Archive for November, 2007

The State vs. Ron Paul

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

The State vs. Ron Paul

by Gail Jarvis
by Gail Jarvis


Ron Paul’s growing popularity is extremely annoying to those on the left. And sometimes their annoyance gets out-of-control, as evidenced by the reaction from Brad Warthen, editorial page editor of The State, Columbia, South Carolina. What set Warthen off was this comment about Ron Paul and libertarianism in the Washington Post: “More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism.”

It was primarily the reference to “freewheeling fun of libertarianism” that prompted this outburst from Warthen: “I look at it (libertarianism) and see a gray, dull, monotonous, seething, dispiriting resentment. Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes – that’s libertarianism to me. If I were looking to be an ideologically rigid, antisocial grouch who constantly told the rest of the world to go (expletive) itself, I’d be a libertarian.”

Compare Warthen’s tirade against Ron Paul and libertarianism with his glowing tribute to Barack Obama, a Democrat of the liberal persuasion. Warthen is discussing Obama’s effect on his followers, especially young people. “But there’s something about Obama that makes the youthfulness of his supporters seem more apt, something that reminds me of my own youth. He reaches across time, across cynicism, across the sordidness of Politics as Practiced, offering to pull them in to the place where they can make a difference.”

Before the advent of the Internet, the public had nowhere to go to find rebuttals to such subjective statements. Newspaper journalists had more power then. Even now, Warthen, as editorial page editor, can decide which columnists are allowed to air their opinions in his paper. And letters to the editor containing opinions he does not approve of will never be printed. As print media is gradually replaced with electronic media, editorial page editors will lose some of their disproportionate clout.

If Brad Warthen’s praise of Obama sounds a little naïve, remember that Warthen, like many of today’s journalists, was born somewhere the mid-1950’s to the late-1960’s. During the heyday of ABC, CBS and NBC, these journalists were kids in PJs eating cereal in front of the TV. This is how they learned about America and where they formulated their narrow views about the first half of the 20th century. Network television reporting informed them what was right and what was wrong and defined what the government’s role in appeasing the demands of fringe groups and “improving society” should be. Those seminal years spawned their political idée fixe; their youthful political obsessions that remain unchanged to this day.

Although Warthen and his ilk have not changed over the years, other than exchange their love beads for power suits, America has changed radically. It has new problems now that require new solutions. And I don’t think it is an exaggeration to state that time may be running out. So a good many people are placing their faith in Ron Paul, believing he may have the answers.

November 29, 2007

Gail Jarvis [send him mail ] is a free-lance writer.

Copyright © 2007

Gail Jarvis Archives

Find this article at:

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Ron Paul Responds To Question re North American Union (NAU)

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

Ron Paul Responds To Question re North American Union (NAU)


YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.

I’ve met a lot of your supporters online, but I’ve noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.

These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by “all of this.” the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it’s a, quote, “conspiracy of ideas.” This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.

And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was….”Please Continue Reading-Click Below:

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”

McCain blames Rise of Hitler on Ron Paul

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment


  Send Page To a Friend

McCain blames Rise of Hitler on Ron Paul

Not Invading and Occupying other Countries Branded ‘Isolationism’

By Juan Cole

11/29/07 “ICH” — — In a new low of despicable looniness, at the Republican debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain equated those Americans who want to stop militarily occupying Iraq with Hitler-enablers. He actually said that, saying that it was ‘isolationism’ of a sort that allowed Hitler to come to power.

It gives a person a certain amount of faith in one’s fellow Americans that McCain was booed by the Republican crowd for this piece of calumny. Comparisons to Hitler should be automatic grounds for a candidate to be disqualified from being president.

But then McCain is the same person who joked about bombing Iran. He thinks that killing all those children from the air would be funny?

McCain also repeated his standard lie that Iraqis would attack the United States if US troops were withdrawn from that country. He contrasted the Vietnamese Communists, who, he said, just wanted to build their workers’ utopia in Vietnam once the US left, with Iraqis, who he continues to confuse with Usamah Bin Laden (a Saudi living far from Iraq who never had anything to do with Iraq).

Of course, back in the early 1970s, if you had asked McCain, he would have said we have to fight the Vietnamese because of the Domino effect, and if we lost there then International Communism would be in our living rooms. Now, he says the Vietnamese Communists weren’t expansionist at all, and just wanted socialism in one country.

So then, John, if that was true and there was never any danger of a domino effect, why did we sacrifice 58,000 US lives and kill a million to two million Vietnamese peasants? You just admitted we weren’t in any danger from them, even if they defeated us.

But since you were wrong about the domino effect with regard to Vietnamese Communism (which I remember arguing in a class debate as a teenager in 1967 was just a form of nationalism), how do we know you aren’t just as wrong or wronger about your fantastic Muslim domino theory? After all, international communism was a big important political movement to which many governments adhered. Al-Qaeda is a few thousand scruffy guys afraid to come out of their caves, who don’t even have good sleeping bags much less a government to their name.

McCain is so confused that he thinks Shiite Iran is supporting “al-Qaeda.” When I think that people who say these crazy things serve in the US senate and are plausible as presidents of our Republic, I despair a little. (When I see a nut job like Tancredo on the podium, he of ‘let’s nuke Mecca,’ I despair a lot, but that is a different story.)

McCain also insisted that we never lost a battle in Vietnam. He still doesn’t understand guerrilla war. What battle did the French lose in Algeria? You don’t lose a guerrilla war because you lose a conventional set piece battle. Then it would be a conventional war and not a guerrilla one. You lose it because you cannot control the country and it is too expensive in treasure and life to go on staying there.

Ron Paul was only allowed to reply briefly to McCain’s outrageous and mean-spirited diatribe. Although the transcript says he was applauded for saying that it was only natural that the Iraqis would want us out of their hair, just as we wouldn’t want somebody invading and occupying us– I heard a lot of booing in response to that point.

At another point, Paul made the point that the quiet parts of Iraq — the Shiite deep south and the Kurdistan area in the north– are the places where there are no foreign troops to speak of. Unfortunately, he forgot the name of the Kurds and seemed to get confused, so I’m not sure he got the point across.

Here is the exchange.

“McCain: . . . I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I’ve heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it’s failed.


And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed…


We allowed …

(Audience booing)

Cooper: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.

McCain: We allowed — we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

(Audience booing)

And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is — the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, “Let us win. Let us…


Cooper: We will — please. We will get to Iraq…


All right. Let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to — the answers. We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

Paul: Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?


What John is saying is just totally distorted.

(Protester shouts off-mike)

Paul: He doesn’t even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I’m not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don’t want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they’re going to object to us over there.


The rest is here. This is what Ron Paul said about Iraq:

“Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That’s the most important thing that we can do.


Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They’re in charge up north — the Shia — the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there’s no violence up there or nearly as much.

So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours — we trade with them, the president comes here.

What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam.

So it’s time for us to take care of America first.

(Applause) “

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute. Visit his website

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

  Comments (36) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us
if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”

Iran War: American Military Versus Israel Firsters

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment


Send Page To a Friend

Iran War: American Military Versus Israel Firsters

By James Petras

Why must Jewish organizations be and be seen as the loudest drum-beaters of all? Why can we not bring ourselves to say that military intervention is not on the table at all? Why not stash it under the table, out of sight and mount instead a diplomatic assault? Leonard Fein (Forward November 7, 2007)

11/29/07 ” ICH” — — Introduction

As the White House and Congress escalate their economic sanctions and military threats against Iran, top military commanders and Pentagon officials have launched a counter-offensive, opposing a new Middle East War. While some commentators and journalists, like Chris Hedges (Truthdig, November 13, 2007), privy to this high stakes inter-elite conflict, attribute this to a White House cabal led by Vice President Cheney, a more stringent and accurate assessment pits the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the center of the Iran war debate. There is a great deal riding in this conflict – the future of the American empire as well as the balance of power in the Middle East. Equally important is the future of the US military and our already heavily constrained democratic freedoms. The outcome of the continuous and deepening confrontation between top US military officials and the Israel Firsters over US foreign policy in the Middle East has raised fundamental questions over self-determination, colonization, civilian primacy and military political intervention, empire or republic. These and related issues are far from being of academic interest only; they concern the future of America.

Recent History of the Civilian Militarists versus Anti-War Movements

Over the past seven years, the civilian militarists in the executive branch and Congress have resoundingly defeated any and all efforts by Congressional critics and anti-war leaders to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the peace movement has practically vanished from the streets – in large part a product of its own self-destruction. The great majority of anti-war leaders opted for Democratic Party-electoral politics, a strategy that led to the successful election of a pro-war Democratic majority. The retreat of the anti-war movement turned into a full-scale rout when the government moved toward a new war with Iran: the Zionist-influenced half of the peace movement refused to join forces to oppose the Iran war agenda – heavily influenced by their loyalty to Israel and its shrill cries of an ‘existential’ danger from non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons and dependent on ‘liberal’ Zionist donors.

Along with the capitulation of the anti-war leaders and absence of any ‘street politics’, liberal Democrats, or what passes for them, fell into line with the Israel First Democratic congress-people pushing for an increasingly bellicose political agenda toward Iran. The White House, especially the Vice President’s office were fully in tune with the Israel Firsters and the ZPC ‘keeping the military option’ on the table and priming the US forces in the Gulf for offensive action. Within the military and the intelligence services strong opposition emerged to an attack on Iran.

American Military Versus the ZPC Fight over Middle East Wars

The battle between the civilian militarists (Zion-Cons) in the Pentagon and the military brass took place, in large part, behind closed doors: From the beginning, the military was severely handicapped in so far as they could not engage in public debate. The military elite did not possess an army of lobbyists, activist ideologues and the entire mass media apparatus to promote their point of view. The ZPC-Israel Firsters’ Wars-For-Israel crowd did have all of these ‘resources’ in abundance, and they used them to the maximum in a spiteful and arrogant fashion, when the occasion arose – such as when military officers testifying before Congress questioned the war-to-be in Iraq. Zion-militarists like Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz and their influential cohort baited the military for having ‘the most advanced arms and refusing to use them’, of being fearful of expending troops to defend US security interests in the Middle East, of being ultra-cautious when audacity and preemptive action was necessary. The Israel-Firsters, who not only never risked a broken fingernail on any battlefield, deprecated the generals to increase their power to order them around through their servile operatives in the Rumsfeld Pentagon, Vice President’s Office and in Bush’s National Security Council. The Zion-Cons’ arm-chair military strategists have absolutely no qualms in sending US troops to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran to enhance Israeli regional power because 99.8% of the rank and file troops are not of their kin and kind. On the contrary they ridicule the US military precisely to prosecute wars and avoid the loss of Israeli-Jewish lives, resulting from an Israeli attack on Iran to enhance its power in the Middle East.

Israel-Firsters Win Round One

For all of the above-enumerated reasons, the Israel-Firsters overcame the doubts and questions on the war by the military in the run-up to and continuation of the Iraq War. The ZPC’s success in launching the war over military objections was largely due to their control over US civilian institutions and the primacy of these institutions over any and all military political dissent. However the ZPC was not content with repressing civilian dissent, they aggressively repressed and silenced any opposition from within the military: General Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army saw his career destroyed when he questioned US policy on the eve of the Iraq invasion. Two years later, General Peter Pace was denied a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he rejected claims by the White House and the ZPC that Iran was supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgents. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez was retired following his call for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq, which he later described as “a nightmare with no end in sight”. General John Abazaid followed. Captains and Colonels in the Pentagon who disagreed with the lies and fabrication of ‘intelligence’ by the Zion-Cons in the Pentagon leading to the Iraq invasion were marginalized and/or silenced. Zion-Cons in the Pentagon marginalized CIA intelligence reports that didn’t fit in with their war propaganda– these studies were-written, cut and spliced to serve their ends. The Zion-Cons in the Pentagon established a parallel ‘intelligence’ office under their exclusive control (Office of Special Planning) and placed ‘one of their own’, Abraham Shumsky, in charge.

In the Zion-Con charge to push the US into a new war with Iran, they (along with Vice President Cheney) have successfully delayed and forced the rewrite of a collective report by various intelligence agencies, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, because it had to fit in with their war plans.

The humiliating defeats and gratuitous public insults which the victorious ZPC inflicted on the US military has had the effect of raising the back of senior officers in the run-up to a military attack on Iran. The military is going public and fighting back with biting open criticism of the White House and Zion-Con war planners. The underlying deep and widespread hostility of the high-ranking military officials has nothing to do with Zion-Con charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ and everything to do with the destruction, demoralization and discredit of the US military which has resulted from following Zion-Con war policies in Iraq.

The US armed forces have crumbled and decayed as the Iraq occupation and counter-insurgency progresses into its 6th year. Over half of the officers are refusing to re-enlist, recruiting quotas are not being reached except by drastically lowering standards, and morale of on-duty reservists is at it’s lowest because of extended tours of duty. Black enlistment has dropped precipitously. Despite the war being portrayed by President Bush and Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Olmert as for Israel’s national survival, American Jewish war-time enlistment is at its lowest in almost a century. Public sentiment for the military has declined sharply since the war, exacerbated by Zionist (Richard Perle, Frederick Kagan, Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk) charges of incompetence against American military occupation forces. The loss of prestige, enlistment and the increasing over-stretch of the army and the abrasive and domineering way in which the Zion-Cons denigrate active US military commanders has raised their ire. At one point in an interview, General Tommy Franks referred to Zion-Con, ex-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as ‘the dumbest bastard I ever knew’.

Round Two: American Military Versus Israel-Firsters: The Iran War

Recognizing how they were outgunned by the Zion-Con monopoly of public space for political discussion in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the military has gone public. Admiral William Fallon, head of CENTCOM (Central Command) has launched a series of interviews designed to counter-Zion-Con war propaganda. He has formed an anti-War-With-Iran alliance with senior military officers, Secretary of Defense Gates and sectors of the intelligence services not under Zion-Con influence (Financial Times Nov. 12, 2007 p.1). The Secretary of Defense is not a reliable ally to the officers opposed to an Iran war, since he is notorious for caving in to ZPC pressure when his post in under threat.

Every major Israeli public spokes-person has at least raised the issue of a sneak attack (translation: ‘preventive war’ in Zion-speak) and many are in favor of an immediate attack. Reliable sources in Israel claim that war preparations are already advanced. Fabricating ‘existential threats’ to Israeli existence, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has spoken forcefully even … shrilly, about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ – a much repeated, deliberate mistranslation of the Prime Minister’s reference to Israel (more reliable translations refer to ‘the regime currently occupying Jerusalem disappearing into history’).

While Israeli officials have placed war with Iran as their second most important priority on their foreign policy agenda, by far their highest priority is convincing and manipulating the US to carry out the war and save Israel the enormous economic cost and loss of Israeli lives. The Israeli state has made its war policy the central task for their agents and their apparatus in the US. The ZPC has taken up the Israeli line with a vengeance. Several hundred full-time functionaries from all the major Jewish organizations have visited and ‘advised’ Congress that bellicose support for a war against Iran is the primary way to demonstrate their unconditional defense of Israel’s ‘survival’ and guarantee campaign financing from their wealthy political donor base. Over the past year, several major daily newspapers, weekly and monthly magazines from the New York Times through Time, Newsweek, the New Yorker, and the entire yellow press (NY Post, New York Sun, The Daily News) has published reams of propaganda articles fabricating an Iranian nuclear threat, demonizing Iran and its leaders and calling for the US to bomb Iran and eliminate Israel’s ‘existential’ (the most nauseating and overused cliché) threat. Several thousand op-ed pieces have been written parroting the Israeli war-line by a small army of Zionist academics and think tank propagandists. Breathless and vitriolic, the Israel Firsters claim that ‘time is running out’, that Iran’s pursuit of diplomacy is a ploy for inaction, that Iran’s well-documented openness to negotiations is a trick. Venomous attacks are launched against Europeans for not pursuing the military option; Germany is slandered as following in the footsteps of the Nazis because its industries and banks still do business with Iran. US critics of the ZPC’s pursuit of an Iranian war for Israel are accused of being ‘soft on terrorism’, appeasers, and almost always labeled as overt or covert ‘anti-Semites. The massive, sustained and one-sided dominance by the ZPC of the Iranian war narrative has been successful. US public opinion surveys show over half (52% according to a Zogby Poll) of the US public is in favor of offensive bombing of Iran. Thus speaks the State of Israel via its overbearing politically dominant Fifth Column to the American People: The purpose of the USA is to serve and sacrifice for the greater good (and power and wealth and dominance) of Israel.

The clearest and most vicious Zion-Con counter-attack against the US military’s harsh reaction to their leading us into the Iraq War came from a predictable ultra-Zionist think-tank, the Foreign Policy Research Center (FPRC) run by Ilan Berman, a close collaborator with the Israeli extremist Likud leader Netanyahu. Speaking at a meeting co-sponsored by the FPRR and the Reserve Officers Association on October 15 2007 entitled “Mind the Gap”: Post-Iraq Civil-Military Relations in America, senior fellow Frank Hoffman attempted to turn senior military officers’ criticism of the disastrous Zion-Con authored Iraq War into a sinister military plot: “The nation’s leadership, civilian and military, need to come to grips with the emerging ‘stab-in-the-back’ thesis in the armed services and better define the social compact (sic) and code of conduct (sic) that governs the overall relationship between the masters of policy (the Zion-Cons) and the dedicated servants (the military) we ask to carry it out. (Dereliction of Duty Redux? see ). Hoffman attempts to deflect military and public anger at the enormous damage in morale, recruitment and lives which the Zion-Con war policies have inflicted on the US Armed Forces by invoking an abstract entity: “Our collective failure (sic) to address the torn fabric and weave a stronger and more enduring relationship will only allow a sore to fester and ultimately undermine the nation’s security” (ibid)

Obfuscating Zionist control over war policy, Hoffman instead refers to “civilian” control over the military as being “constitutionally, structurally (?) and historical well-grounded.” This is nonsense: there is no provision, article or clause in the American Constitution which states that the military should submit to civilian power subordinate to a foreign state.

After a vacuous general discussion of civilian-military relations in the lead-up to the Zion-Con designed Iraq War, Hoffman then tries to paint the military critics of Zion-Con Donald Rumsfeld as attacking an innovative defender of civilian supremacy over the military – even as he embraced wholesale torture techniques and violated every principle of the Geneva Convention of War and US Military Code of Conduct toward prisoners and civilians. Hoffman turns up the Zion-Con venom against military officers who dared to question Rumsfeld’s application of Israel’s illegal and totalitarian technique of colonial warfare in Iraq. He then launches a diatribe against the professional competence of senior military advisers, “who failed to provide military counsel because they were intimidated ‘yes men’ or who failed to recognize the complexity of war” (ibid). Berman’s prodigy, Hoffman, makes a case that the Zion-Con ‘masters of Iraq war policy’ were not responsible for the disastrous war – it was the military officers “who failed to provide candid advice, who fail in their duty to their immediate superiors and stay in their posts (who) are guilty of dereliction of duty to the President, the Congress and their subordinates.” (ibid) The same Zion-Cons who drove out and forced the resignation of American generals who had dissented with Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and Rumsfeld are now judged and condemned for dereliction of duty by the same Zion-Cons.

The Zion-Cons follow the Goebbels principle: ‘The Big Lie repeated often enough can convince the stupid masses.’

The Berman-Hoffman FPRC counter-attack against American military officers speaking truth to power is a limp effort to deflect attention from the Zion-Con policymakers’ treasonous behavior and their role in degrading the US military. The FPRC document blaming the military and unnamed civilians (exclusively non-Zionist) for the Iraq debacle is one of the numerous variants on the same theme by Zionist academic militarists justifying the power of the ZPC in the name of civilian supremacy, without spelling out the national loyalties of the ‘civilian’ masters of career military officers.

According to a detailed report published in the Financial Times (November 12, 2007), the US military is not buying the Zion-Con line: “Admiral William Fallon, head of Central Command which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said that while dealing with Iran was a ‘challenge’ a military strike was not in the offing.” (Page 1 and 9) Backed by many active senior officers and numerous retired generals, Fallon has dismissed the Zion-Con intellectuals and propagandists as ignorant war-mongers. In his own words: “It astounds me that so many pundits and other s are spending so much time yakking about this topic (of a military attack on Iran)” (FT: November 12, 2007 p.9).

In direct repudiation of the ZPC’s frenetic campaigning for economic sanctions leading to a military attack, top US military officials and even Secretary of Defense Gates have for the time being blocked the military option. Addressing the Zionist strategy of sequential wars against Israel’s enemies (Iran, Syria, Lebanon), Fallon stated: “It seems to me that we don’t need more problems”. His remarks are understood to reflect the views of the majority of senior officers in the Middle East combat zone but not Bush’s politically ambitious General Petraeus, who worked with his Israeli-Mossad partners (in Northern Iraq “Kurdistan”) in training and arming the Kurdish militia death squads – Peshmerga.

Retired Generals Anthony Zinni and Joseph Hoar, both former heads of CENTCOM, have pointed their fingers at the menace of the Zion-Cons and Israel-Firsters in the government. According to Gen. Hoar, “There is no doubt that an element in the government wants to strike Iran. But the good news is that the Secretary of Defense and senior military are against it” (FT November 12, 2007). The forced and voluntary retirement, including the indictment and jailing of some highly placed Zion-Cons in the Pentagon, White House, Treasury and State Departments have weakened their stranglehold over US policy in the White House. The top Zion-Con policymakers who have left or are in jail include Rumsfeld (Gentile Zionist), Wolfowitz, Feith, Franklin, Shumsky, Perle – in the Pentagon; Irving Libby, Wurmser, Ari Fleicher, Frum in the White House and many others too numerous to name.

While the Zion-Cons retain power in the higher circles of government, at this moment, they are not able to run roughshod over their military critics and opponents as they did in the run-up to the Iraq war. In part this is because of the horrendous situation resulting from their war in Iraq, which has undermined their credibility and turned the vast majority of the US public against their war. Equally the Zion-Cons’ war and the disastrous impact of a prolonged (5 year) urban guerrilla resistance on the US Armed Forces, in terms of loss of personnel, morale, junior and senior officers and the over-extension of the US military to the detriment of the defense of the US Empire’s interests around the world has served as a ‘wake-up call’ for senior military command.

Drawing on their experience from the invasion of Iraq, few if any accept the Israeli-Zion-Con ‘evaluations’ of the outcome and response to a military attack. They remember too well the optimistic propaganda put out by Zionist academic ideologues like Kagan and Cohen that the ‘Iraqis will celebrate and welcome American forces into Baghdad as liberators’.

According to a report in the Financial Times, retired General Zinni speaking for the many active senior officers says ‘even a limited American attack could push Teheran to retaliate in a number of ways such as firing missiles at Israel, Saudi oilfields and US bases in Iraq, mining the Straits (sic) of Hormuz and activating sleeper terrorist cells around the world.” (FT op cit). He concluded by pointing out, “It is not a matter of a one-strike option. It is the classic question of… ‘and then what’?”. A more circumspect criticism of the Iran war reasoning has been voiced by Admiral Mike Muller. He objected to the US-Israeli agents “putting the military option on the table”. Admiral Muller added, “We’re in a conflict in two countries out there right now. We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world.”(FT Op Cit).

One of the biggest dangers in forcing the US into a war with Iran is an Israeli sneak air attack, in which it destroys Iranian military installations causing Iran to retaliate against the US, Israel’s ally, main financier and armaments supplier. An Israeli air strike is not the only war provocation – the Mossad is deeply in involved in training Kurdish commandos to carry out terrorist cross-border attacks from Iraq, killing Iranian civilians and soldiers, bombing military installations and collecting intelligence, hoping to provoke a large-scale Iranian military response against ‘Kurdistan’. Iranian retaliation against Mossad trained Kurdish terrorists could then be twisted by Zion-Con ideologues and their ‘political elements in Washington’ (to quote Admiral Fallon) into a major invasion of Iraq, with the hope of convincing the Bush White House to ‘counter-attack in defense of our troops in Iraq’.

