events in another Texas city.

In Dallas, the so-called students hit early this year at the city's FBI building, the Drug Enforcement Administration and at the Earle Cabell Federal building, where guards found one student wandering the halls with a floor plan of the building.

So the Dallas INS went on the alert, finding and arresting 15 people in March. Thirteen claimed to be Israelis and two are professed Colombians. But according to sources, once again their passports were phony. And another federal source says some of those arrested also appeared to have lists of federal employees and their home addresses.

All 15 "students" have now been deported.

MOSSAD agents acting as art students in the US.

MOSSAD agents using moving companies to carry out surveillance (and potentially "terrorist" acts within US soil).

MOSSAD agents impersonating Al-Qaeda agents.

MOSSAD agents using falsified passports and documents to conduct spying activities on the US.

And, after all of the above revelations upon apprehension, release and deportation back to Israel. How can this be happenning with so many related activities? Why is no one allowed to pursue these leads? Is this why a War on Terror exists?

If past behavior is any indication of the future, things do not bode well for America / Americans.

Technorati Categories: Espionage, Government, Mossad, Politics, Terrorism, War on Terror, Zionist

First Shot at Judicial Change

Here is what appears to be the first shot the Bush camp is taking at changing the Judicial Branch. From the Washington Post article, And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty, appearing on page A03 of the Saturday, April 9, 2005 edition:

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Pretty strong language (emphasis mine), don't you think?

"should be impeached, or worse"... What could be worse than impeachment? Jail? Death? Those are the two immediate options that come to mind, but they (conservative leaders) wouldn't imply that, would they?

"Remedies to Judicial Tyranny"... Since when is a judicial interpretation of the law tyranny? Tyranny, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.


2. Absolute power, esp. when exercised unjustly or cruelly.

Hmm, sounds more appropriate to apply collectively to the Bush administration.

And here is an "expert" opinion:

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment."

Since when should someone be impeached for deciding not to allow capital punishment for juveniles? Impeachment should be reserved for wrongdoing with respect to official obligation. Mrs. Schlafly should know this, after all, a lawyer should know.

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary.

After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday.

This is very disturbing. Statements such as these must surely be coming from some fringe group! But wait, no. This is not some fringe group.

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

These are people in very influential positions whose statements and views carry significant weight. Hmm, I wonder what might their agenda be?

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Looks to me as if someone is trying to take the focus away from Iraq and the budget, the two most important topics today, and replace it with a discussion about God. Sure, let's take the focus away from evidence-laden topics into a very emotional and personal area of discussion sure to get people excited.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

From my perspective, the same could be said of Tom DeLay and the Bush administration. Perhaps the requests for impeachment should be directed at DeLay for his unethical behavior in office and the entire Bush gang for their actions in Iraq.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Government, Politics

Bush Targets Judiciary

Little by little, the Bush adminstration has (choose one) taken over / undermined / strong-armed / coerced / threatened the institutions and organizations which stood in the way of "the agenda", to propagate US influence and control such that US interests are always being served first and foremost. Whether the take-overs were direct or indirect, whether those institutions and organizations were complicit or submissive matters not. We are so far down the road of having accepted all the lies mouthed as facts, without any accountability and action toward the liars, that we can no longer wait for anyone in a position of power to make a difference. The only way to make a difference is for you and me, the average person, to stand up and be heard.

First, the Bush administration took over the Congress...

Second, the Bush administration took over the media...

Third, the Bush administration took over the intelligence agencies..

Now, the Bush administration is preparing to take over the judiciary...

There is an MO (Modus Operandi) to the Bush administration's actions which usually follows three steps:

Step 1: Set up the "story" to be used to justify the reason to go after the "enemy". In reality, this sets up the implementation of the plan to further an objective of the "agenda".

Step 2: At some point information leaks out either impacting the credibility of the "story" or point out how poorly the "story" was handled. Bring out the patsy. Because, of course, everyone knows the administration would never knowingly pursue an action based on false information, the blame would then be placed upon the patsy and the inability to do the job.

Stpe 3: Come up with a solution for the patsy's inability to perform the job. Now, part of the solution should involve redirecting control of the job function to some one or group directly or indirectly controlled by those same individuals coming up with the "agenda".

From Progreso Weekly, "The Bush Syndrome: Dead Wrong and Proud of It" by Max J. Castro:

What links the intelligence fiasco and the Schiavo case is the willingness of this administration and its Republican allies in Congress to argue for and undertake the most extreme and arrogant actions in the absence of credible information and arguments to support them – and in the process demonizing anyone who opposes their schemes. Waging an illegal war and trampling all over the bedrock constitutional principle of separation of powers are variations of a single syndrome, the Bush syndrome.

Whether the subject is global warming, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, stem cell research, social security, or the Schiavo case, the Bush syndrome involves ignoring, twisting, and denying facts and reason in the interest of an extreme right ideology.

The Schiavo case, for its part, raised the profile of an old target for the Republican right: the federal judiciary. A whole litany of GOP stalwarts, including Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and House Majority Leader Tom Delay, have skewered the judges involved in the Schiavo case. Some Republicans even have threatened to punish the judicial branch through funding cuts and other means.

This time, Bush and his Republican allies were denied. But the Bush administration’s preference for believing in and acting upon its own ideologically driven delusions over reality has already produced disastrous consequences in the form of war and massive Iraqi and American casualties. More tragedy is sure to follow if Bush is allowed to implement his domestic and international agenda during the second term.

Let's sit back and watch how the judicial system becomes the patsy for all the "problems" with the system and how a solution to the problem is presented which ultimately provides more control from within the White House.

The separation of Church and State no longer exists.

The separation of the Executive and Judicial branches hangs precariously in the balance.