The Israeli regime and its Fifth Column in the United States have been pressing for unilateral intervention against Iran, preferably military, ever since 2003. The Daily Alert, mouthpiece of the 52 biggest Jewish organizations (The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) has published scores of articles each week, characterizing the Europeans as ‘foot draggers’, ‘weak on Iran’, ‘playing down’ or ‘failing’ to take serious the ‘existential threat to Israel’. The US Zion-Cons have their own ‘State Department’ and ‘overseas’ missions, with their own ‘foreign policy-makers and spokespeople’. They meet with European, Asian and Latin American heads of State in the US or during ‘visits’ overseas, mobilizing advising, organizing and strengthening Zion-Con outposts throughout Europe and beyond. Their international reach has succeeded in a number of important decisions and appointments, most notably in Brussels and in Sarkozy’s appointment of Zionist fanatic Bernard Kouchner as France’s Minister of Foreign Relations. In a rather crude and undiplomatic show of Zionist loyalty immediately upon taking office, Kouchner declared France to be in favor of a military option against Iran. He was later pressured to retract, but Sarkozy, who himself is no minor league Israel supporter, has echoed Kouchner’s line. One of Kouchner’s first acts was to travel to American-occupied Iraq to express his personal support for the occupation. As a result of Israeli and Zion-Con pressure on the White House, France, Germany and England have all supported the escalation of sanctions against Iran…the Zionist strategy of ‘strangle the economy now and bomb later’.

The Zion-Cons’ weakness is relative: Although they no longer can purge (or ‘retire’) or silence senior military officers opposed to their Mid East Wars for Israel, they are extremely effective in discrediting any and all impartial international bodies and reports which fail to support the Israeli line that Iran represents an ‘existential threat’ to its survival (code language for ‘challenges or resists Israel’s drive to dominate the region’). Predictably taking their cue from the Israeli foreign office’s dismissal of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency’s report (November 15, 2007) which documented that Iran had no nuclear arms program and no capacity to construct a nuclear weapon at least for the next five years, the ZPC unleashed a mass media propaganda campaign attacking the IAEA chairman as a ‘pro-Iranian’ agent (Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007). At the same time the news ‘reports’ used ‘potted quotes’ from the Report, mentioning only the IAEA ‘reservations’ and the ‘questions unanswered’ and ‘issues not addressed’. US Senator from Tel Aviv, Joseph Lieberman combined both a distorted (or blatantly falsified) version of the IAEA Report and a vicious attack on its Chief, El Baradei, claiming that the Report ‘made it clear (sic) that Iran was still hiding (sic) large parts of its nuclear program’ (Jerusalem Post November 16, 2007). A careful or even casual reading of the IAEA Report shows not a single paragraph, line or word stating that Iran was ‘hiding large parts of its nuclear program’ as Lieberman accused. Ever mendacious, Lieberman, who had publicly called for an immediate military attack on ‘Iran, Iraq and Syria’ just days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, viciously attacked El Baradei for ‘writing in the report that Iran was cooperating and for not recommending a new round of sanctions’. In other words, the Zion-Cons with their mediocre academic mouth-pieces can save the UN, the IAEA and El Baradei’s time and money in site visits and delicate radiologic and satellite monitoring by handing over the Israeli Foreign Office’s pre-packaged ‘press’ handouts or ‘sexed-up intelligence reports’. The Zion-Cons make up in zeal what they lack in fact: Cooking up threats and telling the eager world that Iran is not cooperative and should be heavily sanctioned, starved or bombed into submission. The Zion-Cons follow the guidelines of the Jewish state’s agenda, to turn Iran into a Gaza Strip of deprivation and desperation.

The Israeli dismissal of the UN report on Iran, and the Zion-Con falsification of its contest and attack on its chief negotiator, El Baradei, was echoed by the While House and the Zion-colonized Congress. With a lack of originality characteristic of US Middle East policy-makers, they also cited the potted quotes from the IAEA Report to justify harsher sanctions and a greater degree of confrontation. The purpose is to provoke a breakup of the dialog long established between the IAEA and Iran. The Zion-Con-White House strategy is to implicate the IAEA in their savage attacks on Iran, and via harsher economic sanctions end Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA. Having forced the IAEA out they would then accuse Iran of rejecting dialog and cooperation with the United Nations. This contrived scenario (like the earlier phony claims that ‘Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors’) would set the stage for a US-British led military attack under the pretext that all diplomatic approaches failed to deter Iran’s nuclear program which the IAEA denied had any military component. It ill behooves anyone to actually consult the IAEA website and read the reports’ favorable account of Iran’s willing cooperation in providing site visits, documents and responses in answer to many of the key issues raised by the IAEA, the US and the EU. The report ultimately refutes the major accusations cooked up by the Zion-Cons and their political assets in the White House, State Department and Congress. The most important information contained in the IAEA Report is that its inspectors found no evidence of any Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.

US Military-Israel-Firsters: Fundamental Issues in Dispute

There are at least 5 fundamental issues in dispute between senior American military officials and ZPC:

These include (1) the nature of the Iranian threat: The ZPC argues that Iran represents an immediate deadly threat to the US, Israel, Iraq and the Gulf States. The American officers do not see the Iranians as a threat because they have engaged the Iranians in stopping the flow of arms and fighters to the Iraqi resistance; they recognize Iranian positive diplomatic overtures to all the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia; the US armada in the Persian Gulf is confident they can act as a deterrent to any Iranian attack; and finally the US Central Command know they are in the Persian Gulf facing Iran because of the White House’s provocative offensive strategy – and that Iran has not demonstrated anything but a defensive capability. Senior American officers view favorably Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s offer “to discuss with Arab nations a plan to enrich uranium outside the region in a neutral country such as Switzerland.”(Dow Jones News Service in Saudia Arabia, quoted in BBC News November 18, 2007). Not a single major television or print media in the US ran the Iranian president’s offer – as would be predictable in our Zionized media.

(2) Uranium Program The Israelis, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, and among the top five nuclear powers, argue that Iran, which does not have a single nuclear weapon or even a weapons program, is an ‘existential (sic) threat’ to Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the United States. This is one argument that the ZPC have used to convince the Democratic Party majority in Congress, the White House and the pro-Israel wing of the US Peace Movement to escalate economic sanctions and keep the ‘military option’ on the table.

The only problem is that most European, Asian, African and Latin American diplomats, experts, the majority of world public opinion and most senior American officers don’t buy Israel’s shrill disinformation. All legal experts who have given a perfunctory look at the non-proliferation agreement (NPA) insist that there is absolutely no clause or article prohibiting uranium enrichment. Intelligence experts and US military report that Iran at the earliest may have sufficient enriched uranium by 2010 and may be able to produce a low-yield weapon by 2010-2015. The job of the ZPC, pursued at full speed, is to bury the NPA under mountains of fabrications, arguing that enriching uranium itself is a violation of ‘international law’. The purpose of this attempt to concoct a full state of belligerency is to escalate US and Israeli attacks on Iran and hasten the timing of a surprise, offensive onslaught. This is exactly the reason why American intelligence briefings and IAEA reports have aroused the fury of Israel and its operatives in the US and their calling for El Baradei’s dismissal.

Iranian Arms to Iraq: The US Military and CENTCOM have repeatedly denied, especially in light of another ZPC onslaught to the contrary, that the Iranian government is supplying arms, especially roadside mines or IEDs to Iraqi ‘terrorists’ and its allied militia forces. Contrary to the assertion of the leading Israeli spokes-people in the US Senate, the US military categorically denies that the IEDs are made in Iran, having discovered bomb-making factories in Iraq and from interrogation and actually studying the construction and contents of the IEDs.

Zionist-colonized Senators led by Hillary Clinton have followed the lead of Israeli Senatorial Spokesman Joseph Lieberman, rather than consulting with the American military, and are mouthing the rhetoric of Iranian arms killing American soldiers (FT November 12, 2007 p.9). Following the Lieberman-Israeli-ZPC propaganda blitz, the US Senate voted in favor of the Lieberman-Kyle resolution naming Iran’s principle border defense force, the Republican Guard, a ‘terrorist organization’, moving one step closer to an attack. The hollowness of this resolution is reflected in the fact to not one of any of the US’s servile allies chose to follow its lead in denouncing the Republican Guard. Nothing more clearly demonstrates the Israeli-ZPC colonization of the US congress than on questions of war and peace, when the legislature is more likely to follow the dictates of Israeli propagandists than to consult its own senior military officials.

Consequences of an attack on Iran: The main concern of the ZPC and its political clients in the White House and Congress is that an attack on Iran will secure the safety of Israel, eliminating a ‘mortal enemy’, preventing ‘another Holocaust’ and stopping a ‘new Hitler’. In pursuit of this policy, Israel’s US agents have repeatedly blocked every open-ended Iranian effort to cooperate with the US against the Taliban, Al Queda and other ‘terrorists groups’ as is profusely documented by two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration’s National Security Council, Hiliary Mann and Flynt Leverett,. (see ‘The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn’t Want You to Know’, Esquire Magazine, November 2007). Every Iranian offer of unconditional negotiation and cooperation with the US to fight terrorism, as the US defines it, was rejected by key extremist Zion-Cons in the Pentagon (Feith), the Vice President’s office (Irving Libby), the National Security Council (Elliott Abrams and the President’s National Security Adviser (Stephen Hadley, a zealous Gentile Zion-Con among the brotherhood). The Zion-cons paint a picture of an air attack which would simultaneously blow up all Iranian nuclear research facilities, infrastructure, airfields, military bases and ports…preventing any and all Iranian counter attacks against US strategic interests in the region. They further embellish their totalitarian vision by arguing that the Islamic republic would be overthrown by a populace grateful to the Americans for bombing their country, destroying its infrastructure and killing thousands. The Neo-Cons’ infantile delusions then lead them to project the emergence of a pro-Western Iranian secular state favorable to American occupation of the Middle East and, of course, wholeheartedly renouncing any ‘existential’ threats to the ‘survival’ of its new ally, Israel.

On the issue of the consequences of an attack on Iran, the US military is totally at odds with the Israeli-ZPC propaganda. Senior military officials based on real estimates on the ground and from hard data from intelligence experts, estimate that Iran will be in a position to retaliate and cause enormous immediate and long-term damage to strategic US and global interests. CENTCOM estimates that Iran will set-off air to sea missiles aimed at the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf and land-to-land missiles destroying oil production sites in the Gulf States, creating a major world oil shortage, doubling oil prices and provoking a world recession as energy scarcities paralyze production. Secondly the Iranians will send several tens of thousands of its elite forces across the border into Iraq, joining with its Iraqi Shia allies to overrun US bases and endanger the lives of the 160,000 US troops currently in Iraq. This would undermine the entire Iraq war effort, inflicting a strategic defeat and further undermine US military capacity in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Thirdly the Iranians will be able to easily block the Strait of Hormuz so that one third of the Middle East’s oil shipments will be paralyzed.

Fourthly, military intelligence estimates that Iranian ‘sleeper cells’ in Asia, Africa, Europe and perhaps in North America will be activated and engage in ‘big impact’ terrorist missions. Whatever the likelihood of this scenario, it is clear that the US military anticipates major protests and perhaps even the violent overthrow of its clients in the Middle East, if not elsewhere.

Zion-Cons have neither countered military intelligence estimates with any credible counter-facts, nor even seriously considered the likely disastrous consequences affecting the US, Europe and Asia: They only consider Israel’s ‘security’ and its regional ambitions. No Zionophile or Zion-Con has considered the enormous costs in terms of US lives and damage to the fragile economy and society of a full scale third prolonged war. In effect, the Zion-cons will kill their own US goose, which has laid golden eggs for Israel for almost 6 decades. It is an example of the Zion-Cons’ supreme arrogance and sense of their own power that they feel they can plunge the US into a Third Asian war which will devastate the US economy and cause world-wide energy scarcity, and still secure their yearly ‘tribute’ of $3 Billion Dollars foreign aid for Israel as well as guaranteeing oil for Israel by diverting it from the needs of American consumers and industries. It is clear that in doing a cost-benefit analysis on a US attack on Iran, Israeli and ZPC operatives have approvingly figured that the costs are on the US side of the ledger and the benefits are for the Israelis. Were it known, American public opinion might disapprove.

The main difference is that the US does not have a comparable Washington Power Configuration in Tel Aviv to influence Israeli policy to match the Jewish state’s Zionist Power Configuration which shapes and influences US Middle East policy.

Military-Zioncon: Punch and Counter-Punch

By the end of 2007 it is clear that the US military, led by CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William Fallon and Security of Defense Gates, have successfully, if temporarily contained the strenuous Israeli-Zion-Con military thrust to war. Though Gates backtracked under ZPC pressure and later denied that he had taken the military option ‘off the table’. In response, the Zion-Cons launched an end-around tactic by intensifying their efforts to impose a global economic blockade to strangle the Iranian economy. The Zionized White House has pressured and secured the whole-hearted support of Gordon Brown of Great Britain, and Sarkozy of France for a set of economic sanctions that will in effect rupture all dialog with the IAEA. This is the strategic goal of the Zion-Cons: no dialog, no diplomacy, and blockaded economy, ripe for Anglo-French-American bombing. The Zion-cons have shrewdly avoided a head on confrontation with Fallon and his allies. They recognize that a bruising battle in which they might expose their Fifth Column credentials and in which their ‘anti-Semitic’ slanders against a popular patriotic American general might backfire by finally arousing a silent, latent anti-Zionist majority to speak out. Since the military would be called upon to carry out the military option which it strongly opposes, the Zion-Cons turn to their automatic, rubber-stamp majority in the US Congress and especially their most zealous Zionists in the federal bureaucracy. Treasury Department functionary Levey has devoted all of his working time browbeating, banning and blacklisting any and all businesses and banks dealing directly or indirectly with Iran or its trading partners.

Judeo-Centrism: From Ghetto Defense to Imperial Ambitions

One of the driving forces of the Zionist Power Configuration’s accumulation of political power is their ability to totally displace pre-existing non-Zionist and anti-Zionist organizations from influence in the Jewish community over the past 60 years. Secondly the formation of the ZPC resulted from the unification and centralization of a vast array of disparate groups and local community organizations around a single dominant political issue: unconditional and total support for a foreign power, Israel, with a kind of intolerant religious fervor which in the past burnt dissenters in public displays of piety and today hounds them from public office. In the past and in the recent period, there was a popular Yiddish saying in evaluating public policy: ‘Is it good for the Jews?’ This narrow, parochial viewpoint had special meaning at a time when Jews were a persecuted minority trying to maximize their security and minimize risks in relatively closed societies. In recent times, in certain New York intellectual circles, it was part of a jocular repertoire designed at one and the same time to recall an earlier identity and to mock some of the overweening pretensions of new rich upstarts, especially real estate billionaires who displace and exploit low-income and minority tenants while making generous contributions to Israel.

But what was defensive and perhaps justified in an earlier era has become a deadly practice in the context of affluence, political power and organizational cohesion. A Judeocentric view of the world, which sees the embodiment of ‘what’s good for the Jews’ in providing unconditional support to an aggressive colonial state (Israel), has become a formula for disaster. In the new context where Jews represent almost a quarter of US billionaires and occupy high positions of government decision-making, the dominant Zionist discourse and practice has resulted not in defensive measures protecting a persecuted minority but offensive actions prejudicing the American majority. In the case of Iraq, it has led to the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians and the displacement of many millions more. In the US it has resulted in milking the US taxpayers annually for well-over $3 billion dollars to subsidize an Israeli-Jewish population with an annual per capita income of $30,000 and universal health care. The Judeo-centric view as interpreted by the Israel-Firsters has led to the sacrifice of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. In the US, Judeocentric narrative has led to the denial of our democratic rights, our freedom to debate our Zionist problem, and the ZPC’s support for Israel’s pursuit of Middle East dominance through American military power. Judeocentrism is not the ideology or practice of the great majority of US Jews, even less a rising number of young, better-educated Jews with no deep ideological ties to Israel. But Judeocentrism is the perspective which guides the organized, active minority driving the major Zionist organizations and their billionaire camp followers. And it is always the organized, zealous and well-financed minority, which assumes ‘legitimate’ claim to speak ‘for the community’ – despite the protests of numerous un-organized Jewish intellectual critics.


The deepening and all-important conflict between the pro-Israel warmongers and the anti-war American senior officers is reaching a bitter climax. As the US military disintegrates under prolonged colonial warfare, the ZPC intensifies its campaign for a third war for Israel and against Iran, a war which will totally shatter the US military forces.

The fundamental question emerging for most senior officers, in private gatherings and informal discussions is ‘Who commands our Commander in Chief?’ The deep animosity of US senior active military officers frequently erupts at the ZPC’s careless and callous disregard for American lives. They disdainfully refer to the Zion-Con policymakers as ‘arm-chair military strategists’ who never fought a war, never shot or been shot. At one level, the senior military officers are appalled by the ignorance of the Zion-Con military ‘experts’ and policy-makers featured by the Zion-Con controlled mass media. One of the most frequent military criticisms is that the Zion-Con policy-makers don’t have an’exit strategy’ – attributing it to their lack of knowledge or strategic thinking. In reality, the lack of Zion-Con concern for a realistic exit strategy is because the Zion-Cons are concerned (in light of Israel’s priorities) only with an entry policy, namely degrading the invaded countries’ military and economic potential. Secondly the Zion-Cons do not have an exit strategy because they believe the US should stay, colonize, build bases and engage in a prolonged war for a chimerical total victory.

The question of ‘who commands the Commander in Chief’ goes to the entire core of our constitutional order, because it raises the deeper question of ‘who defines the national interests’ for which the military are fighting? If as we have documented, the ZPC has effectively colonized the White House and Legislative Branches (and the Justice Department and the appointment of an ultra-Zionist Attorney General Michael Mulkasey and Israel-First Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff), to serve the interests of a foreign power (Israel) in what sense does a colonized political system serve the interests of a democratic public? Does there exist a primary condition that makes it possible to speak of a democracy, namely national self-determination, de-colonization necessary for the re-democratization of American political institutions?

So far the only effective resistance to colonization has comes from the US military. The military is a non-democratic, hierarchical institution but an institution representative of the public’s opposition to colonial encroachments.

What would normally be considered the prime movers challenging Zion-Con colonization, namely the President, Congress, the political parties or even the antiwar movements have abdicated their responsibilities — they have been in part or whole colonized and neutralized.

By default, it has fallen to senior military commanders who reject being commanded by the ZPC at the service of Israel. Paradoxically, it is the military, which has taken over the struggle against an offensive war with Iran, a struggle where the American peace movement has failed. It is the military, which has challenged the Zion-Con agenda, where the Congress has been corrupted and capitulated for reasons of campaign financing, political blackmail and double loyalty.

Where does that leave us, as democrats and anti-colonists?

We should be able to have both an independent de-colonized and democratic America, governed by patriotic Americans. But suppose we have to choose between de-colonization led by the military or a corrupt colonized electoral system – what should be done?

The ideal solution would be a revitalized civil society including secularist citizens, non-fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, and non-Zionist Jews, organized in an anti-war, anti-colonial movement and political parties allied with patriotic officers to ‘re-found the republic’. The purpose would be to establish a republic to ‘defend the heartland’ from fires, floods, economic pillage, terrorists, ecological predators and foreign agents acting on behalf of alien regimes. Can it happen? We shall see. What is becoming clear however is that the anti-colonial imperative is growing stronger by the day, if it doesn’t come from below, it may have to come from above.

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

Comments (40) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”

Nixon Papers Suggest Israel Stole Nuke Material From US

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

Nixon Papers Suggest Israel Stole Nuke Material From US
Surprise, Surprise – Another Knife In The Back By Our
‘Closest Ally’ In The Middle East
By Grswave

In July 1969, while the world was spellbound by the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, President Richard M. Nixon and his close advisers were quietly fretting about a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Their main worry was not a potential enemy of the United States, but one of America’s closest friends.

“The Israelis, who are one of the few peoples whose survival is genuinely threatened, are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons,” Henry A. Kissinger, the national security adviser, warned President Nixon in a memorandum dated July 19, 1969.

Israel’s nuclear arms program was believed to have begun at least several years before, but it was causing special fallout for the young Nixon administration. For one thing, President Nixon was getting ready for a visit by Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel, who was also in her first year in office and whose toughness was already legendary.

Should Washington insist that Israel rein in its development of nuclear weapons? What would the United States do if Israel refused? Perhaps the solution lay in deliberate ambiguity, or simply pretending that America did not know what Israel was up to. These were some of the options that Mr. Kissinger laid out for President Nixon on that day before men first walked on the moon.

The Nixon White House’s concerns over Israel’s weapons were recalled in documents held by the Nixon Presidential Library that were released today by the National Archives. They provide insights into America’s close, but by no means problem-free, relationship with Israel. They also serve as a reminder that concerns over nuclear arms proliferation in the Middle East, currently focused on Iran, are decades-old.

The papers also allude to a campaign by friends of W. Mark Felt, who was then the second-ranking F.B.I. official, to have him succeed J. Edgar Hoover as director of the bureau in 1972. President Nixon, of course, did not take the advice, choosing L. Patrick Gray instead, and Mr. Felt later became the famous anonymous source “Deep Throat,” whose Watergate-scandal revelations helped to topple the president.

There are also snippets about Washington’s desire to manipulate relations with Saudi Arabia, so that the Saudis might help to broker a peace in the Mideast;discussion of possibly supporting a Kurdish uprising in Iraq; and a 1970 incident in which four Israeli fighters shot down four Russian Mig-21’s over eastern Egypt, even though the Israelis were outnumbered two-to-one in the battle.

But perhaps the most interesting material released today, and the most pertinent given the just-completed Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, concerns Israel and its relations with its neighbors, as well as with the United States.

“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,” Mr. Kissinger noted in his long memorandum.

One problem with trying to persuade Israel to freeze its nuclear program is that inspections would be useless, Mr. Kissinger said, conceding that “we could never cover all conceivable Israeli hiding places.”

“This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us,” Mr. Kissinger said, “and may even have stolen from us.”

Israel has never officially acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons, but scientists and arms experts have almost no doubt that it does. The United States’s reluctance to press Israel to disarm has made America vulnerable to accusations that it is a preacher with a double standard when it comes to stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Mr. Kissinger’s memo, written barely two years after the Six-Day War and while memories of the Holocaust were still vivid among the first Israelis, implicitly acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself, as subsequent American administrations have done.

After President Nixon met Prime Minister Meir at the White House in late September 1969, he said: “The problems in the Mideast go back centuries. They are not susceptible to easy solution. We do not expect them to be susceptible to instant diplomacy.”


As usual, the NYT puts its best zionist spin on the article, reminding readers of israel’s so-called ‘unconditional right to self-defense.’

But, what struck me most from the memo was that even back then the biggest dilemma Nixon faced concerning whether or not to pressure israel to abandon its nuclear ambitions was governed by his FEAR of what the Israel Lobby could do to him if he threatend to withhold something from them.

The Dilemma We Face

Our problem is that israel will not take us seriously on the nuclear issue unless they believe we are prepared to withhold something they very much need — the Phantom, or even more, their whole military supply relationship with us.

On the other hand, if we withhold the Phantoms and they make this fact public in the United States, enormous political pressure will be mounted on us. We will be in an indefensible position if we cannot state why we are withholding the planes. Yet if we explain our position publicly, we will be the ones to make Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons public with all the international consequences this entails.

the memo (PDF) yourself.

I’m interested to see what the other documents hold. The NYT can’t be trusted to reveal everything we need to know.

Wake up from your slumber


Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States

November 30, 2007 1 comment

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” [ Journal of the Senate]

Please continue reading-Click Below!

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

China barred 3rd Navy Visit To Hong Kong

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

China barred 3rd Navy Visit To Hong Kong

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 17 minutes ago

The Chinese rejection of U.S. ship visits into Hong Kong is broader than initially reported, the Pentagon said Friday, revealing for the first time that a third incident had occurred last week.

According to a defense official, a request for the USS Reuben James, a Navy frigate, to make a New Year’s holiday stop in Hong Kong was formally denied by the Chinese last Thursday. The denial came the same day the Chinese turned away the USS Kitty Hawk and five ships accompanying it for a Thanksgiving port call.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the denial has not been publicly announced, said the Reuben James, based in Pearl Harbor, had made the port visit request in October.

According to the official, shortly after the Kitty Hawk was turned away, the Chinese reversed their decision and said the ship could enter the harbor, but by then the ship was too far out to sea. During that notification, the Chinese also told the Navy that the Reuben James visit was being denied. No reason was given for the refusal.

The official said the denial was both over the phone and in writing, and added that there are no other pending requests for US ship visits to the Hong Kong harbor.

Until now, the Navy has considered Hong Kong one of the sailors’ favorite post of call, with about 50 ship visits per year.

In addition to the Kitty Hawk and the Reuben James, the Chinese also refused to let two Navy minesweepers enter Hong Kong harbor to escape an approaching storm and receive fuel — an incident Navy officials said it found far more disturbing since it violates an international rule of the sea to provide safe harbor for vessels in trouble.

The minesweepers, the Patriot and the Guardian, were instead refueled at sea and returned safely to their home port in Japan.

Prior to the latest three incidents, the most recent port visit denial came in 2004.

China has hinted that Congress’ honoring of the Dalai Lama and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan triggered the problems, which have cast a new shadow over military relations between the two countries.

The Pentagon summoned a Chinese military attache to protest the decision, which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, called “perplexing.” President Bush raised the issue with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi during their talks on North Korea, Iran and other issues.


On the Net:

US Navy:

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
var ADFadids = “-1,1030392″; function ADFlaunch() {var w; var l=”*”+ADFadids;,”AdFeedbackWin”,”toolbar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable,location=no,height=400,width=640″); }

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of ServiceCopyright/IP PolicyAd Feedback

Impeachment Must Happen

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment


  Send Page To a Friend

Impeachment Must Happen

By Carol Davidek-Waller

11/29/07 “ICH” — — Clearly the nation has turned against Vice President Cheney and President George W. Bush. Their approval ratings are the lowest of any elected leaders in American history. We are weary of war and bled white from profligate spending and larceny. Our civil rights have been severely restricted and crimes have been committed. A once peaceful world stands on the brink of turmoil.

As the 2008 elections draw near, it’s tempting to look upon regime change as an end to our long night. We would like to believe that a change of face in the Oval Office would repair the damage done by the current administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Without investigation and impeachment, electing a new president will only serve to codify the unprecedented and illegitimate power stolen from the Congress and the American people. The powers of a dictator will be passed on like an Olympic torch where they will reside with the next president.

The nation has been wounded in its beating heart. The president is no longer obligated to uphold and defend the Constitution or obey and execute the laws of the land. We no longer have the full protection of the Bill of Rights. Our elected leaders are no longer bound to tell the truth. These wounds will continue to fester until they are cleansed by a strong dose of sunlight.

Failure to impeach is a threat to our national security. In the same way that we cannot expect our nation to be secure if we don’t understand what threatens us beyond our borders, we cannot expect the nation to be secure if we don’t understand and check what threatens us from within. The excesses of our own government can become a far greater threat than terrorism.

Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney were filed several months ago and the majority of Americans favor impeachment. Congress has refused to act. They even turned a blind eye when Rep. Dennis Kucinich read out the well-document charges against Cheney on the floor of the House and demanded action.

The charges against Cheney are chilling. They outline in stark relief the peril our nation faces when even one man exercises unrestrained power; even a man whose office is purely ceremonial. How could so much damage be done in such a short time? Why has no one stopped him?

Elections give us an opportunity to choose our representatives and leaders. They do not and were never meant to address the gross abuses of power, war crimes, felonies and fraud that Cheney and Bush have engaged in. Impeachment not elections gets top billing in the Constitution.

Elections will not address the tragedy of the hundreds of thousands who have died in an unnecessary war nor honor their sacrifice. Elections will not prevent your government from spying on you without cause or restore your right to privacy. They will not prevent you from being incarcerated or having your assets seized because one man, the president, says so. Elections will not prevent you from being tortured or flown to another country to be tortured. Elections will not keep your own military from being used against you. They will not restore the rule of law or the integrity of the Judiciary. They will not restore the balance of powers. Elections will not prevent this nation or any other from making war at will or stealing another nation’s resources. They will not restore the delicate balance of the global community, shattered by broken treaties and unchecked lust for domination and power.

Elections will not prevent a president Clinton from declaring you an enemy combatant and shipping you off to Guantanamo. They won’t prevent a president Obama from sweeping up Americans and holding them indefinitely on his word alone. They won’t prevent a president Guiliani from illegally and immorally murdering millions of Iranians for no legitimate reason. They won’t prevent a president Romney from seizing your home and assets because he alleges you are impeding operations in Iraq. It won’t prevent a president Thompson from exempting himself, his entire administration and his political supporters from the rule of law. It won’t prevent any president from leaving the nation unprotected by ignoring or rewriting the intelligence to suit his or her political agenda. Elections won’t guarantee that anyone you elect to lead or represent you has to tell you, the congress or the judiciary the truth.

Under the Constitution, we have the right to know if our elected leaders are doing their jobs or abusing the power of their office.

When serious allegations are made, it is our right to have public investigations that are immune to state secrets and executive privilege.
We have a responsibility as citizens to act on that information.

There is no more important work for congress to do. You cannot build anything on a weak foundation. Unscrupulous men and women have damaged the very foundation of our nation: the Constitution is the very bedrock upon which the order and legality of our nation rests. These same people have suspended the rule of law by which we govern ourselves. They assert that the government is theirs to do with as they wish. We cannot let that stand.

The genius of the Constitution is that it contains the remedy for its own healing, it’s own restoration. That remedy is impeachment. Not elections. Impeachment.

Carol Davidek-Waller is a news junkie and an avid blogger.  – 

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

  postCount(‘article18799.htm’);Comments (27) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us
if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

 Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter

  Amazon Honor System




The Iraqi Miracle – From Invasion to “Partnership”

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment


  Send Page To a Friend

The Iraqi Miracle – From Invasion to “Partnership”

By James Rothenberg

11/28/07 “ICH” — – -What the U.S. had in mind for Iraq was already clear in the Fall of 2001, even though it would take another year and a half to implement the attack, mercilessly known as shock and awe. By the time of the attack, many millions of U.S. citizens knew full well the real motivation behind it. Not that it mattered, or could matter.

The propaganda campaign waged by the government proved too effective for the scared, at large population. Their gullibility level was pushed to record heights by the administration’s deep handbag of shifting rationalizations and calls to patriotism. In short, the population was overmatched.

With some admirable exceptions, congresspersons, not known for gullibility, went along for different reasons. Ultimately not to stick their necks out.

A politician’s main job is to stay elected. This is true because they are not limited to a single term. If they were limited to a single term they might be more inclined to assert their individuality. The usual argument against the single term limit is that by then they are just learning their way around. But that’s the trouble – that there is a “way around”. That means knowing who to kiss up to, who’s useful, who will deal and who will pay. Do we really think that if we had a totally new Congress nothing could get done, because nobody knows their way around? We did have an all new Congress in this country. Once.

The media, again with a few admirable exceptions, took the occasion to demonstrate their compliancy. Distinguished less by gullibility than by hard-boiled cynicism, they nonetheless faithfully repeated every administration handout without challenge, indeed, without comment.

Now what was it that was so clear to some from the very beginning? That a takeover of Iraq was a natural way to establish a permanent military presence in the heart of the resource-rich Middle East. This was not a departure from longstanding American foreign policy goals but merely its latest iteration. Iraq happens to harbor the second largest proven oil reserves and oil just happens to be entering its scarcity mode.

The morning newspaper carries an Associated Press story detailing the signing by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki of a “declaration of principles” between the two countries, which, for those still interested in the real reason we invaded Iraq, amounts to a full confession. Not in front of the International Criminal Court (that’s not for us) but mainstreamed, normalized, now fit to print.

Iraq’s government will “embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees [referred to in another business as a protection racket] as part of a strategic partnership…an enduring relationship in military, economic and political terms.” In addition, the agreement provides for U.S. support for the “democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers” (the “danger” being that they would be outside our influence).

One should not be surprised that Iraq’s U.S. supported leaders find amenable the terms set for them by Washington. What else would one expect between a dependent client state and its master, the client obliged to obey and the master prepared to reward useful service?

The agreement specifically seeks (details have to be worked out you see) “preferential treatment for American investments.” At this point we might recall that the clever war marketeers chose not to use Operation Iraqi Liberation which would be lampooned as OIL.

Cutely, Lt. Gen. Lute, Bush’s adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claims the question of whether military bases are required is “on the negotiating table”. Not according to the Iraqi officials cited in the same story who “foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops” at those bases.

In keeping with established practices of imperialist plunderers, the invader now guarantees the security of the invaded. When you think security, don’t think of being secure. Think prison and graveyard. The security is for the government. And when a state of emergency is declared in this country (just suppose), think that the emergency has nothing to do with the population. The emergency will be real, but it will be to the government.

James Rothenberg – 

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

  postCount(‘article18782.htm’);Comments (40) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us
if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

 Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter

  Amazon Honor System




The Truth about Colin Powell

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment


  Send Page To a Friend

The Truth about Colin Powell

This excerpt from the new book, Neck Deep, describes the real Colin Powell, the ambitious military bureaucrat who followed orders and put his career interests first:

By Robert, Sam and Nat Parry

11/29/07 “” — – -Carrying an M-2 carbine, Capt. Powell was starting his first – and only – combat assignment. He was the new adviser to a 400-man unit of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).

Across jungle terrain, these South Vietnamese government troops were arrayed against a combined force of North Vietnamese regulars and local anti-government guerrillas known as the Viet Cong.

The 25-year-old Powell was arriving at a pivotal moment in the Vietnam War. To forestall a communist victory, President John F. Kennedy had dispatched teams of Green Beret advisers to assist the ARVN, a force suffering from poor discipline, ineffective tactics and bad morale.

Already, many U.S. advisers, most notably the legendary Col. John Paul Vann, were voicing concerns about the ARVN’s brutality toward civilians. Vann feared that the dominant counterinsurgency strategy of destroying rural villages and forcibly relocating inhabitants while hunting down enemy forces was driving the people into the arms of the Viet Cong.

But as Colin Powell arrived, he was untainted by these worries. He was a gung-ho young Army officer with visions of glory. He brimmed with trust in the wisdom of his superiors.

Soon after his arrival, Powell and his ARVN unit left for a protracted patrol that fought leeches as well as Viet Cong ambushes. From the soggy jungle brush, the Viet Cong would strike suddenly against the advancing government soldiers. Often invisible to Powell and his men, the VC would inflict a few casualties and slip back into the jungles.

In My American Journey, Powell recounted his reaction when he spotted his first dead Viet Cong.

“He lay on his back, gazing up at us with sightless eyes,” Powell wrote. “I felt nothing, certainly not sympathy. I had seen too much death and suffering on our side to care anything about what happened on theirs.”
While success against the armed enemy was rare, Powell’s ARVN unit punished the civilian population systematically. As the soldiers marched through mountainous jungle, they destroyed the food and the homes of the region’s Montagnards, who were suspected of sympathizing with the Viet Cong.

Old women would cry hysterically as their ancestral homes and worldly possessions were consumed by fire.

“We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters,” Powell recalled. “Why were we torching houses and destroying crops?  Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam. …

“We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?”
For nearly six months, Powell and his ARVN unit slogged through the jungles, searching for Viet Cong and destroying villages.

Then, while on one patrol, Powell fell victim to a Viet Cong booby trap. He stepped on a punji stake, a dung-poisoned bamboo spear that had been buried in the ground.

The stake pierced Powell’s boot and quickly infected the young officer’s right foot. The foot swelled, turned purple and forced his evacuation by helicopter to Hue for treatment.

Although Powell’s recovery from the foot infection was swift, his combat days were over. By late autumn 1963, Powell’s first Vietnam tour had ended.

Vann’s Revolt

On his return to the United States, Powell did not join Vann and other early American advisers in warning the nation about the self-defeating counterinsurgency strategies.

In 1963, Vann carried his prescient concerns back to a Pentagon that was not ready to listen to doubters. When his objections fell on deaf ears, Vann resigned his commission and sacrificed a promising military career.

In contrast, Powell recognized that his early service in Vietnam put him on a fast track for military success.

In 1966, as the numbers of U.S. servicemen in Vietnam swelled, Powell received a promotion to major, making him a field-grade officer before his 30th birthday.

Recognizing Powell as an emerging “water-walker” who needed more seasoning in the field, the Army dispatched Powell to a command position back in Vietnam.

But on his second tour, Powell would not be slogging through remote jungles. On July 27, 1968, he arrived at an outpost at Duc Pho to serve as an executive officer.
Then, to the north, at the Americal Division headquarters in Chu Lai, the commander, Maj. Gen. Charles Gettys, saw a favorable mention of Powell in the Army Times.

Gettys plucked Powell from Duc Pho and installed him on the general’s own staff at Chu Lai. Gettys jumped the young major ahead of more senior officers and made him the G-3 officer in charge of operations and planning.

The appointment made “me the only major filling that role in Vietnam,” Powell wrote in his memoirs.

But history was awaiting Colin Powell.

The Americal Division was already deep into some of the cruelest fighting of the Vietnam War. The “drain-the-sea” strategy that Powell had witnessed near the Laotian border continued to lead American forces into harsh treatment of Vietnamese civilians.

Though it was still a secret when Powell arrived at Chu Lai, Americal troops had committed an act that would stain forever the reputation of the U.S. Army. As Major Powell settled into his new assignment, a scandal was waiting to unfold.

My Lai

On March 16, 1968, a bloodied unit of the Americal Division stormed into a hamlet known as My Lai 4.

With military helicopters circling overhead, revenge-seeking American soldiers rousted Vietnamese civilians – mostly old men, women and children – from their thatched huts and herded them into the village’s irrigation ditches.

As the round-up continued, some Americans raped the girls. Then, under orders from junior officers on the ground, soldiers began emptying their M-16s into the terrified peasants.

Some parents used their bodies futilely to shield their children from the bullets. Soldiers stepped among the corpses to finish off the wounded.

The slaughter raged for four hours. A total of 347 Vietnamese, including babies, died in the carnage.

But there also were American heroes that day in My Lai. Some soldiers refused to obey the direct orders to kill and some risked their lives to save civilians from the murderous fire.

A pilot named Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr. from Stone Mountain, Georgia, was furious at the killings he saw happening on the ground. He landed his helicopter between one group of fleeing civilians and American soldiers in pursuit.

Thompson ordered his helicopter door gunner to shoot the Americans if they tried to harm the Vietnamese. After a tense confrontation, the soldiers backed off.

Later, two of Thompson’s men climbed into one ditch filled with corpses and pulled out a three-year-old boy whom they flew to safety.

Several months later, the Americal’s brutality would become a moral test for Major Powell, too. A letter had been written by a young specialist fourth class named Tom Glen, who had served in an Americal mortar platoon and was nearing the end of his Army tour.

In the letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams, the commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, Glen accused the Americal Division of routine brutality against civilians. Glen’s letter was forwarded to the Americal headquarters at Chu Lai where it landed on Major Powell’s desk.

“The average GI’s attitude toward and treatment of the Vietnamese people all too often is a complete denial of all our country is attempting to accomplish in the realm of human relations,” Glen wrote.

He added that many Vietnamese were fleeing from Americans who “for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves. …

“What has been outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but also in others we have worked with, and I fear it is universal. If this is indeed the case, it is a problem which cannot be overlooked, but can through a more firm implementation of the codes of MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam) and the Geneva Conventions, perhaps be eradicated.”

When interviewed in 1995, Glen said he had heard second-hand about the My Lai massacre, though he did not mention it specifically. The massacre was just one part of the abusive pattern that had become routine in the division, he said.

The letter’s troubling allegations were not well received at Americal headquarters. Major Powell undertook the assignment to review Glen’s letter, but did so without questioning Glen or assigning anyone else to talk with him.

Powell simply accepted a claim from Glen’s superior officer that Glen was not close enough to the front lines to know what he was writing about, an assertion Glen denied.

After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on December 13, 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and respectfully.

“There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs,” Powell wrote. But “this by no means reflects the general attitude throughout the Division. … In direct refutation of this [Glen’s] portrayal … is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.”

Ridenhour’s Probe

It would take another Americal veteran, an infantryman named Ron Ridenhour, to piece together the truth about the atrocity at My Lai. After returning to the United States, Ridenhour interviewed Americal comrades who had participated in the massacre.

On his own, Ridenhour compiled this shocking information into a report and forwarded it to the Army inspector general. The IG’s office conducted an aggressive official investigation, in contrast to Powell’s review.

Courts martial were held against officers and enlisted men who were implicated in the murder of the My Lai civilians. But Powell’s peripheral role in the My Lai cover-up did not slow his climb up the Army’s ladder.

Luckily for Powell, Glen’s letter also disappeared into the National Archives – to be unearthed only years later by British journalists Michael Bilton and Kevin Sims for their book, Four Hours in My Lai.

In his memoirs, Powell did not mention his brush-off of Tom Glen’s complaint. Powell did include, however, another troubling recollection that belied his 1968 official denial of Glen’s allegation that American soldiers “without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves.”

After a brief mention of the My Lai massacre, Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal’s brutality. Powell explained the routine practice of murdering unarmed male Vietnamese.

“I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male,” Powell wrote. “If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him.

“If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen [West Germany], Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter.

“And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong.”

While it’s certainly true that combat is brutal and judgments can be clouded by fear, the mowing down of unarmed civilians in cold blood does not constitute combat. It is murder and, indeed, a war crime.

Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. That was precisely the rationalization that the My Lai killers cited in their own defense.

Donaldson Case

After returning home from Vietnam in 1969, Powell was drawn into another Vietnam controversy involving the killing of civilians. In a court martial proceeding, Powell sided with an Americal Division general who was accused by the Army of murdering unarmed civilians while flying over Quang Ngai province.

Helicopter pilots who flew Brig. Gen. John W. Donaldson had alleged that the general gunned down civilian Vietnamese almost for sport.

In an interview in 1995, a senior investigator from the Donaldson case told Robert Parry that two of the Vietnamese victims were an old man and an old woman who were shot to death while bathing.

Though long retired – and quite elderly himself – the Army investigator still spoke with a raw disgust about the events of a quarter century earlier. He requested anonymity before talking about the behavior of senior Americal officers.

“They used to bet in the morning how many people they could kill – old people, civilians, it didn’t matter,” the investigator said. “Some of the stuff would curl your hair.”

For eight months in Chu Lai during 1968-69, Powell had worked with Donaldson and apparently developed a great respect for this superior officer. When the Army charged Donaldson with murder on June 2, 1971, Powell rose in the general’s defense.

Powell submitted an affidavit dated August 10, 1971, which lauded Donaldson as “an aggressive and courageous brigade commander.” Powell did not specifically refer to the murder allegations, but added that helicopter forays in Vietnam had been an “effective means of separating hostiles from the general population.”

The old Army investigator claimed that “we had him [Donaldson] dead to rights,” with the testimony of two helicopter pilots who had flown Donaldson on his shooting expeditions.

Still, the investigation collapsed after the two pilot-witnesses were transferred to another Army base and apparently came under pressure from military superiors. The two pilots withdrew their testimony, and the Army dropped all charges against Donaldson.

While thousands of other Vietnam veterans joined the anti-war movement upon returning home and denounced the brutality of the war, Powell held his tongue.

To this day, Powell has avoided criticizing the Vietnam War other than to complain that the politicians should not have restrained the military high command.

Making Contacts

The middle years of Colin Powell’s military career – bordered roughly by the twin scandals of My Lai and Iran-Contra – were a time for networking and advancement.

Powell won a prized White House fellowship that put him inside Richard Nixon’s White House. Powell’s work with Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget brought Powell to the attention of senior Nixon aides, Frank Carlucci and Caspar Weinberger, who soon became Powell’s mentors.

When Ronald Reagan swept to victory in 1980, Powell’s allies – Weinberger and Carlucci – took over the Defense Department as secretary of defense and deputy secretary of defense, respectively.

When they arrived at the Pentagon, Powell, then a full colonel, was there to greet them. But before Powell could move to the top echelons of the U.S. military, he needed to earn his first general’s star.

That required a few command assignments in the field. So, under Carlucci’s sponsorship, Powell received brief assignments at Army bases in Kansas and Colorado.

By the time Powell returned to the Pentagon in 1983, at the age of 46, he had a general’s star on his shoulder. Powell was named military assistant to Weinberger. It was a position that made Powell the gatekeeper for the Defense Secretary.

Top Pentagon players quickly learned that Powell was more than Weinberger’s coat holder or calendar handler. Powell was the “filter,” the guy who saw everything when it passed into the secretary for action and who oversaw everything that needed follow-up when it came out.

Powell’s access to Weinberger’s most sensitive information would be a mixed blessing, however.  Some of the aggressive covert operations ordered by President Reagan and managed by CIA Director William Casey were spinning out of control.

Like a mysterious gravitational force, the operations were pulling in the Pentagon. This expanding super nova of covert operations began to swallow the Pentagon a few months after Powell’s return.

Yellow Fruit

On September 1, 1983, an Army civilian, William T. Golden, stumbled onto billing irregularities at a U.S. intelligence front company in suburban Annandale, Virginia, which was handling secret supplies for Central America.

The supply operation fell under the code name “Yellow Fruit,” an ironic reference to the region’s banana republics. The billing irregularities seemed modest at first, the doctoring of records to conceal vacation flights to Europe.

But Golden began to suspect that the corruption went deeper. By October 1983, Yellow Fruit had turned thoroughly rotten, and the Army began a criminal inquiry.

“The more we dig into that,” Gen. Maxwell R. Thurman, vice chief of the U.S. Army, later told congressional Iran-Contra investigators, “the more we find out that it goes into agencies using money, procuring all sorts of materiel.”

Reacting to the scandal, Thurman implemented new secret accounting procedures for supporting CIA activities. “We have tried to do our best to tighten up our procedures,” Thurman said.

But the muck of the Central American operations was oozing out elsewhere, too. Reagan’s favorite rebels, the Nicaraguan contras, were gaining a reputation for brutality, as stories of rapes, summary executions and massacres flowed back to Washington.

Led by House Speaker Thomas O’Neill, the Democratic-controlled House capped the CIA’s contra funding at $24 million in 1983 and then moved to ban contra aid altogether.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Reagan’s policies were encountering more trouble. Reagan had deployed Marines as peacekeepers in Beirut, but he also authorized the USS New Jersey to shell Shiite Muslim villages.

On October 23, 1983, Islamic militants struck back, sending a suicide truck bomber through U.S. security positions and demolishing a high-rise Marine barracks. A total of 241 U.S. servicemen died.

“When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides,” Powell wrote in his memoir.

After the bombing, U.S. Marines were withdrawn to the USS Guam off Lebanon’s coast. But Casey ordered secret counterterrorism operations against Islamic radicals.

As retaliation, the Shiites targeted more Americans. Another bomb destroyed the U.S. Embassy and killed most of the CIA station.
Casey dispatched veteran CIA officer William Buckley to fill the void. But on March 14, 1984, Buckley was spirited off the streets of Beirut to face torture and eventually death.

The grisly scenes – in the Middle East and in Central America – had set the stage for the Iran-Contra scandal.


In 1985, the White House maneuvered into dangerous geopolitical straits in its policy toward Iran. The Israelis were interested in trading U.S. weapons to Iran’s radical Islamic government to expand Israel’s influence in that important Middle Eastern country.

It was also believed that Iran might help free American hostages held by Islamic extremists in Lebanon.

Carrying the water for this strategy within the Reagan administration was National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. He circulated a draft presidential order in June 1985, proposing an overture to supposed Iranian moderates.

The paper passed through Weinberger’s “filter,” Colin Powell. In his memoir, Powell called the proposal “a stunner” and a grab by McFarlane for “Kissingerian immortality.”

After reading the draft, Weinberger scribbled in the margins, “this is almost too absurd to comment on.”

On June 30, 1985, as the paper was circulating inside the administration, Reagan declared that the United States would give no quarter to terrorism.

“Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists,” the President said.

But in July 1985, Weinberger, Powell and McFarlane met to discuss details for doing just that. Iran wanted 100 anti-tank TOW missiles that would be delivered through Israel, according to Weinberger’s notes.

Reagan gave his approval, but the White House wanted to keep the operation a closely held secret. The shipments were to be handled with “maximum compartmentalization,” the notes said.

Legal Line

On August 20, 1985, the Israelis delivered the first 96 missiles to Iran. It was a pivotal moment for the Reagan administration. With that missile shipment, the Reagan administration stepped over an important legal line.

The transfer violated laws requiring congressional notification for shipment of U.S. weapons and prohibiting arms to Iran or any other nation designated a terrorist state. Violation of either statute could be a felony.

The available evidence from that period suggested that Weinberger and Powell were very much in the loop, even though they may have opposed the arms-to-Iran policy.

On August 22, two days after the first delivery, Israel notified McFarlane of the completed shipment. From aboard Air Force One, McFarlane called Weinberger.

When Air Force One landed at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, McFarlane rushed to the Pentagon to meet Weinberger and Powell. The 40-minute meeting started at 7:30 p.m.

That much is known from the Iran-Contra public record. But the substance of the conversation remains in dispute.

McFarlane said he discussed Reagan’s approval of the missile transfer with Weinberger and Powell, and the need to replenish Israeli stockpiles. That would have put Weinberger and Powell in the middle of a criminal conspiracy.

But Weinberger denied McFarlane’s account, and Powell insisted that he had only a fuzzy memory of the meeting without a clear recollection of any completed arms shipment.

“My recollection is that Mr. McFarlane described to the Secretary the so-called Iran Initiative and he gave to the Secretary a sort of a history of how we got where we were that particular day and some of the thinking that gave rise to the possibility of going forward … and what the purposes of such an initiative would be,” Powell said in an Iran-Contra deposition two years later.

Congressional attorney Joseph Saba asked Powell if McFarlane had mentioned that Israel already had supplied weapons to Iran. “I don’t recall specifically,” Powell answered. “I just don’t recall.”

In a later interview with the FBI, Powell said he learned at that meeting with McFarlane that there “was to be a transfer of some limited amount of materiel” to Iran.

But he did not budge on his claim of ignorance about the crucial fact that the first shipment had already gone and that the Reagan administration had promised the Israelis replenishment for the shipped missiles.

Not Making Sense

This claim of only prospective knowledge of future arms shipments, not past knowledge of completed transfers, would be key to Powell’s Iran-Contra defense.

But it made little sense for McFarlane to learn of Israel’s August 1985 missile delivery to Iran and the need for replenishment of the Israeli stockpiles, then hurry to the Pentagon, only to debate a future policy that, in reality, was already being implemented.

The behavior of Powell and Weinberger in the following days also suggested that they knew an arms-for-hostage swap was under way.

According to Weinberger’s diary, he and Powell eagerly awaited a release of an American hostage in Lebanon, the payoff for the clandestine weapons shipment to Iran.

In early September 1985, Weinberger dispatched a Pentagon emissary to meet with Iranians in Europe, another step that would seem to make little sense if Weinberger and Powell were indeed in the dark about the details of the arms-for-hostage operation.

At the same time, McFarlane told Israel that the United States was prepared to replace 500 Israeli missiles, an assurance that would have required Weinberger’s clearance since the missiles would be coming from Defense Department stockpiles.

On September 14, 1985, Israel delivered the second shipment, 408 more missiles to Iran. The next day, one hostage, the Rev. Benjamin Weir, was released in Beirut.

Back at the Pentagon, Weinberger penned in his diary a cryptic reference to “a delivery I have for our prisoners.”

But when the Iran-Contra scandal broke more than a year later, Weinberger and Powell would plead faulty memories about the Weir case, too.

Saba asked Powell if he knew of a linkage between an arms delivery and Weir’s release. “No, I have no recollection of that,” Powell answered.

After Weir’s freedom, the job of replenishing the Israel missiles fell to White House aide Oliver North, who turned to Powell for logistical assistance.

“My original point of contact was General Colin Powell, who was going directly to his immediate superior, Secretary Weinberger,” North testified in 1987.

But in their later sworn testimony, Powell and Weinberger continued to insist that they had no idea that 508 missiles had already been shipped via Israel to Iran and that Israel was expecting replenishment of its stockpiles.

NSA Intercept

Powell stuck to that story even as evidence emerged that he and Weinberger read top-secret intelligence intercepts in September and October 1985 in which Iranians described the U.S. arms delivery.

One of those reports, dated October 2, 1985, and marked with the high-level classification, “SECRET SPOKE ORCON,” was signed by Lt. Gen. William Odom, the director of the National Security Agency.

According to Odom’s report, a sensitive electronic intercept had picked up a phone conversation a day earlier between two Iranian officials, identified as “Mr. Asghari” who was in Europe and “Mohsen Kangarlu” who was in Teheran.

“A large part of the conversation had to do with details on the delivery of several more shipments of weapons into Iran,” wrote Odom. “Asghari then pressed Kangarlu to provide a list of what he wanted the ‘other four planes’ to bring. …

“Kangarlu said that he already had provided a list. Asghari said that those items were for the first two planes. Asghari reminded Kangarlu that there were Phoenix missiles on the second plane which were not on the first. … [Asghari] said that a flight would be made this week.”

In 1987, when congressional Iran-Contra investigators asked about the intercepts and other evidence of Pentagon knowledge, Powell again pleaded a weak memory.

He repeatedly used phrases such as “I cannot specifically recall.” At one point, Powell said, “To my recollection, I don’t have a recollection.”

Making It Happen

In the next phase of the evolving Iran operation – the direct delivery of U.S. missiles to the Islamic fundamentalist government – Powell would play an even bigger role.

Indeed, without the prodigious work of Colin Powell, the unfolding disaster might never have happened, or might have stopped much sooner.

In early 1986, Powell exploited his bureaucratic skills to begin short-circuiting the Pentagon’s covert procurement system that had been put in place after the Yellow Fruit scandal.

Defense procurement officials said that without Powell’s manipulation of the process, the Pentagon’s internal auditing systems would have alerted the military brass that thousands of TOW anti-tank missiles and other sophisticated weaponry were headed to Iran, designated a terrorist state.

But Powell managed to slip the missiles and the other hardware out of U.S. Army inventories without key Pentagon officials knowing where the equipment was going.

The story of Powell’s maneuvers can be found in a close reading of thousands of pages from Iran-Contra depositions of Pentagon officials, who pointed to Weinberger’s assistant as the key Iran-Contra action officer within the Defense Department.

For his part, Powell insisted that he and Weinberger minimized the Pentagon’s role. Powell said they delivered the missiles to the CIA under the Economy Act, which regulates transfers between government agencies.

“We treated the TOW transfer like garbage to be gotten out of the house quickly,” Powell wrote in My American Journey.

But the Economy Act argument was disingenuous, because the Pentagon always uses the Economy Act when it moves weapons to the CIA.

Powell’s account also obscured his unusual actions in arranging the shipments without giving senior officers the information that Pentagon procedures required, even for sensitive covert activities.

Reagan’s Sign-off

Weinberger officially handed Powell the job of shipping the missiles to Iran on January 17, 1986. That was the day Reagan signed an intelligence finding, a formal authorization that is required by law for the conduct of covert operations, in this case, the transfer of arms from U.S. stockpiles and their shipment to Iran.

In testimony, Powell dated his first knowledge of the missile transfers to this moment.

A day after Reagan’s finding, Powell instructed Gen. Max Thurman, then acting Army chief of staff, to prepare for a transfer of 4,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, but Powell made no mention that they were headed to Iran.

“I gave him absolutely no indication of the destination of the missiles,” Powell testified.

Though kept in the dark, Thurman began the process of transferring the TOWs to the CIA, the first step of the journey.

Powell’s orders “bypassed the formal [covert procedures] on the ingress line,” Thurman acknowledged in later Iran-Contra testimony. “The first shipment is made without a complete wring-out through all of the procedural steps.”

As Powell’s strange orders rippled through the top echelon of the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Vincent M. Russo, the assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, called Powell to ask about the operation.

Powell immediately circumvented Russo’s inquiry. In effect, Powell pulled rank by arranging for “executive instructions” commanding Russo to deliver the first 1,000 TOWs, no questions asked.

“It was a little unusual,” commented then Army chief of staff, Gen. John A. Wickham Jr. “All personal visit or secure phone call, nothing in writing – because normally through the [covert logistics office] a procedure is established so that records are kept in a much more formal process. …

“I felt very uneasy about this process. And I also felt uneasy about the notification dimension to the Congress.” Under federal law, the Executive was required to notify Congress both of covert action “findings” and the transfer of military equipment to third countries.

However, on January 29, 1986, thanks to Powell’s intervention, 1,000 U.S. TOWs were loaded onto pallets at Redstone Arsenal and transferred to the airfield at Anniston, Alabama.

As the shipment progressed, senior Pentagon officers grew edgier about Powell withholding the destination and other details. The logistics personnel also wanted proof that somebody was paying for the missiles.

Major Christopher Simpson, who was making the flight arrangements, later told Iran-Contra investigators that Gen. Russo “was very uncomfortable with no paperwork to support the mission request.  He wasn’t going to do nothin’, as he said, without seeing some money. … ‘no tickey, no laundry.’”

Swiss Accounts

The money for the first shipment was finally deposited into a CIA account in Geneva, Switzerland, on February 11, 1986. Three days later, Russo released the 1,000 TOWs.

Inside the Pentagon, however, concern grew about Powell’s unorthodox arrangements and the identity of the missile recipients. Major Simpson told congressional investigators that he would have rung alarm bells if he had known the TOWs were headed to Iran.

“In the three years that I had worked there, I had been instructed … by the leadership … never to do anything illegal, and I would have felt that we were doing something illegal,” Simpson said.

Even without knowing that the missiles were going to Iran, Simpson expressed concern about whether the requirement to notify Congress had been met.

He got advice from a Pentagon lawyer that the 1986 intelligence authorization act, which mandated a “timely” notice to Congress on foreign arms transfers, had an “impact on this particular mission.”

The issue was bumped up to Secretary of the Army John Marsh. Though still blind about the shipment’s destination, the Army high command was inclined to stop the peculiar operation in its tracks.

At this key moment, Colin Powell intervened again. Simpson said, “General Powell was asking General Russo to reassure the Secretary of the Army that notification was being handled, … that it had been addressed and it was taken care of.”

Despite Powell’s assurance, Congress had not been notified.

Army Secretary Marsh shared the skepticism about Powell’s operation. On February 25, 1986, Marsh called a meeting of senior Army officers and ordered Russo to “tell General Powell of my concern with regard to adequate notification being given to Congress,” Russo testified.

Army chief of staff Wickham demanded that a memo on congressional notification be sent to Powell. “The chief wanted it in writing,” stated Army Lt. Gen. Arthur E. Brown, who delivered the memo to Powell on March 7, 1986.

Five days later, Powell handed the memo to President Reagan’s national security adviser John Poindexter with the advice: “Handle it … however you plan to do it,” Powell later testified.

Poindexter’s plan for “timely notification” was to tell Congress on the last day of the Reagan presidency, January 20, 1989. Poindexter stuck the Pentagon memo into a White House safe, along with the secret “finding” on the Iran missile shipments.

Prohibited Shipments

Col. John William McDonald, who oversaw covert supply, added his voice to the Pentagon objections when he learned that key Army officials had no idea where the weapons were headed.

“One [concern] was inadvertent provision of supplies to the [Nicaraguan] contras in violation of the Boland Amendment,” which prohibited military shipments to the contras, McDonald testified.

“The second issue was inadvertent supply to countries that were on the terrorist list. … There is a responsibility to judge the legality of the request.”

When McDonald was asked by congressional investigators how he would have reacted if told the weapons were going to Iran, he responded, “I would have told General Thurman … that I would believe that the action was illegal and that Iran was clearly identified as one of the nations on the terrorist list for whom we could not transfer weapons.”

But when McDonald joined other Pentagon officers in appealing to Powell about the missile shipment’s destination, they again were told not to worry.

Powell “reiterated [that it was] the responsibility of the recipient” agency, the CIA, to notify Congress, “and that the Army did not have the responsibility to do that.”

Then, in March 1986, Powell conveyed a second order, this time for 284 HAWK antiaircraft missile parts and 500 HAWK missiles. This time, Powell’s order set off alarms not only over legal questions, but whether the safety of U.S forces might be jeopardized.

The HAWK order would force a drawdown of U.S. supplies to a dangerous level. Henry Gaffney, a senior supply official, warned Powell that “you’re going to have to start tearing it out of the Army’s hide.”

But the Pentagon again followed Powell’s orders. It stripped its shelves of 15 spare parts for HAWK missiles that were protecting U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

“I can only trust that somebody who is a patriot … and interested in the survival of this nation … made the decision that the national policy objectives were worth the risk of a temporary drawdown of readiness,” said Lt. Gen. Peter G. Barbules.

If there had been an air attack on U.S. forces in Europe during the drawdown, the HAWK missile defense batteries might not have had the necessary spare parts to counter an enemy attack.

As implemented by Powell, the Iran initiative had taken priority over both legal safeguards and the safety of U.S. soldiers around the world.

Ironically, after helping set in motion the Iranian arms shipments that left U.S. forces in Europe potentially vulnerable, Powell was dispatched to West Germany, where he was made commander of the V Corps in pursuit of another general’s star.

For more on Colin Powell’s real history, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, available directly from the publisher at or from

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

  postCount(‘article18802.htm’);Comments (8) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us
if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

 Sign up for our Daily Email Newsletter

  Amazon Honor System




Cell-phone Towers and Fake Trees….

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

One with Cell-phone Towers and Fake Trees

July 13, 2006 by Vurdlak | Email This Post
Nice trees, aren’t they (other pictures are inside the post)? There’s just one problem… these aren’t trees at all! Actually it’s a homage to the fake trees that disguise USA cell phone towers. Have you ever noticed them? Well I think the idea is more than great! Having them hiddious cell-towers, is necessary, but with a bit of imagination and artistic touch, you can transform them in such way, that very few would spot they’re fake. These Sham Shrubs have been manufactured so that you and I can communicate with each other, while protecting our delicate aesthetic sensibilities. They’re hidden pretty well. But if you look for them, they’re easy to spot. Be sure to jump inside this post to see more of them, but don’t forget to visit original website to see whole bunch more of them. Thanks Mike for submitting this illusion!
Go To….
for the rest of the storu, pics, etc.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

100 walk out on Ashcroft talk Former AG defends security measures in CU speech

November 30, 2007 1 comment

This is a printer friendly version of an article from
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.


Article published Nov 30, 2007
100 walk out on Ashcroft talk
Former AG defends security measures in CU speech
By Topher Sanders
Journal Staff
ITHACA — In the face of shouting dissenters and shrouded protesters, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft stood firmly behind his conviction Thursday that the 2001 USA Patriot Act strengthened America’s freedom and continues to protect the country from terrorist attacks.Ashcroft spoke about the need for the change in national security thinking after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 to a crowd of more than 700 at Cornell University’s Statler Hall.

The former attorney general described his experience on 9/11 and how the increased ease with which a terrorist could cause harm to civilians changed the way the government needed to think about national security.

“We have a circumstance that compels us to protect this nation,” he said. “It is unacceptable to rely on the old strategy of preventing by prosecution. We assumed that people would fear prosecution so that they would not perpetrate.

“But when people design their criminal acts in such a way as to kill thousands and they are willing to extinguish themselves in the perpetration of the crime, the potential for prosecution is empty,” he said.

Ashcroft diffused random shouts and objections from some in the crowd with wit-filled retorts and humor.

About 13 minutes into the attorney general’s speech, more than 100 students and Ithaca community members stood up from their seats, turned their backs to Ashcroft and placed black shrouds over their heads. The protesters stood in silence for another 14 minutes before walking out of his speech together.

When the protesters left, Ashcroft responded with “Good,” and his supporters in the crowd applauded.

“There are hundreds of Arab American and Muslim Americans who were rounded up after 9/11 with no charges and were removed from the country and never had any contact with their family,” said David Jacobus, a second-year law student at Cornell who was among the protesters. “We’re standing in solidarity with those people whose voices are silenced under the Patriot Act and the domestic war on our liberties that John Ashcroft has been pursuing when he was in office and now spreading with his ideology around university campuses.”

“We felt that a silent protest was particularly appropriate because of the people who’ve been silenced by John Ashcroft, including the librarians of America who, when they tried to challenge the order to turn over patron records, weren’t even allowed to talk to the (American Civil Liberties Union) about it,” said Ginger McCall, also a second-year law student at Cornell.

Ashcroft continued his speech seemingly unfettered. When he arrived at his question-and-answer session, he took a tough question about his justification of Guantanamo Bay detentions head on.

“You can either continue to let people fight against you, detain them or kill them on the battlefield,” Ashcroft said.

“I find it to be commendable that our people didn’t say that when someone had a gun and was captured on the battlefield, that they gave it back and said, ‘Hey, take another shot at Ashcroft’s boy,'” he said, referring to his son, who has served in the military overseas.

The event was sponsored by the Cornell College Republicans, the Cornell Political Coalition, the Cornell Law Student Association, the office of the vice president for student and academic services, the office of the vice president for university communications, the office of the vice provost for undergraduate education and several other co-sponsors.


Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”


November 30, 2007 2 comments



Gunny G’s!

DON’T YOU DARE CALL ME A SOLDIER!!! Marines’ sites and bulletin boards on the Internet are nothing short of amazing regarding what many do not know about Marine Corps history and traditions. There are numerous cases where Marines–some of them even senior enlisted Marines and officers–post and respond to downright erroneous information demonstrating a definite lack of knowledge on various topics of Marine Corps interest. I have addressed several of these individual topics elsewhere on Gunny G’s.

Perhaps, some independent study would be in order–better start at the top.

One random example, among many I have noticed, are several items lately where Marines are lambasting someone or other on the subject of one’s having dared to refer to a Marine, or Marines, using the term “soldier.”

With righteous indignation they scream that they are Marines, not soldiers, and they decry those who call them such! And rightfully so, in some cases, where the media or an individual, whatever, is using that term within an inappropriate context.

Of course, they (both the writer and the Marine) are acting out of their own lack of knowlege. The user of the term “soldier” is not aware that he should generally refer to all Marines as “Marines”; and the Marine is very likely ignorant of the fact that the word “soldier” is also correct, in some cases.

Members of our sister-service, for example, the U.S. Army, are soldiers, that is their name, but Marines are not soldiers in that sense at all. I am referring to Marines as soldiers in a much broader, higher sense, as a class of soldier that goes to the root of what a Marine is and does.

Reminds me of an oft-times repeated story of a U.S. Army major visiting the wounded in a WWI French hospital in 1918. As the story goes, the major asked a young soldier if he was indeed an American. “No sir,” he replied, “I’m a Marine.” (Ref US Marine Corps In World war I 1917-1918, Osprey, by Henry/Pavlovic, 1999) Such it is that Marines have always exemplified the inherent pride in their identity as a member of the MarineCorps.

But, many Marines seem to be unaware of the fact that the Marine Corps itself, as well as individual Marines, has long referred with pride to themselves as soldiers. To be sure, we are, each of us, a United States Marine, that is our TITLE, earned and claimed by us all as the capstone of that which we are. But somewhere within that coveted title lies the soldier referred to in the following examples.

One dictionary defines the word Marine as, an infantry soldier associated with a navy. No doubt there are many references to the Royal Marines as soldiers back through history. But we need not go back that far. Our own U.S. Marine Corps has a long listing of examples supporting the notion of Marines as soldiers.

A U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Service poster, dated May 1866, announces that it is seeking MEN for its ranks; it then goes on to refer to such recruits as SOLDIERS no less than six times, and not once using the word Marine or Marines! (Ref the book, The Marines, by Simmons/Moskin, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation, 1998)

And there is the USMC Recruiting Poster of more recent vintage, shown at the top of this page. And, in the book, Marine Corps Book of Lists, by Nofi, Combined Publishing, 1997, the following.

“The Marines are both soldiers and sailors, a part of the sea services.” (Page 154)

“Some Marine Wisdom on Soldiering” ‘To be a sergeant, you have to show your stuff. I’d rather be an outstanding sergeant than just another officer,” -GySgt Dan Daly (Page 159)

“In 1928 the period of the training was reduced to seven weeks, divided into two phases. The first phase, lasting three weeks, included the basic instruction necessary to convert civilians into soldiers, plus an innovation. This was an interview of each recruit by a selection clerk, who recorded the recruit’s qualifications of education and experience. In embryo form, this procedure anticipated the specialty classification which was later to become indispensable as the complexity of paperwork increased and the material of war became even more technical and complicated. The four-week second phase was spent on the rifle range.<26>”
Ref Marine Corps Historical Reference Series No. 8, A Brief History of MCRD, Parris Island, SC, 1891-1962

“Soldiers trained in the ways of the sea,” -CMC, BGen Benjamin H. Fuller, c. 1934 (Page 181)

“A Dozen Nicknames For Marines” 2. “The Soldiers of the Sea, a traditional term for Marines dating back at least to the seventeenth century.” (Page 180)

“The finest soldier any captain could wish to have,” said of Dan Daly by BGen W.P. Upshur (Page 182)

The book, “Soldiers of the Sea: The U.S. Marine Corps,” by Col Robert D. Heinl USMC (Ret.), Annapolis, 1962

The play, (and later, two films) “What Price Glory,” by Andersen/Shillings, 1926, has numerous references to Marines as soldiers.

“He turned down the gold bars of a second lieutenant. ‘I’m a plain soldier,’ he said, ‘and I want to stay one.'”
-GySgt John Basilone (Ref John Basilone –Italian-American Hero

Chapter XX, page 69,The United States Marine Corps in the World War, by Major Edwin N. McClellan, USMC,1920, Historical Branch, HQMC, Wash, DC
“In recent years the Marine Corps has devoted a great deal of time and energy to rifle practice, believing that one of the first requirements of a soldier is to know how to shoot….”

And, finally, the more recent (2001) book,”Chesty The Story of Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC,” by Jon T. Hoffman, LtCol USMCR, in which he named Chapter 1, “Making a Man and a Soldier” Genesis of a Marine.

And many more references can be found, but suffice to say, for the purpose of my little spiel here, that these few examples should establish that the use of “soldier” was long commonly in use in the Corps.

And so is the use of the term “soldier” valid? Yes, I think all of the above has shown that it is, but please consider this information within the context which I have presented it. At the same time, however, I agree that the use of that term has generally fallen out of use, but not altogether. It may be that its decline began at the end of WW II when the Marine Corps was fighting for it’s continued existence when Congress, and the US Army, was seeking to severly cut back the size of the Corps and/or eliminate it altogether.

Marines are also very critical of Marines, and others, who use terms that were in use before their own time, or perhaps terms they never really understood in the first place, like ex-Marine, preferring “former Marine” in its place. In some cases, they even now consider certain terms to have been derogatory in nature, although not the case to begin with. These things come and go; Semper Fidelis was shortened to “Semper Fi” by WW II Marines–and it’s meaning even replaced at that time. Many of today’s Marines resent some of these terms mainly because they have little knowledge of the finer points of our own history, heritage and traditions, falling back onto whatever they now perceive to have been the truth of their Old Corps. Their present explanations, opinions and beliefs regarding many of these things are invalid. For those with the mind for it, there is much in the way of information on these topics on the Internet, books, etc. It’s out there if anybody wishes to take the trouble to research and find it!

The U. S. Marine Corps has a long and glorious history. There is no need to be defensive or “touchy” when occasionally being referred to as a soldier, even when the person speaking is not totally aware of all involved in the fact he is alluding to.

Rather, be yourself informed of what is so and what isn’t, through your own research and studies. Nor is it of any benefit to deride those of other services, as is a common practice– doing so merely reveals your own ignorance, and it belittles our Corps.

As one old recruiting poster states, “Be a Marine!”

Maj Dick Culver’s “WHAT PRICE GLORY”;read=460

“This is one of my favorite Marine Corps films, not so much for the story line, but for the authenticity of the language used, the equipment, uniforms, and the attitudes that pervade the film. In order to truly enjoy the presentation, a bit of explanation is necessary. Being a Marine Corps History buff (imagine that? Heh, heh, heh�), I could identify with the characters and the language. My Dad was a WWI Marine (as well as a WWII and Korean era Marine), and I was raised in a house that virtually �dripped� Marine Corps nautical and tactical terminology. If any of you are nit pickers on period equipment and uniforms, this one is for you.” “One of the movie reviews on Amazon chides the director (John Ford no less) for allowing Marines to refer to each others as soldiers or to mentioning soldiering as an occupation. This particular reviewer apparently believes many old wives tales concerning Marines never allowing themselves to be called soldiers. � wrong again �gopher-breath,� within the Corps we often spoke of soldiering as an occupation, and one of the best of Marine Corps History Books is Robert D. Heinl�s �Soldiers of the Sea� (1962).

“We might take a bit unkindly to a civilian referring to �us� as soldiers assuming he had mistaken us for soldiers of the U.S. Army, but the term is hardly verboten within the Corps. Laurence Stalling�s buddy, a certain Captain John W. Thomason, author of �Fix Bayonets�, mentions in his description of Marines �old timers who regarded the service as a home and war as an occupation… Thomason�s description of the WWI Marine is worth the price of �Fix Bayonets� in of itself, and will lay to rest much of the modern day critics of the Marine terminology used in the Movie.”
(And another one, from Dr. R.E. Sullivan, Col USMC (Ret.)

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 04:33:48 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Soldier

“Sometime ago in a thread you argued vociferously about the use of the term “Soldier.” You were correct by the way, at least in the way I understand the use of that word to apply to Marines. When I was a callow youth, in 1951, I returned from Korea and was stationed at MB, Shumaker, Arkansas. I commanded the Guard Company, and did many other chores as any junior officer does in a command that had only four Marine officers. The base commander was a Navy captain, and almost as new as I was to the command.”

“Anyway, I had occasion to report to the Captain as the recorder of a Board of Investigation. As I was under arms, I of course saluted, made my report, saluted again, about-faced and headed for the door. The Captain stopped me and made several complimentary remarks about my appearance and “Soldierly bearing.” He also used the term “Soldier” once or twice more in referring to me. In my total ignorance, I was furious.”

“Later that day I complained to the MC CO about the base commander referring to me as a “Soldier.” My CO got a real chuckle out of my complaint, and told me that instead of the Captain demeaning me, he had instead paid me the highest compliment possible. My CO was LtCol Louis Nathaniel King, and had been a white hat in 1936 when he passed the exam for the Naval Academy, graduated from there, and chose to enter the MC.

Of course, he, unlike myself, was steeped in Naval traditions and knew all about the use of the term “Soldier.” On occasion I’ve referred to other Marines as “Soldiers,” always explaining that was the highest compliment that I could call them with our “Soldiers of the sea” origins. I’m afraid that with the decline in Navy capital ships, that the MC is loosing much of its naval traditions since the chance of service as a member of a Marine Detachment has undoubtedly declined. We always said that: “A Marine was everything of a Soldier, and half a Sailor too.”

“We also said that the reason that Marines were kept embarked in Navy ships for thirty days prior to a combat landing was that after thirty days on one of those buckets that when you got off you just had to kill someone. Wasn’t really fair to the Japanese, I suppose.”

“Please note that I always capitalize “Soldiers,” “Sailors,” and “Airmen.” In my book they deserve the same respect that I pay to my beloved Marines.”

Semper Fidelis,
tientsin (Sully)

Web Site:

Once, not too long ago, 2003, I believe, a dedication stone was said to have been placed in Puller Park, in Virginia. The stone fully identified General Puller as a Marine, LtGen Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC (Ret.)–and in addition it also bore the words. Patriot, and Soldier. In the months thereafter, Marines of one category or another raised such a public stink about it (the word Soldier) that they were successful in getting the stone replaced. Amazing. Call it vanity, political correctness, mistaken pride, whatever–it’s a changed world.

“Every Soldier, a term I use here as representative of all branches of the Armed Forces of the United States, knows his purpose and his potential sacrifice. Yet, he Soldiers on each day.”


I also like the way the above author (a Soldier) puts it.

Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
GySgt USMC (Ret.)
GyG’s Old Salt Marines Tavern Sites & Forums

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”

‘Betrayal’ motivates man to back Ron Paul

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

Print This Article

Posted on Fri, Nov. 30, 2007

‘Betrayal’ motivates man to back Ron Paul


Trevor Lyman is an unlikely political mastermind: an Internet music promoter who has modeled and waited tables, a New Englander who moved to South Beach for the night life, a 37-year-old who has never voted, let alone worked on a campaign.Then he became an overnight sensation. Literally, overnight.

On Nov. 5, Lyman helped raise $4.2 million online for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, laying claim to the most money collected by a campaign over the Internet in a single day.

Lyman is ready to do it again, with a more modest goal of $2.5 million by midnight Friday. He started soliciting pledges only nine days ago, and this time, the national media is paying attention; he’s juggling interviews this week from The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor.

”Dr. Paul,” a former obstetrician, current congressman from Texas, and the lone Republican presidential candidate to vote against the war in Iraq, is typically a footnote in campaign coverage.

”Nobody took him seriously until we brought money to the campaign. It’s a sad state of affairs,” Lyman said in a telephone interview from New Hampshire, where he’s rounding up support for his candidate before the first-in-the-nation primary (Iowa holds a caucus before New Hampshire votes.). “This [fundraising drive] was pretty spur of the moment, so we’ll see how it goes.”

If it fails, Paul runs the risk of being dismissed as a one-hit wonder, especially since his online popularity has barely surfaced in the polls. On the eve of Wednesday’s debate in St. Petersburg, his support in Florida was smaller than the CNN poll’s margin of error.

GOP donor Mark Guzzetta, who helped organize a $2,300-per-person reception in Coral Gables on Thursday for the more-established candidate Mitt Romney, said the Internet can’t and won’t replace traditional fundraisers.


”People want to meet the candidate — shake his or her hand, test his mettle, watch his speech,” Guzzetta said. “Having said that, I do think all of us can learn a thing or two from someone who has maximized the Internet.”

It all started when Lyman was noodling online in October and came across speeches by Paul, an anti-tax, pro-gun, non-interventionalist who touts home schooling and above all, the Constitution.

”It was a betrayal,” Lyman said of the promises by Democrats in Congress to bring the troops home. “So in the midst of a betrayal, when you find someone who’s been consistent, you know that’s your guy.”


Lyman launched a website called, paying homage to a revolutionary who tried to blow up the English Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder on that day in 1605. More than $4 million later, Lyman had overthrown the conventional wisdom about Paul.

Lyman planned to drop a second ”money bomb” on Dec. 15 and 16, Bill of Rights Day and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, tapping into the Libertarian spirit that infuses Paul’s politics.


But the campaign realized it needed a quicker infusion of cash to pay for commercials before the Iowa caucus on Jan. 3 and New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8.

The Nov. 30 fundraising drive centers on a spat between Paul and national front-runner Rudy Giuliani during a May presidential debate.

Giuliani attacked Paul for suggesting that U.S. military action in the Middle East provoked the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Paul referred Giuliani to findings in the 9/11 Commission Report, giving rise to the new website:


Lyman is also raising money for a Ron Paul blimp, another surefire publicity stunt.

Paul followers are not just trolling the Internet; they pop up with their signs and fliers at South Florida events where you least expect them — on the beach, at the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure in Bayfront Park, at the Tamiami Park Adopt-a-Tree Festival.

”We attend just about every function out there that is political — or not political — to meet the people and introduce them to Ron Paul,” said Dean Santoro, of Miami, who started the ninth of what is now more than 1,300 ”meet-up” groups for Paul supporters around the country.


Santoro was so moved by Paul that he embarked on a long-shot bid for Congress against Republican U.S. Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart of Miami. He said he’s not surprised by Lyman’s fundraising success on behalf of Paul.

”Honestly, no, considering the passion I feel myself for this candidate,” Santoro said. “I see something different. I see fire in people’s eyes.”

© 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”

Did You Know That Senator Obama….???

November 30, 2007 Leave a comment

Excerpt Only

Go To Link Below….

Senator Obama is a Muslim extremist who wants to overthrow the government. That’s the rumor I read about on the front page of the Washington Post. They’re evidently in the business of whisper campaigning now. Yes, the Washington Post has elevated itself to the level of Glenn Beck’s awesome question to Congressman Ellison: Prove to me that you’re not working for our darkie enemies, you America-hating darkie you.

Click here to read more.
The Huffington Post….


See More-the link above….


Obama: I’m Not Muslim….
Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Pain at the Pump

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column

Pain at the Pump

This past week Americans traveled approximately 2 billion miles to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday with family and loved ones. While you cannot put a price on time with family, Americans sure felt the pain of higher fuel prices at the gas pump.  It is time to take an honest look at the government’s direct and indirect role in inflating those prices.

Taxation is the most direct way government increases Americans’ cost at the pump. The national average price of gas now is well over $3.00 per gallon now, $4 in some areas. Federal taxes take 18.4 cents, while state and local taxes average another 28.5 cents per gallon. That’s an average of 47 cents per gallon Americans are paying just for government, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Less directly, our loose monetary policy gives taxpayers double jeopardy at the pump, simultaneously increasing prices and undermining purchasing power. Wages always lag behind price increases, making average Americans feel as though they can never quite keep up, never quite get out of debt. Not to mention the ripple effect of higher diesel costs on the trucking industry. When trucking and shipping is more expensive, everything is more expensive.

The indirect costs government imposes on gas prices are much more serious. A major bottleneck that causes gas prices to surge is our very meagre and vulnerable refinery capacity due mostly to regulatory red tape. Environmental regulations and litigation have kept our existing refinery capacity barely adequate. In fact, no new refineries have been built since the 70’s and these are operating at capacity, which makes our gasoline market especially vulnerable as demonstrated by skyrocketing gas prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when many coastal oil facilities were brought to a halt. In addition, many foreign refineries don’t have the ability to produce the specialized blends of gasoline mandated by our government, and therefore 90% of our gasoline is refined in the United States under extreme regulatory burden. When our domestic refineries are damaged or jeopardized, there are few options other than soaring prices or long lines.

I’ve introduced The Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415) to deal with some of these issues. My bill would suspend Federal fuel taxes when prices rise above $3.00 a gallon, giving some immediate relief at the pump. It would also repeal misguided legislation that causes more investment in attorneys and nuisance litigation than in actually producing affordable gasoline and strengthening our refining capacity. Also, it would open up ANWR for oil exploration and repeal the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling.

Much of government intervention in the oil industry in the past has been counter-productive and has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences. This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for every mile Americans can still afford to travel to be with family. I am working hard in Congress to reverse the costly trend of government interference and return markets, including oil markets, to true economic freedom.

America in the Time of Empire

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

America In The Time of Empire

Posted on Nov 26, 2007

By Chris Hedges

This column was originally published by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

All great empires and nations decay from within. By the time they hobble off the world stage, overrun by the hordes at the gates or vanishing quietly into the pages of history books, what made them successful and powerful no longer has relevance. This rot takes place over decades, as with the Soviet Union, or, even longer, as with the Roman, Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empires. It is often imperceptible.

Dying empires cling until the very end to the outward trappings of power. They mask their weakness behind a costly and technologically advanced military. They pursue increasingly unrealistic imperial ambitions. They stifle dissent with efficient and often ruthless mechanisms of control. They lose the capacity for empathy, which allows them to see themselves through the eyes of others, to create a world of accommodation rather than strife. The creeds and noble ideals of the nation become empty cliches, used to justify acts of greater plunder, corruption and violence. By the end, there is only a raw lust for power and few willing to confront it.

The most damning indicators of national decline are upon us. We have watched an oligarchy rise to take economic and political power. The top 1 percent of the population has amassed more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, creating economic disparities unseen since the Depression. If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes president, we will see the presidency controlled by two families for the last 24 years.

Massive debt, much of it in the hands of the Chinese, keeps piling up as we fund absurd imperial projects and useless foreign wars. Democratic freedoms are diminished in the name of national security. And the erosion of basic services, from education to health care to public housing, has left tens of millions of citizens in despair. The displacement of genuine debate and civil and political discourse with the noise and glitter of public spectacle and entertainment has left us ignorant of the outside world, and blind to how it perceives us. We are fed trivia and celebrity gossip in place of news.

An increasing number of voices, especially within the military, are speaking to this stark deterioration. They describe a political class that no longer knows how to separate personal gain from the common good, a class driving the nation into the ground.

“There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former commander of forces in Iraq, recently told the New York Times, adding that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”

The American working class, once the most prosperous on Earth, has been politically disempowered, impoverished and abandoned. Manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas. State and federal assistance programs have been slashed. The corporations, those that orchestrated the flight of jobs and the abolishment of workers’ rights, control every federal agency in Washington, including the Department of Labor. They have dismantled the regulations that had made the country’s managed capitalism a success for ordinary men and women. The Democratic and Republican Parties now take corporate money and do the bidding of corporate interests.

Philadelphia is a textbook example. The city has seen a precipitous decline in manufacturing jobs, jobs that allowed households to live comfortably on one salary. The city had 35 percent of its workforce employed in the manufacturing sector in 1950, perhaps the zenith of the American empire. Thirty years later, this had fallen to 20 percent. Today it is 8.8 percent. Commensurate jobs, jobs that offer benefits, health care and most important enough money to provide hope for the future, no longer exist. The former manufacturing centers from Flint, Mich., to Youngstown, Ohio, are open sores, testaments to a growing internal collapse.

The United States has gone from being the world’s largest creditor to its largest debtor. As of September 2006, the country was, for the first time in a century, paying out more than it received in investments. Trillions of dollars go into defense while the nation’s infrastructure, from levees in New Orleans to highway bridges in Minnesota, collapses. We spend almost as much on military power as the rest of the world combined, while Social Security and Medicare entitlements are jeopardized because of huge deficits. Money is available for war, but not for the simple necessities of daily life.

Nothing makes these diseased priorities more starkly clear than what the White House did last week. On the same day, Tuesday, President Bush vetoed a domestic spending bill for education, job training and health programs, yet signed another bill giving the Pentagon about $471 billion for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. All this in the shadow of a Joint Economic Committee report suggesting that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been twice as expensive than previously imagined, almost $1.5 trillion.

The decision to measure the strength of the state in military terms is fatal. It leads to a growing cynicism among a disenchanted citizenry and a Hobbesian ethic of individual gain at the expense of everyone else. Few want to fight and die for a Halliburton or an Exxon. This is why we do not have a draft. It is why taxes have not been raised and we borrow to fund the war. It is why the state has organized, and spends billions to maintain, a mercenary army in Iraq. We leave the fighting and dying mostly to our poor and hired killers. No nationwide sacrifices are required. We will worry about it later.

It all amounts to a tacit complicity on the part of a passive population. This permits the oligarchy to squander capital and lives. It creates a world where we speak exclusively in the language of violence. It has plunged us into an endless cycle of war and conflict that is draining away the vitality, resources and promise of the nation.

It signals the twilight of our empire.

flags at the capitalAP photo / Gerald Herbert

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2007 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.Web site development by Hop Studios | Hosted by NEXCESS.NET

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

‘We are at war with all Islam’

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

The Spectator

‘We are at war with all Islam’

‘We are at war with all Islam’

Mary Wakefield

Wednesday, 28th November 2007

An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Last Tuesday at nightfall, as the servants of democracy fled SW1, a young Somali woman stood spotlit on a stage in Westminster. Behind her was the illuminated logo for the Centre for Social Cohesion: a white hand reaching down across England to help a brown one up; in front, an audience of some of Britain’s biggest brains — politicians, editors, academics. She drew her shawl a little closer round her shoulders, looked up and said: ‘We are not at war with “terror”, that would make no sense.’

‘Hear, hear,’ said a voice at the back. ‘Terror is just a tactic used by Islam,’ she continued. ‘We are actually at war, not just with Islamism, but with Islam itself.’

Out in the dark began a great wobbling of heads. Neocons nodded, Muslims shook their heads; others, uncertain, waggled theirs anxiously from side to side: at war with all Islam, even here in the UK? What does that mean?

It would be easier in some ways to ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to label her as bonkers — but it would also be irresponsible. She’s not just another hawkish hack, anxious to occupy the top tough-guy media slot — she has the authority of experience, the authenticity of suffering. In the spring of 2004 she wrote a film called Submission (an artsy 11-minute protest against Islamic cruelty to women) which was shown on Dutch TV. In November 2004 the film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated and the killer left a long letter to Hirsi Ali knifed into his corpse which said, in short: you’re next. But Hirsi Ali couldn’t be silenced. She has since written an autobiography (Infidel) about growing up a Muslim (in Somalia, then Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia), describing her circumcision, the beatings she received, her arranged marriage, her flight to Holland. She risks her life daily, speaking out against what she calls the ‘fairytale’ that Islam is in essence a religion of peace.

The other reason to take her seriously is that Hirsi Ali’s ideas about Islam (that it is unamenable to reform, and intrinsically opposed to Western values) are attracting attention worldwide. In Holland where, until 2006, she was an MP for the People’s Party for Freedom and Independence (VVD), the famous ‘pillarisation’ approach to immigration — where each new culture becomes a pillar upon which the state rests — has given way to a ‘new realism’, much more in tune with Hirsi Ali’s way of thinking, and in part because of her. In Britain and in America, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a sort of popstar for neocons, and she now lives in Washington, and works as a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.

But is she right? And what does ‘war with Islam’ mean? I went to find out; to meet Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the House of Lords on a bitter and blustery afternoon last week, bustling past the police, down the corridors of partial power, to the visitors’ room where she was waiting. We haven’t got much time, so can we dive straight into Islam? I ask. ‘Yes, absolutely, go ahead,’ she smiles. Up close she is disconcertingly beautiful, and fragile-looking. OK then, right. Well, you say that Islam is a violent religion, because the Prophet advocated violence. But isn’t that open to interpretation? I ask. Karen Armstrong, (a non-Muslim biographer of Mohammed) has said the Prophet was a loving man who’d have been horrified at 9/11.

‘Karen Armstrong is ridiculous,’ says Hirsi Ali in her quick, light voice — Africa still audible in the clipped consonants. ‘The Prophet would have not have disapproved of 9/11, because it was carried out in his example. When he came to Medina, the Prophet had a revelation, of jihad. After that, it became an obligation for Muslims to convert others, and to establish an Islamic state, by the sword if necessary.’

But there is such a thing as moderate Islam, I say. Muslims aren’t all terrorists. There are some like Ed Husain (author of The Islamist) who argue that there are many peaceful traditions of Koranic scholarship to choose from. Isn’t it a mistake to dismiss this gentler, acceptable branch of Islam?

‘I find the word “moderate” very misleading.’ There’s a touch of steel in Hirsi Ali’s voice. ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as “moderate Islam”. I think it’s better to talk about degrees of belief and degrees of practice. The Koran is quite clear that it should control every area of life. If a Muslim chooses to obey only some of the Prophet’s commandments, he is only a partial Muslim. If he is a good Muslim, he will wish to establish Sharia law.’

But I don’t call myself a ‘partial Christian’ just because I don’t take the whole Bible literally, I say. Why can’t a Muslim pick and choose his scriptures too? Before Hirsi Ali can answer, the door to the waiting room flies open and a House of Lords doorman stands theatrically on the threshold. ‘You must stop this interview immediately!’ he says. Why? Is there a breach of security? A terrorist threat? ‘I have not received authorisation for it,’ he says. But we’re here with a peer, I say. I’m sure he has cleared it. ‘Please proceed to the waiting area in silence.’ So off we trudge to the foyer to sit by a fake fire — ‘it’s much nicer here, anyway,’ says Hirsi Ali kindly — and to continue our discussion about the superiority of the free, enlightened West in urgent whispers behind my rucksack.

‘Christianity is different from Islam,’ says Hirsi Ali, ‘because it allows you to question it. It probably wasn’t different in the past, but it is now. Christians — at least Christians in a liberal democracy — have accepted, after Thomas Hobbes, that they must obey the secular rule of law; that there must be a separation of church and state. In Islamic doctrine such a separation has not occurred yet. This is what makes it dangerous! Islam — all Islam, not just Islamism — has not acknowledged that it must obey secular law. Islam is hostile to reason.’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s eyes are now aglow. She is a terrific believer in reason. For her, Western civilisation is built on the bedrock not of Judaeo-Christian values, but of logic. After seeking asylum in Holland, she spent five years at Leiden university studying political science, absorbing the Enlightenment philosophers — Spinoza, Hobbes, Voltaire — and she mentions them fondly, as if they’re family. But there’s a steely side to her atheism, which says with Voltaire: Ecraser l’infâme! During a recent debate with Ed Husain, as Husain was explaining his moderate Islam, she began to laugh at him, saying: ‘When you die you rot, Ed! There is no afterlife, Ed!’ And it makes me wonder whether, for Hirsi Ali, Islam’s crime is as much against reason as humanity; whether she sees the point of spirituality at all.

Are you so sure you understand what is at the heart of Islam? I ask her. Isn’t there a peaceful prayerfulness — apart from the politics — that an atheist might not understand? ‘I was a Muslim once, remember, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate,’ she says.

OK then, you talk about your conscience, and how your conscience was pricked by 9/11. But if there’s no God, what do you mean by a conscience? And why should we obey it?

‘My conscience is informed by reason,’ says Hirsi Ali, surprised I should ask. ‘It’s like Kant’s categorical imperative: behave to others as you would wish they behaved to you.’

I say, so let’s assume Islam is hostile and not open to reason, that it needs to be wiped out. The next question then is how? We can’t just ban it. Isn’t it destructive to curtail freedom so much in the interests of protecting it? Don’t you risk loving freedom to death?

Hirsi Ali looks at me with pity. ‘You, here in the UK, are in danger. Of course you can’t ban Islam outright, but you need to stop the spread of ideology, stop native Westerners converting to Islam. You definitely need to ban the veil in schools, and to close down Muslim schools because that’s where kids are indoctrinated.’

But, what about freedom of belief and free speech? I ask (with a nervous look at the doorman). And if you close down Muslim schools, don’t you, by the same logic, have to close all faith schools?

‘Islam is different from other faiths because it is not just a faith, it is a political ideology. Children learn that Allah is the lawgiver, and that is a political statement. You wouldn’t allow the BNP to run a school, would you?’

But if we crack down like this, won’t it make Muslims angry? I say, thinking about terrorists and my safety. ‘Well perhaps anger is no bad thing,’ says Hirsi Ali, thinking about ordinary Muslims, and their enlightenment. ‘Perhaps it’ll make Muslims more aware, help them question their beliefs. If we keep on asking questions, maybe Muslim women will realise, as I did, that they don’t have to be second-class citizens.’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on her favourite topic now (the subjection of women), leaning forward, gesticulating. And as she talks I realise (belatedly) what makes her different from her neocon pals. Whereas they seem motivated by fear of Muslims, she is out to protect Muslims from submission to unreason. When she speaks of a ‘war against Islam’, she’s thinking not of armies of insurgents, but of an ideological virus, in the same way a doctor might talk of the battle against typhoid. ‘Yes, I am at war with Islam,’ she says, as she gets up to leave, ‘but I am not at war with Muslims.’ It’s a crucial difference.

It’s teatime now and the House of Lords hallway is suddenly full of peers’ wives chattering, shaking their brollies. Sorry about all these women in headscarves, I say unnecessarily, as I shake her hand goodbye. ‘Don’t worry,’ says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ‘It’s not the hijab, the headscarves are just to protect them against the rain!’ And she walks off, laughing.

The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

“Pro-Life” Candidates Should Put Up Or Shut Up

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

“Pro-Life” Candidates Should Put Up Or Shut Up

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

November 30, 2007

Please consider this scenario. Several youngsters are drowning in a neighborhood lake. They are thrashing the water and crying out for help. There is a large, heavy raft nearby that could be used to rescue the drowning youths, but it would take several people to haul it into the water and then row it out to the victims.

Now, as it happens, there are more than enough people standing around the lake whose combined efforts would be more than adequate to rescue the drowning young people. Instead of grabbing the life raft and heading out to save the victims, however, they all start making speeches.

One by one, the would-be rescuers holler out that they believe in life; they believe in saving the lives of the drowning young people. They are all “pro-life.” The only problem is, none of them grabs the raft and actually attempts to save the victims. So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: are these people really “pro-life”? Do they really want to save the victims, or are they simply pro-life pretenders who only want to talk about saving lives but not actually do anything about it?

There is no one reading this column who would accept the pro-life rhetoric of the people around the lake as justification for not grabbing the life raft and actually saving the lives of those who were drowning. Then, why do “pro-life” conservatives accept the rhetoric of Republican politicians when there is no action to back it up?

If Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee are truly “pro-life,” they need to do more than just talk. They need to put up or shut up!

Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn’t take some magical Supreme Court appointment to overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand. If all the Republicans who keep telling us that they are “pro-life” (including President George W. Bush) were really pro-life, then why, in spite of having had ample time and opportunity to end the abortion holocaust, have they not done so?

In fact, the GOP has controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion-on-demand was handed down in 1973. That means GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.

Beyond that, for six years (2000-2006), “pro-life” Republicans controlled the entire federal government. And, for six years, millions of unborn babies cried their silent screams as the abortionists’ scalpels ripped their little bodies apart in abortuaries throughout America. And to use my opening analogy, all these “pro-life” Republicans did was stand by the side of the lake and talk “pro-life,” while the youngsters drowned in front of their eyes. During all this time, the life raft sat unused on the shore.

Dear reader, the life raft for the millions of unborn babies victimized by abortion-on-demand is the U.S. Constitution. However, we have a bunch of arrogant and conceited imbeciles in Washington, D.C., who have neither the smarts nor guts to use this wonderful life raft. It seems that the vast majority of them have absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution–even though each and every one of them takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it.

The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy). You read it right. At this point, John McCain is all talk; Mitt Romney is all talk; Fred Thompson is all talk. And even Mike Huckabee is all talk.

Huckabee says that when he was Governor of Arkansas he required parental notification for abortions, required a woman give informed consent before having an abortion, and required a woman be told that her baby would experience pain and be given the option of anesthesia for her baby. (Source: Mike Huckabee’s website) While this is commendable, none of Huckabee’s actions did anything to actually end abortion-on-demand.

When it comes to ending abortion-on-demand and overturning Roe v. Wade, the only thing Mike Huckabee (and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, save Ron Paul and Alan Keyes) will say is that they will appoint the right judges, as if they have no power as President to do anything else. (Good grief! Even Rudy Giuliani says as much.) My friends, these “pro-life” Republicans are either woefully ignorant themselves or they are pulling the proverbial wool over our eyes.

Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

Is it not more than interesting that “pro-life” President George W. Bush, along with the “pro-life” Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused–and continues to refuse–to support Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single “pro-life” presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them!

Why did John McCain not introduce Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life bill in the U.S. Senate? Why have Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson not committed to use the power of the bully pulpit of the White House to push Congress to implement this Act? Again, either these men are ignorant of their constitutional duties and responsibilities (in which case, they are unqualified for the office of President) or they are not truly serious about overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand (in which case, they are conservative phonies and frauds).

I say again, it is time for “pro-life” Republicans to put up or shut up!

Beyond that, it is time for Christian conservatives to stop being so gullible. We need to start looking beyond eloquent rhetoric and campaign clichés. We need to begin demanding results.

Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.

“Save us from the monster,” seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The “monster” is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

PS. One further note regarding Mike Huckabee. He will not win the GOP nomination, but what he will do is wind up endorsing (or perhaps even being selected as the Vice Presidential candidate) whichever Republican candidate wins the nomination–even if he is a pro-abortion candidate. Thus, he will fulfill his role in this election: to bring Christian conservatives into the Republican fold, even without a commitment to the life issue by their standard-bearer. In other words, Huckabee is the establishment’s guy to make sure that the Christian conservatives stay “in line.”

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: When responding, please include your name, city and state.





Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Bush renews pledge to back Israel if Iran attacks

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Bush renews pledge to back Israel if Iran attacks Thursday, 29th November 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush on Wednesday reiterated his pledge the United States would defend Israel if it was attacked by Iran, a country whose president has urged that the Jewish state be “wiped off the map.”

“I have made it clear that … we will support our ally Israel if attacked by Iran,” Bush said in an interview with CNN that comes on the heels of a Middle East summit aimed at rekindling peace talks between Israel and Palestinians.

“I hope it doesn’t happen,” he said.

Still, Bush said he took seriously the various comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel. Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the genocide by the Nazis against Jews took place, one of a number of comments that have fueled international criticism.

The United States and other Western powers have accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a nuclear energy program, a charge Iran denies. The White House has also accused Iran of aiding insurgents in neighboring Iraq.

Iran’s top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, denounced the Middle East peace talks and said they were “doomed to failure.” Iran was not invited to the talks but several other Arab neighbors participated in the three-day conference.

Obama: I’m Not Muslim

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Obama: I’m Not Muslim

Last Update: 1:56 pm

Print Story | Email Story

Experience more news: Video | Photos

United Press International

Obama, a member of the United Church of Christ, is fending off claims circulating among the conservative right that he is a Muslim trained at Islamic schools in Indonesia, The Washington Post said Thursday.

Obama, D-Ill., often speaks of his childhood in Indonesia and notes his paternal grandfather was a Muslim.

With religious affiliation at the center of the presidential campaign, polls show a rising anti-Muslim sentiment in politics.

An August poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said 45 percent of those polled would be oppose a Muslim presidential candidate, while 25 percent responded in kind about a Mormon candidate, such as the GOP’s former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and 16 percent opposed to an evangelical Christian, the Post said.

Conservative voices circulated rumors that Obama spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia and Rush Limbaugh said in September he gets confused between Obama and Osama bin Laden.

Obama continually denies the rumors, telling an audience in Iowa, “If I were a Muslim, I would let you know.”

Photo Copyright Getty Images

© YellowBrix, Inc. Copyright 1997-2007

McCain Peddles False History, Takes Cheap Shot at Ron Paul

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment – Printer Friendly / Low Graphics Page

McCain Peddles False History, Takes Cheap Shot at Ron Paul

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 29, 2007


As if to desperately claw his way back into the limelight, almost forgotten presidential candidate John McCain attacked Ron Paul during the CNN/YouTube debate. It looked more like “an episode of Jerry Springer than a presidential debate,” notes Crooks & Liars. “Senator John McCain was asked a question about taxes and decided to go way off topic and attack Rep. Ron Paul for his stance on Iraq and wanting to bring the troops home.” Instead, it looked like a classic drive-by, a crass attempt to discredit Ron Paul, a break-away candidate with a good chance of taking the Republican nomination.

In his attack, John McCain comes off as a blithering idiot, not that many probably noticed. McCain, citing the long ago discredited official history, declared Ron Paul to be an isolationist and World War II the fault of American isolationism, a claim so out of touch with reality as to be speculative fiction.

“Mussolini enjoyed a great deal of admiration in corporate America from the moment he came to power in a coup that was hailed stateside as ‘a fine young revolution,’” writes the historian Jacques R. Pauwels. “In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany…. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT.”

Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman. The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business.

In other words, the United States was not isolationist, as McCain claims, but was in bed with fascism. Prescott Bush’s relationship with the Hitler regime is more than an allegation, it is a fact entombed in the U.S. National Archives, although “little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him,” according to Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, writing for the Guardian. The documents “reveal that the firm [Prescott Bush] worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.”

As Robert Lederman notes, the Bush family was far more involved in the banking business of the Nazi regime than even the Guardian would have us believe. “As senior managers of Brown Brothers Harriman, [the Bush family] had to have known that their American clients, such as the Rockefellers, were investing heavily in German corporations, including Thyssen’s giant Vereinigte Stahlwerke. As noted historian Christopher Simpson repeatedly documents, it is a matter of public record that Brown Brother’s investments in Nazi Germany took place under the Bush family stewardship…. The enormous sums of money deposited into the Union Bank prior to 1942 is the best evidence that Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer” for both the Nazis and the Rockefellers. “If Union Bank was not the conduit for laundering the Rockefeller’s Nazi investments back to America, then how could the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank end up owning 31% of the Thyssen group after the war?”

It should be noted that this money laundering was accomplished under the aegis of Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, the Dutch monarch, who proudly served in the German Reiter SS Corps. Prince Bernhard also worked for IG Farben, the chemical company married to Standard Oil, that is to say the Rockefellers.

Lederman concludes:

The bottom line is harsh: It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920’s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush’s bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen’s coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family’s complicity.

In short, McCain should be accusing the head of his party, George W. Bush, or his family, of causing World War II, not the sort of “isolationism” Ron Paul supposedly advocates. But then, of course, John McCain is a neocon, albeit one who will soon drop from sight in the presidential campaign, as increasing numbers of people realize Ron Paul is the only viable candidate, one who is not so much “isolationist” as dedicated to constitutional principles.

It was George Washington who wisely stated that the country must avoid “foreign entanglements” and “foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues,” as “overgrown military establishments” are, “under any form of government… inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

John McCain, however, does not represent “republican liberty,” but instead its obverse: neocon military totalitarianism, both abroad and at home.

If elected in 2008, Ron Paul will put an end to all of this destructive nonsense.

Copyright © All rights reserved.

Printed from:

Ron Paul’s Headshake At McCain….

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Ron Paul’s Headshake At McCain….

CLick-Above, Please!


Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Decisions to name storms draw concern

November 29, 2007 1 comment

Decisions to name storms draw concern
With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms.

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year’s 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn “named storm” status.

“They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to,” said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. “This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six.”

Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.

Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.

The number of a season’s named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners’ rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.

Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there’s any inconsistency in the practice of naming tropical storms.

“For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the storms named this year would have also been named,” said Bill Read, deputy director of the Miami-based center.

What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more satellites to monitor storms from above.

Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived.

But this season’s large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years.

Launch of QuikSCAT A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, out to sea.

Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn’t have been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal’s organization.

“Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named,” said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes.

As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph.

In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the relationship isn’t absolute.

Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system.

If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during Frank’s tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm.

That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in the northern Atlantic.

“In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation supported naming the system,” Frank said. “We would have been a little more conservative.”

Data inconsistencies The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston’s Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible.

But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true indicator of a tropical system’s status. Now that more accurate wind measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm strength, he said.

“An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and assessing one’s cancer,” Read said. “Would you use a doctor who only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?”

Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes.

In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical storms probably were named.

“The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone counts,” said Curry. “But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative or positive bias to any trend.”

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

CNN Debates Reveal Strong, Long Clinton Ties

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

CNN Debates Reveal Strong, Long Clinton Ties

CNN earned the reputation of being the “Clinton News Network” long ago. Wolf Blitzer and Company carried Bill and Hillary Clinton water during their two terms in the White House, so no one should be surprised that CNN is doing it now. The two most recent debates broadcast demonstrate the shameless collusion with the Clinton machine and the Democratic Party.

In the Democratic debate, Wolf acted more like a lamb after being warned by Clinton campaign officials not to pull a “Russert” on their candidate, that is, to ask a tough question. Blitzer complied, meekly giving Mrs. Clinton the opportunity to give a poll-tested, one-word answer about New York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants, the query she tripped over in the previous debate and not follow up. The charade included a plethora of “undecided voters” who turned out to be partisan activists reciting planted questions. The discovery of the fraud brought a Clintonian wave of denials, then admissions and finally promised not to repeat the offense.

Yet in the Republican debate hosted by CNN, the network chose a handful of YouTube video questions from thousands of submissions that “just happened” to be from Democratic activists and political operatives. So far, bloggers have discovered four such phony questioners:

Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”
Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone
Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson
Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr

CNN not only selected Gen. Kerr’s question, but …
Continues, Please Click Below…

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

The Essence of Liberty #193, Professor Yeager and 100 Percent Gold

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He wishes to make it abundantly clear that he does not speak for Sul Ross State University and Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of, a daily e-source of news not seen or head anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at

The Essence of Liberty: Part 193 (1)

Compiled by 

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

A Summary of Rothbard, Murray N. The Case For A 100 Percent GOLD DOLLAR by Jimmy T. LaBaume and Toni Jolin 

(The complete book is available for download at ) 

Professor Yeager and 100 Percent Gold

One of the most important discussions of the 100% gold standard is by Professor Leland Yeager. “The main objections to the gold standard are its vulnerability to great and sudden deflations and difficulties that national authorities face when a specie drain abroad threatens domestic bank reserves and forces contraction.” Yeager recognizes that none of these problems would exist with a 100% gold standard.

Yeager points out that the problem with fractional-reserves are due to the fractional reserve nature of the gold standard and not gold itself. The problem arises from the fact that individual actions no longer automatically insure the proper distribution of the gold supply. Then add central banking and you make things worse. Yeager concedes that, whether the Central Bank amplifies, remains indifferent or “offsets” gold flows, its behavior is not compatible with the principles of the full-fledged gold standard. Despite this view, he still flatly rejects a 100% gold standard in favor of freely fluctuating fiat money. He does this because, in his view, “only with fiat money can each governmental unit stabilize the price level in its own area in times of depression.”

But, a policy of stabilization is both fallacious and disastrous. To illustrate how a “stabilization” policy might work, consider a steel union in a certain area that causes unemployment by keeping its wage rates up, even though prices have fallen. Not only is this unjust, it also causes misallocations and distortions of production. Furthermore, it is futile to try to solve the problem by forcing consumers to pay higher prices.

Now, with reference to freely floating fiat moneys, if we push the logic to its reductio ad absurdum, the ultimate in freely fluctuating fiat money would be a different money issued by each and every individual. Although this could never come about on a free market, assume for a moment that it did. The world would be back to a very complex and chaotic barter and world trade would essentially cease.

Finally, Professor Yeager wonders why such “orthodox liberals” as Mises insisted on the “monetary internationalism” of the gold standard. One reason is because they favored monetary freedom rather than government management and manipulation of money. Secondly they favored the existence of money as compared to barter because they believed that money is one of the greatest and most significant features of the modern market economy—indeed of civilization itself.

Our alternatives are stark. We can either return to gold or we can pursue the fiat path and return to barter. Ultimately civilization itself may very well be at stake.

Next Previous

Copyright ©2004,

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL can be contacted at

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.



To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.


Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Naomi Wolf: America’s Fascist Coup Owes Legacy To Bush’s Nazi Grandfather

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Naomi Wolf: America’s Fascist Coup Owes Legacy To Bush’s Nazi Grandfather
Author of “10 steps” speaks publicly for the first time about origins of modern-day tyranny

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 29, 2007

digg_title = ‘Americas Fascist Coup Has Origins In Bushs Nazi Grandfather'; digg_bodytext = ‘Author Naomi Wolf, who made headlines earlier this year after she identified the ten steps to fascism that were being followed to a tee by the Bush administration, spoke publicly for the first time yesterday about the origins of what we see unfolding today, Prescott Bushs attempt to launch a Nazi coup in 1930s America.';

Author Naomi Wolf, who made headlines earlier this year after she identified the ten steps to fascism that were being followed to a tee by the Bush administration, spoke publicly for the first time yesterday about the origins of what we see unfolding today, Prescott Bush’s attempt to launch a Nazi coup in 1930’s America.

Speaking on the Alex Jones Show, Wolf said that she was first alerted to begin researching America’s slide into fascism when her friend, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, warned her that the same events that laid the foundations for the rise of the Third Reich in early 1930’s Germany, when it was still a Parliamentary democracy, were being mirrored in modern-day America.

“A small group of people began very systematically to use the law and dismantle the Constitution and put pressure on citizens to subvert the law – and that opened the door for everything that followed,” said Wolf.

“When I started reading, not only are tactics and strategy being reproduced exactly right now by the Bush administration – but actual sound bytes and language and images and scenarios are being reproduced,” she added. Wolf’s essay, Fascist America, In 10 Easy Steps, has received plaudits for how it succinctly describes the ways in which dictatorships the world over throughout the 20th century have evolved by following the exact same blueprint for tyranny that we see unfolding in America today.

“Everybody that wants to close down a Democracy does the exact same ten things, the same classic steps and unfortunately we’re starting to see these ten steps being put in place in the United States,” said Wolf.

For the first time publicly, Wolf traced the origins of contemporary developments back to President Bush’s Nazi grandfather, Prescott Bush, and his plan to launch a fascist coup in the 1930’s.

“There was a scheme in the 30’s and Prescott Bush was one of the leaders of this scheme, an industrialist who admired fascism and thought that was a good idea – to have a coup in the United States along the lines of the coup they saw taking place in Italy and Germany,” said Wolf, referring to the testimony of Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler, who was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush – the current President’s grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush.

A recent BBC radio report confirmed that there was an attempted coup led by Prescott Bush.

“Smedley Butler had been involved with violent regime change throughout his career, but he was approached by these conspirators, including Prescott Bush, and he outed them and he testified to Congress that they were planning a coup in the United States – it’s in the Congressional record,” said Wolf, adding that the coup was being bankrolled by German industrialist and one of Hitler’s chief financiers Fritz Thyssen.

“What is amazing to me and resonant to me is that when the Nuremberg trials were finally put in place, these Nazi industrialists, some of whom had colluded with Americans including IBM, were about to be brought to trial and sent to prison – there was a moment at which they were going to look into turning the spotlight on their American partners,” said Wolf.

The author added that laws such as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 were consciously designed to protect current President Bush and his co-conspirators from being indicted for war crimes, harking back to Prescott Bush’s history.

“The family history is that you can make so much money uniting corporate interests with a fascist state that violently represses people, that’s why when I saw the recycling of so much Nazi language, Nazi tactics, Nazi strategies, Nazi imagery in the Bush White House and then finally belatedly people brought to me this history of Prescott Bush’s attempted coup and Smedley Butler’s revelations – it gives me absolute chills,” said Wolf.

Endgame 1.5 documents how the global elite are seizing the infrastructure of the United States as part of a long-term plan to integrate the U.S. with Canada and Mexico.
Watch it online at Prison!


The fact that Bush’s grandfather was a Nazi cannot be presented alone as proof that President Bush is carrying on the legacy, but his policies and rhetoric, which in her essay Wolf clearly documents are borrowed from the Nazi playbook, and in particular the recent move to smear administration critics as potential terrorists, are evidence that George W. Bush is the figurehead for a modern-day fascist coup in America led by the Neo-Cons.

Wolf concluded that history shows the only safe course for preserving freedom in such a climate is to prosecute and jail the protagonists of the coup as early as possible, a process many would argue should have been enacted several years ago.


Alex Jones’ Endgame features rare archive footage of Smedley Butler exposing the fascist coup. Martial Law features an interview with researcher John Buchanan, who was the first to discover documents pertaining to Prescott Bush’s activities in the national archives. Watch for free at Google Video here.

Click here to listen to the MP3 interview with Naomi Wolf.

Copyright © All rights reserved.

Printed from:

Snoop Drones: First Texas, Now Florida

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Snoop Drones: First Texas, Now Florida

Kurt Nimmo
Thursday November 29, 2007

digg_title = ‘Snoop Drones: First Texas, Now Florida'; digg_url = ‘;;

“The Miami-Dade police department will begin experimenting with high-tech drones as law enforcement tools beginning next year,” reports Local 10. “Although the military has been using unmanned aircraft systems for years, this will be the first time they are used in law enforcement…. Only the Miami-Dade police department and the Houston police department were given permission by the FAA to experiment with the drones.”

All of this is just the beginning, of course. Next up, a special “agile air traffic system” which establishes “routine access to the national airspace for UAVs and other new vehicles,” according to Next Generation Air Transportation System, a plan enacted in 2003 by Bush and Congress under VISION 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176).

In 2004, “Access 5, a joint government-industry program was initiated. The program brings together NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense and six major industry members. Their goal: to plan the safe, orderly and efficient integration of UAVs into civil airspace over the next five years.” In other words, expect UAVs in your neighborhood in the future.

In March of last year, a House of Representatives panel “heard testimony from police agencies that envision using UAVs for everything from border security to domestic surveillance high above American cities. Private companies also hope to use UAVs for tasks such as aerial photography and pipeline monitoring,” Declan McCullagh wrote for CNET News at the time.

In a scene that could have been inspired by the movie “Minority Report,” one North Carolina county is using a UAV equipped with low-light and infrared cameras to keep watch on its citizens. The aircraft has been dispatched to monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air–close enough to identify faces–and many more uses, such as the aerial detection of marijuana fields, are planned.

Or, as well, photographing those pesky antiwar and anti-globalization demonstrators. In fact, it appears the Pentagon or the Ministry of Homeland Security is one step ahead of local police departments. In September, during an antiwar demo in Lafayette Square, people reported “dragonflies or little helicopters” buzzing around, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

No agency admits to having deployed insect-size spy drones. But a number of U.S. government and private entities acknowledge they are trying. Some federally funded teams are even growing live insects with computer chips in them, with the goal of mounting spyware on their bodies and controlling their flight muscles remotely.

The robobugs could follow suspects, guide missiles to targets or navigate the crannies of collapsed buildings to find survivors.

Call them “beamed power micro UAVs,” as blogger David Hambling does. “Beamed power micro UAVs would have obvious limitations — they’re not going to be flying hundreds of miles away over enemy territory. But for covert surveillance in the domestic arena, they might be just the thing. I have no idea whether there are any dragonfly spies out there yet; but if there aren’t now, there soon will be.”

If the antiwar people in Washington are to believed, little dragonfly-sized snoop drones are already a reality. But then the CIA was cranking out similar devices more than a decade ago.

As for the larger cousins of the micro UAVs, back in December of 2002 Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner said “UAVs could be an effective means of watching the home front in the war on terror” while admitting “they’re quite intrusive,” not that intrusiveness and violating privacy ever concerned our rulers.

Among the agencies now committed to deploying UAVs are the Coast Guard and Border Patrol, both of which are moving to the Homeland Security Department. Other non-Defense Department agencies, such as the Transportation Department, are in the early stages of exploring possible security roles for drones. Meanwhile, the Energy Department, which set up a UAV program in 1993 to study clouds and climate change, has been developing high-altitude instruments to measure radiation in the atmosphere….

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, interest in UAVs among federal agencies has swelled, industry sources said. “There’s been a lot more activity over the last couple of months,” said one manufacturing executive who asked not to be named. “It’s been really intense. We’re doing things now that we wouldn’t have been doing a year ago.”

It appears everybody’s getting in on the action, so why not the local cops?

If you think they government will limit itself to studying clouds and so-called climate change, think again. Remember Operation TIPS, the supposedly stillborn effort to usher in a chapter out of George Orwell’s 1984? The FBI, CIA and NSA have snooped on — and infiltrated and sabotaged — the political opposition for decades (recall COINTELPRO, Operation Chaos, Project MERRIMAC, Project MINARET, Project SHAMROCK, ECHELON, NSA warrantless surveillance, etc., on and on, ad nauseam).

And then there was that confidential FBI memorandum sent to over 15,000 local law enforcement agencies back in October, 2003, urging them to be on the look-out for the “criminal activities” of protesters (for instance, using the “internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate … activities prior to demonstrations,” and “[d]uring the course of a demonstration … using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing events,” and other such suspicious behavior). During COINTELPRO in the 60s and early 70s, the FBI kept over 500,000 domestic intelligence files at their headquarters and an undetermined amount at regional offices.

Of course, we are told the drones in Texas — the maiden flight was supposed to be a secret, but an intrepid news team put the kibosh to that — will be used for monitoring traffic. No doubt the UAVs will be used for traffic, as local police are keen to increase revenues, but if history is any indicator, they will be taking orders from the feds as well — and the federal government, like any self-perpetuating leviathan, is interested in not only keeping tabs on political opponents but also destroying them, same as any other criminal organization does to the competition or those who might endanger their livelihood.

Copyright © All rights reserved.

Printed from:

Bush’s Next Preemptive Strike

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Washington Post
November 29, 2007
Pg. 25

Bush’s Next Preemptive Strike

By Harold Meyerson

George W. Bush is focusing now on his legacy. Duck. Run. Hide.

Some of his legacy-building, I’ll allow, is commendable, if overdue — most particularly, his efforts to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which he ignored for seven long years. But the linchpin of Bush’s legacy, it appears, is to make his Iraq policy a permanent fixture of American statecraft.

On Monday, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a declaration pledging that their governments would put in place a long-term political and security pact sometime next year. “The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States,” Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the White House official in charge of Iraq war matters, said at the briefing unveiling the agreement.

What Bush will almost surely be pushing for is permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, enshrined in a pact he can sign a few months before he leaves office. And here, as they used to say, is the beauty part: As far as Bush is concerned, he doesn’t have to seek congressional ratification for such an enduring commitment of American force, treasure and lives.

“We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress,” Lute said. The administration is looking to sign a status-of-forces agreement, which requires Senate ratification if it’s classified as a treaty but not if it’s classified as an executive agreement. One need not be able to solve the riddle of the Sphinx to guess which of those classifications the Bush White House will go for.

But if Bush tries to lock the next president into permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, he may also be locking in a Democrat as the next president. Ironically, just when events on the ground in Iraq aren’t looking as disastrous as they did six months ago, Bush’s efforts to make the U.S. presence permanent would drape the necks of the Republican presidential and congressional candidates with one large, squawking albatross.

Having to defend permanent U.S. bases in Iraq would be difficult enough for Republicans on the 2008 ballot. There are a few major differences, after all, between Iraq and states such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, where we’ve stationed forces for more than half a century. For starters, those countries are internally peaceable, and their governments are recognized as legitimate by their citizens. Nobody is setting roadside bombs or shooting at our troops or contesting the authority of their government to govern.

But imagine the political dilemma for Republican candidates if Bush argues that he can put such an agreement into effect without getting Congress’s approval. A lame-duck president with a 30 percent approval rating would be claiming that he alone has the authority to keep our Iraqi occupation going for years to come, preempting the power of both Congress and the next president to chart a different course. What would nominee Romney or Giuliani or McCain have to say about that? What would the Republicans in Congress do? Thus far, they’ve all proven themselves utterly incapable of breaking with Bush on the war.

By negotiating such an accord, Bush would in fact ensure that the 2008 election becomes the last thing the Republicans can afford: a referendum on Bush and his war. If the dividing line between the two parties is that one backs Bush on Iraq and the other does not, the Republicans might as well give up the ghost and nominate Dick Cheney as their presidential standard-bearer. Bush’s policy legacy, in short, poses a serious threat to what one presumes he wishes his political legacy to be — a thriving Republican Party.

I am presupposing here that the Democrats have both the gumption and the sense to oppose a pact with the Maliki government that commits our forces to an open-ended presence in a nation of unreconciled sects. The party’s leading presidential candidates have managed to be both reticent and confusing when it comes to their ultimate vision of the U.S. role in Iraq. The Bush-Maliki negotiations should concentrate the Democratic mind on the inadvisability of keeping U.S. forces indefinitely in a land where instability and civil strife will go on indefinitely as well.

The president who waged a preemptive war now wants to lock in place a preemptive occupation. Only this time, instead of preempting a foreign nation, he is seeking to preempt Congress and his successor. It’s the logical conclusion for his misshapen and miserable presidency, and I doubt the American people — if they have any say in the matter — will stand for it.


Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Author Who Wants To Kick Christianity Out of Military – Honored

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment


Posted 1:00 AM Eastern

Author Who Wants To Kick Christianity Out of Military – Honored

by Jim Kouri
November 29, 2007
© 2006

Mikey Weinstein, author of “With God on Our Side, One Man’s War against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military” and Founder/President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is scheduled to be honored with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for his work in removing Christianity from US Armed Services.

Weinstein and his international team of researchers and producers are launching a series of lawsuits against the Pentagon in a concentrated effort to deprive certain military personnel from openly practicing their religion — Christians.

“Try removing Allah or Mohammed from the military and see what happens? With Christians you can get away with anything. Judge Andrew Napolitano’s new book “A Nation of Sheep” is right on. Christians are truly sheep,” said Lorraine Tillman.

Those who support Weinstein and his non-profit MRFF claim that he’s “breaking the chokehold on the Evangelical encroachment into the most technologically lethal organization in the world — the US Military.”

“Their reasoning is ridiculous. Wouldn’t having military personnel who believe in — and rely on — Jesus Christ make for better soldiers?” asks former US Marine intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sidney Francis.

“Weinstein and his followers cloak their actions with the US Constitution, but I don’t see it in my copy. Perhaps it’s in the section adjacent to a woman’s right to kill an unborn baby,” said Det. Francis.

According to political consultant Mike Baker, many of the members of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation are left-wingers from the Hollywood elite. Their website lists many liberal-left activists including television producer and People for the American Way founder Norman Lear, actors Ed Azner and Ed Begley, Jr., former “Mamas and Papas” singer Michelle Phillips, and has-been movie star Eric Roberts.


“It’s the same cast of anti-American activists under a different banner. These people want to kick God and Jesus Christ out of the schools, the military, the courts and anywhere else they can think of,” said Baker.

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece, Weinstein and one of his cohorts published the following:

“What [did] the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game ‘Left Behind: Eternal Forces’ (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which ‘soldiers for Christ’ hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like UN peacekeepers.

“The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department’s “America Supports You” program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website , it planned an entertainment tour called the ‘Military Crusade.'”

The MRFF website boasts of the organization’s close relationship with the big media such as CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, Dan Rather, Bill Moyers and others.

“These are well-connected people who only wish harm to our military… and what’s more harmful than removing Christianity. MRFF is a front group for the ultra-left People for the American Way,” said former US Air Force intelligence officer now a police lieutenant in New Jersey Stephan Rogers.

Rogers believes the goal is to change the loyalty of the US military. “If our soldiers don’t believe in God and Country, they will be more inclined to accept United Nations honchos as their superiors and less inclined towards loyalty to the American people.”

© 2007 – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

For radio interviews regarding this article:



Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Sailor to Spend 12th Christmas Behind Bars

November 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Sailor to Spend 12th Christmas Behind Bars

© Jack Cashill – November 29, 2007

Still a little drunk and almost assuredly drugged, Steven Nary regained his senses as Juan Pifarre climbed on his back and attempted to rape him.

“Please, stop,” the lanky, 18 year-old sailor begged as he struggled through a paralyzing stupor. The 53 year-old Pifarre would not.

Finally, in desperation, Nary grabbed a glass mug by Pifarre’s bedside and smacked the chunky, coked-up Pifarre in the head with it. Pifarre fought back.

When the young sailor finally subdued him, he grabbed his clothes and fled back through the deserted streets to his ship. That was nearly twelve years ago, and the last time Steven Nary would negotiate the world as a free man.

I recount Steven’s incredible story in my book, What’s The Matter With California , and his was the review I was most concerned about. Getting the book to him was not easy in the first place.

I had to send the book to the Catholic chaplain at the ironically named Pleasant Valley State Prison where Steven now resides. The chaplain, in turn, had to rip the covers off lest some contraband be smuggled within them.

“You did a great job in telling what happened to me,” Steven wrote in his customary longhand last week, much to my relief.

“Oh,” he added, “it was hard reading about me, but for some reason it is all the good things that people say that bring me to tears.”

Steven made an additional point. “Thank you,” he wrote, “for the extra insight into the political atmosphere in the city at that time.”

As Steven learned for the first time, the political stars were not in alignment for him that early March 1996 morning. Had he been in any other city at any other time and been assaulted by any other man he would not likely have been tried for anything let alone the preposterous charge of second-degree murder.

But this was San Francisco in a Clinton re-election year. After Steven reported what happened to a Navy chaplain, the politically sensitive Navy washed its hands of the young sailor in unseemly and likely illegal haste.

As to Pifarre, not only was he gay in America’s gayest city, but he was also among the most influential movers and shakers in the Hispanic community. As publisher of Horizontes, a Spanish language paper, he had real presence in the Latino community and serious pull at City Hall.

That Pifarre had secured his residency through a fraudulent marriage only burnished his star in this would-be sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. That he had several priors for sexual assault and exposure, a history of violent sexual encounters, and a cocaine jones seemed to many altogether normative.

So blind has the left become in a people’s republic like San Francisco, that they fail to see the obvious. A young sailor in the “homophobic” military of 1996 had no more chance for justice in San Francisco than the Scottsboro boys did in 1930’s Alabama.

Less actually. The U.S. Supreme court intervened on the Scottsboro boys’ behalf, freeing several. Finally even the Alabama governor commuted the death sentence of another. But to date, no official in this hyper-sensitive city or state has bothered himself on Steven’s behalf.

Steven Nary is no Leonard Peltier or Mumia Abu Jamal, both radical, cold-blooded killers who have become darlings of the left by sticking to the classic lie, “Some other dude did it.”

He is not looking for excuses. Not long after being handed over to the San Francisco authorities, Steven had a necessary awakening.

“I felt my life was over, nonexistent,” he tells me of that period. “I was a 18-year-old kid who was scared, alone, and hopeless. I had no contact with my parents or anyone else. The military at the time just abandoned me.”

Steven recalls his constant struggle to check his tears lest the hard cases in the jail sense a weakness. One morning, which started as grim as any other, several nuns walked by his cell and others asking if anyone wanted to attend church services.

Although not Catholic or particularly religious, Steven “couldn’t resist their precious, happily glowing nature.” He attended the service, which he found to be “beautiful.”

At this service, he learned that these were Sisters of Charity, Mother Teresa’s group, working out of San Francisco. Impressed, Steven started going every Saturday. To this day, he credits those sisters not only with his newly found faith but also with his sanity.

In his conversion to Catholicism he feels the need to accept responsibility for everything he has done, including the death of Pifarre, even if unintentional.

Besides, he knows that if he goes into his first parole hearing a few years hence playing innocent victim, even if true, “This system will never let me out.”

Now, finally, as he faces his twelfth Christmas in prison the world is beginning to pay just a little bit of attention. For those readers interested in sharing their Christmas wishes with Steven, please check my website at (see below) to learn how.

* Please send letters, not cards, in regulation envelopes to:

Steven Nary P-61614
P.V.S.P. BFB3-132 L
PO Box 8502
Coalinga, CA 93210

* Paperback books can be sent to:

Brian Phillips
229 W. Merced St.
Avenal, CA 93204

Please specify that they are intended for Steven.

Cashill’s newest book, What’s the Matter with California, is available in bookstores – or you can order your autographed copy online .

to top of page
Subscribe to the Cashill mailing list. It’s FREE!

Receive political news, invitations to political events and special offers.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Medals Carry Great Weight: Marine Corporal Declined The Navy Cross….

November 28, 2007 4 comments

“In a rare gesture, Marine Cpl. Dominic Esquibel declined the Navy Cross he earned on Nov. 25, 2004, as a scout sniper. On that day, he destroyed two enemy machine gun nests and saved two of five Marines who lay wounded in a Fallujah courtyard. Marine Lt. Col. Curtis Hill says Esquibel turned down the award “for personal reasons.” Hill declined to elaborate.”

See Also:
Photos, etc.
Medals carry great weight, as do men who wear themUpdated 11/10/2006 12:32 AM ETBy Gregg Zoroya and Oren Dorell, USA TODAY

World War I had Alvin York, who led an attack that killed or captured 164 German troops. In World War II, Audie Murphy became the most decorated U.S. soldier for his exploits against the Germans in France.

Now, as the nation observes Veterans Day, America is witnessing a new generation of combat heroes from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

PHOTOS:  America’s 21st-century war heroes

Sgt. Maj. Bradley Kasal is one. Shot seven times during close-quarter combat in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004, he rolled atop a fellow Marine to shield him from a grenade blast.

Navy corpsman Luis Fonseca Jr., 25, ran through enemy fire in Nasiriyah in 2003 to rescue or treat at least eight wounded Marines.

Army Delta Force Master Sgt. Donald Hollenbaugh, 42, held off insurgents from the rooftop of a building in Fallujah in 2004 until wounded U.S. troops were evacuated. Hollenbaugh retired last year after 20 years of service.

Only one person — Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Smith has received the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest, since the war on terrorism began in 2001. Smith died at the trigger of a .50-caliber machine gun in April 2003 outside Baghdad. He earned the award for killing dozens of Iraqi soldiers who threatened to overrun his small detachment of engineers.

Twenty-six others — Kasal, Fonseca and Hollenbaugh among them — have earned the nation’s second-highest awards for heroism: Navy Crosses for 14 Marines and six sailors; Distinguished Service Crosses for four soldiers; and Air Force Crosses for two airmen.

More awards are in the pipeline. “There are multiple Medals of Honor being reviewed to make their way to the president for his review,” says Bill Carr, a deputy undersecretary of Defense. “We’re a nation that loves the struggle of men and women being better, being bigger than themselves, being selfless and taking risks on behalf of one another.”

During Vietnam, almost 2,000 troops earned the nation’s highest awards. For the 38-day battle of Iwo Jima during World War II, 27 Medals of Honor were awarded.

Compared with other American wars, the number of medal recipients in Iraq and Afghanistan is small. That’s because the earlier conflicts lasted longer, involved more U.S. troops and featured more intense combat, says retired Marine lieutenant colonel Thomas Richards. He earned a Navy Cross in Vietnam and is a senior official with the Legion of Valor, an association of medal recipients

As with those earlier heroes, the stories of gallantry coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan offer glimpses into the horrors of war. This new generation of decorated troops talks of acting without thinking, except for moments of clarity when death seemed inevitable.

“I thought I’d bleed to death,” recalls Kasal, 40, who earned a Navy Cross. “That’s why I rolled over (the wounded Marine) to save him.”

The medal recipients describe the shock of witnessing, and playing a part in, unimaginable violence. Some talk of emotional wounds still raw long after the fighting. Others say the medal itself bears a psychological weight — and carries consequences.

After receiving the Navy Cross, Marine reservist Scott Montoya, 37, says he was slightly embarrassed to see his face plastered on billboards in Orange County, Calif., where he’s a sheriff’s deputy.

Airman John Chapman, 31, of San Antonio, a combat air controller posthumously awarded the Air Force Cross for action in Afghanistan, had a ship named after him.

A toy company created an action figure in the image of Air Force Cross recipient Jason Cunningham, 26, of Camarillo, Calif. Marine Capt. Brian “Tosh” Chontosh’s charge down an enemy trench became a segment in a video game, and he was asked to escort President Bush at a 2004 inaugural ball.

“They went in with the human frailties we all possess,” says Wynton Hall, co-author of Home of the Brave, a book on contemporary valor, “and they managed to perform somehow in an extraordinary way.”

Action born of desperation

Heroics in Iraq and Afghanistan were often desperate acts triggered by something that went wrong — an ambush, a counterattack, unexpected enemy resistance.

On Nov. 14, 2004, Army Col. James Coffman Jr. accompanied 85 Iraqi army commandos to relieve a police station that was under attack in Mosul. He and his Iraqi force were ambushed.

“They had baited a trap for us to roll into,” Coffman remembers. As they took defensive positions in a street, waves of insurgents attacked. More than half the Iraqi commandos with Coffman were wounded and 13 were killed before U.S. troops came to rescue them.

“I was ready to rush forward and engage them, hand-to-hand if need be,” says Coffman, 52, who was down to four bullets in his rifle when help arrived. “I was determined that my (severed) head was not going to be on TV.”

Medal recipients remember these experiences in images frozen in time.

Kasal recalls the sight of a grenade seconds from detonation. Already critically wounded on the floor of the house in Fallujah on Nov. 13, 2004, he tried to strip the gear off the fallen Marine next to him, Alex Nicoll, to locate a wound. That’s when Kasal heard something land close by.

“I looked, and there was a grenade sitting right there,” he says. “I pushed Nicoll over and rolled on top of him and covered him up. The grenade went off. It rang my doorbell. The blast hit me in the leg, back of the arms, buttocks. The flak jacket took a lot of the blast.”

Both men were carried from the building by other Marines, and the structure was destroyed with a satchel charge. After a lengthy convalescence, Kasal now runs a recruiting station. Nicoll’s left leg was amputated.

Many of the medal recipients were certain they would die.

Fonseca received a Navy Cross for heroism on March 23, 2003, in the opening days of the war, when a column of Marine tracked vehicles came under intense machine-gun, rocket and mortar fire. Then they were strafed accidentally by a U.S. jet. Through it all, Fonseca was running from one vehicle to the next, treating wounded Marines.

“All this chaos around you, and I told myself real quick, ‘I’m not going to make it out of here,’ ” Fonseca recalls. Seventeen Marines died that day, and Fonseca remembers waiting to be next. “Is it going to be quick? Is it going to be painful? Am I going to feel anything?”

The moment of clarity for Marine Staff Sgt. Anthony Viggiani, 26, came during a frantic search for an enemy machine gun nest while he was exposed to intense fire in Afghanistan on June 3, 2004.

The insurgents firing the machine gun had pinned down five of Viggiani’s Marines — his “boys,” as he calls them, though they are just a few years his junior. Two were wounded, and Viggiani plunged down a steep hillside searching for that enemy position. Then he saw something: a piece of clothing draped over an arm that barely jutted from an opening in the rocks.

“I’ll never forget. It was smoky gray with red piping on it.”

Viggiani fired his rifle into the cave and dropped a grenade inside. The blast killed the five insurgents and silenced the machine gun. “I took the heat off my boys,” he says.

The lingering images for former Marine Cpl. Marco Martinez put him at the center of a terrifying action movie in which people are trying to kill him, but he kills them first.

“It’s kind of surreal to shoot somebody from an arm’s length away. You can see what their teeth look like, what their hair looks like. And you look into their eyes and their blood spatters on you,” says Martinez, 25, today a college student living in Laguna Niguel, Calif.

He led a squad of Marines in clearing two large residences in Tarmiya, Iraq, filled with Iraqi fighters. The battle ended only after Martinez single-handedly charged an enemy bunker and used a grenade and his rifle to kill the five insurgents inside.

“The grenade blew up. I saw half-bodies flying through the air, arms flying,” he says. “I can’t emphasize enough how violent and fast the close-quarter battle is.”

Hard thing to bear

Most medal recipients question whether they deserved the honor. “I have my definition of a hero and names I put there. And my name doesn’t fit,” says Hollenbaugh, recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross for his rooftop defense on April 26, 2004.

In a rare gesture, Marine Cpl. Dominic Esquibel declined the Navy Cross he earned on Nov. 25, 2004, as a scout sniper. On that day, he destroyed two enemy machine gun nests and saved two of five Marines who lay wounded in a Fallujah courtyard. Marine Lt. Col. Curtis Hill says Esquibel turned down the award “for personal reasons.” Hill declined to elaborate.

Some recipients say the medal can be difficult to bear, either because it begs comparison with heroes of the past, or because it reminds them of a terrible day.

“I didn’t wear my medal. I didn’t want to wear it,” says Marine Sgt. Jeremiah Workman, who received the Navy Cross for fighting his way up a Fallujah stairwell three different times to save fellow Marines or recover their bodies. Three Marines and 47 insurgents died there. “I looked at it (the medal), and all I had was bad memories.”

Battling demons, as well

The medals don’t shield recipients from the lingering emotional effects of combat. Workman, ultimately diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), had been transferred to Parris Island, S.C., to be a drill instructor when the demons of that day in 2003 caused him to suffer an emotional “meltdown” in the chow hall.

“I was in a world of (trouble). I was heading down fast,” he says.

His wife, Jessica, found him toying with a rifle in the garage of her parents’ home during a visit there last June. Since then, counseling has eased his stress, she says.

“I’m not going to say I’m out of the ocean yet,” he says. “But at least my head’s above water.”

Jessica Workman says the medal creates its own stress.

“In the long run, I think it caused him a lot more trouble,” she says. “Everyone kind of looks up to him, and it’s hard when he hasn’t even sorted out all his issues yet.”

Fonseca says his stress led him to alcohol abuse that grew worse after the Navy Cross was awarded. “I was in denial,” he says. “I was looked upon as this doc who did great things out there in Iraq. And so it was hard for me to say that I needed help, that I was having nightmares and dealing with issues I couldn’t control.”

Fonseca says he was lucky his commanders intervened to see he got counseling and medication. Now Fonseca lectures on the issue of PTSD. He has come to grips with knowing that even a hero, a Navy Cross recipient, can have flaws.

“It was like Superman coming out and saying, ‘OK, Kryptonite is my weakness.’ PTSD was my weakness,” he says.

Montoya, the Marine reservist and sheriff’s deputy, earned his Navy Cross for heroism on April 8, 2003, when he rushed into the open on five separate occasions to rescue a civilian and Marines.

In one instance, he hoisted a Marine over his shoulder and ran 200 yards despite enemy fire. “I could feel I was going to get shot,” he says. He wasn’t.

As a medal recipient, Montoya has visited with veterans groups, and the old warriors embraced him, expressed pride in his heroism and taught him that he was now part of a military legacy.

“I am just learning now to become more proud of my award,” Montoya says. “But I also want to make the distinction that it is not mine. I basically hold the Navy Cross in trust for the next generation of Marines that come aboard.”

Find this article at:

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Hot Interview: KAJO’s Carl Wilson Interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment
November 28, 2007

Hot Interview

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano and co-host of Fox News Talk’s “Brian & the Judge” radio show and author of his new book; “A Nation of Sheep” interviewed by talk show host Carl Wilson.  Excellent interview and highly recommended.  Judge talks about Ron Paul and answers Devvy Kidd’s question about judges legislating from the bench.

KAJO’s Carl Wilson Interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano
Napolitano on Ron Paul, the Constitution and answers Devvy Kidd’s Question   wma
Napolitano on Ron Paul, the Constitution and answers Devvy Kidd’s Question   mp3
KAJO Radio

Americans pay for emerging world government

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Americans pay for emerging world government

By: Cliff Kincaid | Published on 11/28/07    

In its new Human Development Report calling for another $86 billion in aid to the rest of the world, supposedly to fight the effects of climate change, the United Nations acts distressed that people in “rich” countries like the U.S. don’t take the theory of man-made global warming more seriously. Its answer ― and this is actually spelled out in the report ― is that too much “editorial balance” in the media has prevented “informed debate” about the need for “urgent action” in the form of higher taxes on energy.

The U.N. report complains that, according to one poll, roughly four in ten Americans believe that human activity is responsible for global warming, but just as many believe it is a natural phenomenon. This is not acceptable to the global elite.

The U.N. is calling for more propaganda from the media, in order to push the American people toward acceptance of the alarmist view and higher energy taxes and the increased foreign aid that would result. It just so happens this would also result in more money flowing into the coffers of the U.N. at a time when the world body has already been found guilty of exaggerating the AIDS problem to generate more funds for itself.

In order to provide the “new and additional” foreign aid, the report calls for exploring a range of “innovative financing options.” This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. Indeed, the report openly calls for carbon taxes and aviation taxes. It proposes a “Climate Change Mitigation Facility” to mobilize the $25 – $50 billion “needed annually” for developing countries.

Not surprisingly, the report hails Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” film but says nothing about the numerous errors in it. Yet, “For all the progress that has been achieved,” the report declares, “the battle for public hearts and minds is not yet won.” Put another way, it says that “…the current state of public opinion does not provide a secure foundation for urgent action.”

In other words, you are not yet worked up into enough of a panic.

You, Mr. and Mrs. America, helped pay for this. The Human Development Report is a product of the U.N. Development Program. The U.S. is the largest contributor to this U.N. agency, providing more than $100 million annually.

This U.N. report has one of the most devious rationales for censorship that you will ever see. In a section of the report (page 67) about “The Role of the Media,” the U.N. informs us that “The media have a critical role to play in informing and changing public opinion.” It goes on to lament that “one study” in the U.S. on coverage of climate change “found that the balance norm resulted in over half of articles in the country’s most prestigious newspapers between 1990 and 2002 giving equal weight to the findings of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and of the climate science community, and the views of the climate skeptics―many of them funded by vested interest groups. Continued confusion in public opinion is one consequence.”

The U.N. is saying, in effect, that the American people haven’t been indoctrinated enough, and that the media have to provide even more one-sided coverage.

“Editorial balance is a laudable and essential objective in any free press,” the report goes on to say. “But balance between what? If there is a strong and overwhelming ‘majority’ view among the world’s top scientists dealing with climate change, citizens have a right to expect to be informed about that view. Of course, they also have a right to be informed about minority views that do not reflect a scientific consensus. However, informed judgment is not helped when editorial selection treats the two views as equivalent.

Notice how the contrary view is being marginalized as unscientific, uninformed and the product of the special interest groups. But nobody is supposed to question the wisdom of those on the U.N. side of the issue.

This reminded me of when Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech at the leftist National Conference on Media Reform and faulted the media for covering two sides of the global warming debate “when there is no debate in the scientific community.” Ironically, in the same speech, Sanders claimed conservatives were 99 percent in control of talk radio and that it was time “to open the question of the fairness doctrine again” to restrict what they say and how they say it. Clearly, the purpose in a “Fairness Doctrine” is not to offer different points of view but to silence viewpoints liberals regard as unsound or unpopular.

The U.N.’s Human Development Report is an example of this mindset at the international level. It’s a scandal that we are being forced to pay for it.

In various tables in the report, countries are judged on how many of the “major international environmental treaties” and “major international human rights instruments” they have signed and ratified. Here, again, the U.S. comes up short. The U.S. has failed to ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, as well as treaties on women’s rights, children’s rights, and others. The Sea Treaty could come up for a Senate vote at any time.

The goal was spelled out in the 1994 edition of the Human Development Report, which included an essay by Jan Tinbergen calling for a strengthening of the United Nations system. Ultimately, he said, “What is needed is a World Government.”

Our major media can be expected to follow the advice of the Human Development Report and further propagandize the American people on global warming and other issues. That effort will complement the campaign to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” and silence conservative and dissenting voices in the media. Our new book, The Death of Talk Radio?, addresses this threat.

It is time to recognize that our freedom and sovereignty are under all-out attack. The least we can and should do is to stop subsidizing our enemies. That means defunding the United Nations and defeating the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Original URL:

What The World Could Expect From Dr. Ron Paul’s Non-Interventionist America

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

What The World Could Expect From Dr. Ron Paul’s Non-Interventionist America

by Michael Scheuer
by Michael Scheuer


Amidst the cacophony of everyday events around world, people outside the United States ought to cock an ear toward America States and listen closely for the quiet but resonant voice of a Texas gentleman named Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is a retired obstetrician, a 10 term Republican congressman from the 14th district of Texas and a Republican candidate in the 2008 race for the US presidency. And if you listen closely to Dr. Paul, you will hear the only authentic American voice in a field of nearly twenty presidential candidates from both parties.

It is, these days, both trite and inaccurate to say that “America is a nation of laws and not men.” Since 1945, for example, U.S. presidents routinely have involved the United States in wars that Congress does not declare, notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution’s clear mandate that only Congress can declare war. For more than thirty years, successive U.S. Congresses and presidents have refused to enforce border control and immigration laws already on the books, thereby abetting the deterioration of America’s social cohesion, social and educational services, and national security. And for just as long, presidents, congressman, and senators of both parties have ignored the interests of everyday Americans to earn donations and retirement sinecures – both, really, barely disguised bribes – from the U.S.-based military industry, the multinational oil companies, and foreign lobbies flush with money, such as those representing Israel and Saudi Arabia. The foreign lobbies are particularly despicable because American parents pay for U.S. politicians’ kowtowing for money to these foreign entities with the lives of their soldier-children and their savings. Sadly, therefore, it is a bad joke to say that America is today a country of laws not men.

But that is why Dr. Paul’s voice is important and, increasingly, is being listened to by Americans. It also the reason that the slander machines of the Democrat and Republican parties, U.S. military-related industries and their financiers, and the foreign lobbies are working overtime to discredit and ridicule Dr. Paul. These self-appointed elites know that Dr. Paul’s voice is not only the authentic voice of Americans and their historical experience, but also potentially the voice of their doom, because impotence, shame, and drastically less war-profiteering will be theirs if the rule-of-law endorsed by Mr. Paul is reestablished in the United States.

Mr. Paul places his faith in the Constitution of the United States and the legacy left to Americans by their founding generation. The republican government created by America’s revolutionary generation was meant to be the agent of an expanding domain for freedom, liberty, prosperity, and equal opportunity at home. It was never intended to be the militarized installer of those attributes abroad. “Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [the United States'] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be,” said Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, in 1821, in words that Americans are today being reminded of by Dr. Paul.

But she does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. … She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.

Dr. Paul speaks in the tradition of Secretary Adams, and in plainer words he speaks against – indeed, he damns – the bipartisan American governing class which, since 1945, has “insensibly chang[ed] from liberty to force” the spirit of the American nation and people. In his campaign, Dr. Paul draws attention to the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan that have resulted from U.S. interventionism, and from the U.S. elite’s arrogant and foolish determination to be the “vindicator” of avaricious and ambitious foreigners who conceal their lust for arbitrary power behind the words of the American founders. He accuses and rebukes the bipartisan U.S. elite for having involved America in endless wars – especially religious wars – in which no genuine U.S. interest is at stake, and for having brazenly reached into the pockets of Americans and stolen their money to support and/or protect states – Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, etc. – that have drawn America ever more deeply into wars that are none of our business or concern.

If you listen to Mr. Paul you will hear a man devoted to his country’s welfare and his countrymen; knowledgeable about and respectful of its history; realistic about the increasingly barbaric world in which it exists; and, most of all, fully aware of the fragility of America’s republican experiment and its absolute dependence on the constant nurturing provided by the rule of law. If elected, Mr. Paul would reshape America in a direction that would be in America’s best interests.

  • Going to war would once again require a formal, constitutional declaration by the U.S. Congress; the world would see America involved in far fewer wars, and none started by the whim of a single man and the foreign-influenced ideological clique around him. And when war was declared, America’s foes would absorb an application of U.S. military force that would both utterly destroy them and their supporters, and serve as a warning to other miscreants bent on doing America harm.
  • Immigration and U.S. borders would re-subjected to the rule of law, and America would get the flow of immigrants it needs in an orderly manner and based protecting national security and, only then, on the needs of the country’s society and economy.
  • Foreign aid would be eliminated and defense spending better targeted to real threats so as to end the tax-tyranny of a perennially spendthrift federal government; reduce the amount of debt held by foreigners, especially that held by regimes such as China and Saudi Arabia; and encourage the reemergence of the traditional but long dormant pay-as-you-go thriftiness of individual Americans and their families.
  • Most important, the world would see a massively reduced U.S. voice, presence, involvement in events that have no conceivable impact on U.S. national interest. Other nations would have to begin looking out for themselves; they will have to amicably settle their religious, ethnic, tribal, and territorial spats or fight each other to the death – no U.S. cavalry will be riding to the rescue.

As you listen to Dr. Paul, you will hear his opponents describe him as an evil isolationist, but neither Dr. Paul nor America has ever been isolationist. Indeed, the term “isolationist” is merely a deceptive slur that America’s bipartisan elite hurls at those citizens who prefer not to waste their wealth or children’s lives in other peoples’ wars. Since its inception, the United States has been a trading nation and a country fully involved in economic, scientific, educational, and commercial affairs around the world. At its best, America has been sturdily non-interventionist, recognizing both that it has more than enough to do to expand liberty’s domain and the equality of opportunity at home, and that non-essential foreign adventures can only slow or even undo liberty and opportunity for Americans at home.

In an America led by the non-interventionist Dr. Paul, the world would see a more confident and less aggressive nation; a nation more humble, prosperous, and equitable; and a nation willing to let all other nations and peoples work out their own destinies, peaceably or violently, as they wish. America would get back to its own business and interests, and the rest of the post-Cold War world’s nations would be left alone to try, at long last, to grow into responsible adults.

November 28, 2007

Michael Scheuer [send him mail] is the author of Imperial Hubris and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes. He recently resigned after 22 years at the CIA.

Copyright 2007 ©

Find this article at:

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Feminist Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Feminist Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws

by Phyllis Schlafly, November 28, 2007

The radical feminists have devised a scheme to cash in on a flow of taxpayers’ money in a big way. Their good buddy Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) has just introduced a bill called I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, S. 2279). I-VAWA earmarks at least 10 percent of its program funds to be granted to a certain type of women’s organizations. Biden’s press release identifies the favored groups: N.O.W.’s Legal Momentum, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Women’s Edge Coalition, and Center for Women’s Global Leadership.

I-VAWA would create a new Office of Women’s Global Initiatives that would control all foreign domestic-violence programs and funds in the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security.

The radical feminists who would be the recipients of I-VAWA’s awesome bureaucratic and money power are very selective about the kinds of violence they will target in 10 to 20 foreign countries. They have no interest in speaking up for the hundreds of thousands of unborn girls in China and India who are victims of sex-selection abortions.

Feminist ideology about the goal of gender-neutrality and the absence of innate differences between males and females goes out the window when it comes to the subject of domestic violence. Feminist dogma is that the law should assume men are batterers and women are victims.

How this malicious ideology plays out in U.S. courts every day is described in a revealing article in the November Illinois Bar Journal. Titled “Sword or Shield: Combating Orders-of-Protection Abuse in Divorce,” the article spells out how petitioners can gain unfair advantage in divorce and child custody by using the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.

Political correctness requires that the Illinois Bar Journal use gender-neutral words, but anyone familiar with this subject knows that the term petitioner overwhelmingly means wife and respondent means husband.

Orders of Protection (OP) were designed to be a “shield” to protect against domestic violence. This article bluntly describes how a petitioner can use an OP as a “sword” to obtain child custody in an expedited manner, to restrict a father’s visitation with his children, and to gain exclusive use of the home.

The petitioner simply bypasses the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) and instead goes to court under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (DVA) because that statute has a clear bias. As artfully described in the Illinois Bar Association article, it is “petitioner-friendly.”

Orders of Protection, available at any courthouse, are easy to file even by non-lawyers, and rarely require any fees. The DVA permits non-attorney domestic-abuse advocates to sit at counsel table and give confidential and privileged advice to the petitioner.

It’s also much easier to get an OP, and once granted along with exclusive possession of the home, the law clearly favors the wife maintaining child custody and the home unless the husband is able to present a preponderance of evidence that the custody arrangement is a hardship to HIM. The divorce act gives no such preferential presumption.

Accusations of abuse and demands for an OP are extremely useful in denying child custody to the respondent. The DVA includes “a rebuttable presumption that awarding physical care to respondent would NOT be in the minor child’s best interest.”

The DVA requires that a petition for an OP be expedited, and judges typically allot only 15 or 20 minutes to each case, which is not enough time to hear all the relevant evidence. Resolving a custody decision in a divorce proceeding usually requires many months.

The Illinois Bar article concludes: “If a parent is willing to abuse the system, it is unlikely the trial court could discover (her) improper motives in an Order of Protection hearing.”

Under the divorce law, a parent is entitled to “reasonable visitation rights.” But he loses those rights in an OP hearing under the DVA because the standards of evidence do not apply and the court has “wide discretion to restrict visitation.”

The greatest potential for abuse of the system is that a petitioner can circumvent the divorce law and thereby restrict visitation by the other parent. The longer a parent is able to retain temporary custody, the greater her opportunity to obtain permanent custody.

The use of Orders of Protection is a “high stakes matter,” not only because it can irrevocably affect the lives of the children, but because violating an OP is a crime for which the respondent can be jailed.

The Law Journal’s advice to lawyers on how to prevent their clients from being railroaded as a victim of OP is pretty pathetic: “spend time and money.”

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 phone: 618-462-5415 fax: 618-462-8909

Read this article online:

The Essence of Liberty #192, Objections to 100 Percent Gold

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

The Essence of Liberty: Part 192 (1) 

Compiled by 

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume 

A Summary of Rothbard, Murray N. The Case For A 100 Percent GOLD DOLLAR by Jimmy T. LaBaume and Toni Jolin 

(The complete book is available for download at 

Objections to 100 Percent Gold

Several standard objections are raised against 100% banking and 100% gold currency. One accepted argument against 100% banking is that, with a 100% reserve requirement, banks would not be able to continue profitably in business. But, if the benefits of banks are really so wonderful, then consumers will be willing to pay a service charge for them. At any rate, there is no reason why banking should not have to take its chances in the free market with every other industry.

The major objection against 100% gold is that this would supposedly leave the economy with an inadequate money supply. Some economists advocate a steady increase in the money supply. Others call for the supply to be adjusted to achieve stable prices. In both cases, the adjusting and manipulating can only be done by the government. Furthermore, this looks the great monetary lesson of classical economics—the supply of money really does not matter. Money performs as a medium of exchange. Any increase in its supply will cause the purchasing power of each unit to decline. Furthermore, the very idea of a stable price level is open to challenge. In the first place, why “stable?” There is no reason why government manipulators should be able to deprive the consuming public of the right to lower prices.

So in sum, just as with all other weights, money’s weight should be eternally fixed. And, “its value, like all other values, should be left to the judgment, estimation, and ultimate decision of every individual consumer.”

Next Previous

Copyright ©2004,

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL can be contacted at

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.



To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.


Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise



© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

World would be better off without Cheney

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

World would be better off without Cheney

By Chris Elliott

November 28, 2007 10:44 AM

George W. Bush is a heartbeat away from having to become president of the United States, a heartbeat that is becoming more and more tenuous.

The heartbeat I am referring to of course is that of Dick Cheney, who has been shouldering the duties of the presidency since its current inception, and whose ticker needed a jump-start early this week in order to resume normal heart rhythm after displaying atrial fibrillation. I would have provided him with my home remedy that involves a motorcycle battery, a pair of alligator clips and two vice-presidential nipples but I wasn’t asked.

While one might easily confuse the two, atrial fibrillation is not the result of the tremendous amount fibbing that President Cheney has been doing lately. It comes instead from eating lots of steak and spending time on the phone making sure one’s constituents are sufficiently wealthy.

Cheney has real cause for concern. He has had four heart attacks, two artery-clearing angioplasties, one quadruple bypass surgery, and an operation to implant a defibrillator that monitors his heartbeat. In July, he had surgery to replace the defibrillator.

This guy makes the Tin Man look like Lance Armstrong. He must have more zippers than George Bush’s airman costume. When Cheney walked toward a senile Joe Garigiola in the sauna last week, Joe said, “Curve ball, I think it’s breaking left.” There’s no real cause to rejoice though, because if acting President Dick Cheney dies, the honor of selecting George W. Bush’s new puppet master would ostensibly fall to Bush himself. Of course the Republican National Committee will make sure he picks the right stooge and then run the show by committee from an undisclosed location in much the same way it has been done for the past seven years. It being much easier to leave things the way they are, however, an elite medical unit was assembled to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Once the skeptical surgical team determined that Cheney actually had a heart, they went to work immediately to correct its rhythm. The elite physicians determined that, like many soulless white people, Cheney’s heart was clapping on the one and the three. “Honestly, it was like watching a Debbie Boone concert,” said lead surgeon Kwame Adebayo. “It’s back to normal now.” According to a recent Associated Press report, “The main treatment is to try an electrical shock to restore normal heartbeat. If that doesn’t work, patients may need to take the blood thinner Warfarin to reduce stroke risk.” Let me back up the tape for a second: “If that doesn’t work, patients may need to take the blood thinner Warfarin to reduce stroke risk.” I’m not kidding. The blood thinner that Cheney is taking is called Warfarin. One has to assume that Warfarin was prescribed in Cheney’s case because of his fondness for the apostrophic version of the word.

I can see Cheney turning beet red in his Johnny and stalking the hospital hallway like General George S. Patton addressing his troops. “Warfarin’ men have charted the evolution of society since the Mongolian hordes and before. I loves me some warfarin’ men. Hannibal! Napoleon! Rommel! Genghis Khan! G-r-r-r-r-r-r-r! Churchill! G-r-r-r-r-r-r! Charlemagne! Mao Tse-Tung!! Hitl — um, all of the great warriors!!!” I imagine the Nurse Ratchet version of the hospital staff at the D.C. hospital of choice suffering Cheney’s tirade, but indeed topping off his syringe just a little more than the other patients.

“Where’s that Warfarin? Make mine a double dose! Make my blood so thin I have no conscience at all! Wait, it’s too late for that. Whatever, never mind. G-r-r-r-r-r-r! See how unwittingly aware I can be? R-r-r-a-a-r-r-r! G-r-r-r-r-r!! R-a-a-o-o-w-w-w!!! Let’s fare some war! Let’s war some fare! Let’s fare some unfair warfare! G-r-r-r-r-r!!!” You could say that Cheney was using Warfarin as a preemptive stroke. After all, he’s done very similar things before with warfarin’, why not with Warfarin? He has bumbled into sovereign nations armed with faulty intelligence and warfarin’, and achieved results that are the opposite of the intention. Hopefully his current strategy will have equally catastrophic results with Warfarin, and subsequent to the giddily anticipated final heart attack, people won’t be fooled by the robot with the Cheney carcass over it that the RNC would attempt before ceding even the vice presidency to anyone who wasn’t already a shill for the corporatocracy. Best wishes to the veep’s family, but I submit this devil to the ghoul pool; the rest of the world would benefit by his absence.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Have Liberals Ever Embraced Basic Tenets of America?

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Have Liberals Ever Embraced Basic Tenets of America?

Paul R. Hollrah

While rank-and-file Democrats may belong to any one of six or seven powerful special interests that dominate the Democrat Party, they all have one thing in common.  Unlike Republicans, few Democrats are willing or able to: a) describe what it is that their party stands for, or b) deliver a comprehensive two minute dissertation on why they, themselves, identify with the party.


Recently, while reading Ann Coulter’s new book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans , I put it aside temporarily to read Kathleen Willey’s new book, Target, a gripping tale of how Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office and the frightening campaign of intimidation that followed, making her fear for her life and ending forever her fidelity to the Democrat Party.


When Willey’s husband, an attorney, embezzled $500,000 from a client’s account and was unable to make restitution, Kathleen, a White House volunteer, went to the Oval Office to ask the president for a full time paying position.  It was then that Clinton forced her against a wall and assaulted her.  Ironically, as that assault was taking place, her husband was driving to a remote wooded area in King and Queen County, Virginia where he shot himself to death.


Still a loyal Democrat, Willey tried to keep the president’s behavior a secret.   But there were witnesses to her smeared lipstick, her tousled hair, and her disheveled clothing as she rushed from the Oval Office.  And once she confided in a friend, who later betrayed that confidence, it was no longer a secret.  Needless to say, it was of particular interest to Paula Jones’s lawyers who were looking for “pattern of behavior” evidence in their sexual harassment lawsuit against the president.


Approximately two years after her husband’s death, Willey was introduced to Nate Landow, a wealthy Democrat fundraiser, friend of Bill, and chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party.  Willey and Landow dated occasionally, and when she was subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones case the Clinton intimidation machine went on full-court press.  


Landow sent a plane to pick her up and flew her to his estate on the Maryland eastern shore.   Willey described their conversations, saying, “Nate advised me to try to dodge the subpoena.  And he pressured me to lie in the (sworn) deposition, to just say that nothing happened…”   Landow argued, “Only two people in this world really know what happened in there – you and him.  You do not need to talk about this…”


It was in that moment that Willey’s disillusionment was complete.


Returning to Coulter’s book, I read a chapter in which she discussed the blatant contradictions in Democrat attitudes on a broad range of issues… contradictions that baffle conservatives and Republicans.


While Democrats claim to support our troops, they do everything in their power to undercut the president and the commanders who lead them into battle.  While they claim to be the champions of the middle class they propose tax increases on the rich… which they then define to include the middle class.  They pretend to be in favor of protecting our borders from foreign invasion, yet they work tirelessly to capture illegal aliens as yet another Democrat voting bloc.  They pander to African Americans, decrying the fact that more than a million blacks are incarcerated in our nation’s prisons, yet they’ve supported the abortion of more than 15 million black babies (equal to 1/3 of the black population) in the years since Roe v. Wade.  (As Coulter writes, “when your position on abortion is identical to the Klan’s, maybe it’s time to reconsider.”) 


For the politically astute, Democrat or Republican, there were few surprises in Kathleen Willey’s account of the inner workings of the Democrat Party and the Clinton White House.  But the question that the reader confronts, a question that literally screams to be asked, is what is it about Democrats that blinds them to the seamy underbelly of their party and that allows them to look the other way when their party or its leaders engage in criminal wrongdoing?


Is it because liberals and Democrats are, at heart, dishonest?  Not necessarily.   The problem with liberals and Democrats… aside from their win-at-any-cost approach to politics… is that, since the early days of our republic, they have never fully bought into the basic tenets upon which our nation was founded.  The terms “progressive” and “liberal” are, by direct implication, indicative of dissatisfaction with the established order… including dissatisfaction with the most basic principles of our great American experiment.


Liberals and Democrats consistently promise “change” and a “new direction” without ever describing exactly what “change” they recommend or what their “new direction” might be.  It’s as if they were asking voters to go to the airport and to board airplanes indiscriminately, not knowing or caring what the ultimate destination might be.  They promise only to take us someplace without ever telling us where.


Coulter’s suggestion that Democrats have no brains may be a bit harsh, but we would all be a lot better off if they would at least take a more critical look at their party and what it stands for and hold their leaders to a much higher standard of conduct.


# # Contributing Editor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute.
read full author bio here

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Other Articles by Paul Hollrah…
Have Liberals Ever Embraced Basic Tenets of America?
Hillary’s China Connection
Free Speech… Liberal Style
Will Work for Your Vote (But Not for You)
Counting the Illegals?
The Next Sound You Hear… Paul R. Hollrah
Redefining Islam Paul R. Hollrah
Redefining Islam Paul R. Hollrah
Racial Politics Upside Down Paul R. Hollrah
Mr. Chertoff’s “Gut Feelings” Paul R. Hollrah

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Is Hillary Doing A Bill?

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Is Hillary Doing A Bill?

By Jon Christian Ryter

November 28, 2007

The rumor started early this summer. But, most people who heard the rumor dismissed it as simply rumor-mongering in a town known for “death by rumor.” The most sizzling rumor this summer was about Hillary Clinton and her Indian/Pakistani aide. The first name droppers were Village Voice reporter Robert Morrow and blogger Luke Ford. Morrow described Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin to Fox News consultant Monica Crowley as “…a goddess from Kalamazoo, Michigan.” Morrow told Crowley that the whispers along Pennsylvania Avenue (no one who works in government and values their jobs speaks above a whisper about Hillary Clinton’s long suspected proclivity for same sex relationships and expects to still have a job at the end of the week) are that Hillary has had a long-standing affair with her aide de camp, Huma Abedlin.

“I recently said on Monica Crowley’s radio show,” Morrow said, “whisper campaigns are claiming that Hillary Clinton is Gayle King-ing her aide de camp, the glamorous Huma Abedin, an Indian’/Pakistani goddess from Kalamazoo.” Musing out loud, Morrow pondered whether “…Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a preemptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. This way, no Republican can later say, ‘Who is this gorgeous babe who spends so much intimate time with Hillary that the Observer called her Hill’s “body person”? Was Gennifer Flowers’ book right about Hillary’s sexual taste?'” (Author’s note: the term “Gayle King-ing” is a reference to recent rumors, quashed by Oprah Winfrey, that she was having a lesbian affair with her close friend and business confidant, Gayle King. Both Oprah and King denied a relationship. Nor has any evidence been produced by any of their accusers to support the claim.)

Rumors along Pennsylvania are as numerous, and about as accurate as the myriad of polls commissioned by the candidates themselves to show they are ahead of everyone else—or privately to see how badly they are trailing everyone else. There have been rumors about Hillary’s lesbian dalliances for years—perhaps just idle chatter, perhaps to show Bill what’s good for the gander may be even more enjoyable for the goose. [Raed "The Fist Lady" a shocking book about Hillary. Book out of print, supply is limited]

Then there are rumors about the “dark side” of Mormonism to suggest that popular Mormon candidate Mitt Romney—a very devout family man—is more dangerous than a 33° Mason. Or, there are the rumors that Rudy Giuliani’s wife kills puppies. Or that Barack Obama is a Muslim extremist. (We’ll talk about this one in a minute even though Obama, who is a member of a Christian denomination, denies the rumors.) It now appears that the Giuliani camp leaked a rumor of their own about Giuliani to gain sympathy from the Iowa and New Hampshire voters in order to bolster his sagging numbers. The rumor claims that when Giuliani was a US Attorney the mob voted on whether to whack him, and in a 3 to 2 vote, the heads of the Five Families decided to let him go on living. He parlayed his US Attorney job into the Mayor’s office just as Eliot Spitzer parlayed his US Attorney job into the governor’s mansion in Albany. I wonder how long it will be before the American people realize they don’t want to elevate to high office those who build their political names as prosecutors. Prosecutors and ambitious Senators who investigate the rest of us are cynics who trust no one. They also make the worst presidents. Remember Richard Nixon?

Although it is not likely they will, the Clinton Campaign remains fearful that the Obama Campaign might add legs to the Hillary-Huma romance rumors by talking about it on the campaign trail. That may be why the Clinton Campaign suggested it had some juicy dirt on the freshman Senator from Illinois but would not use it. Is Hillary seeking a quid pro quo?


The dirt Hillary has on Barack has nothing to do with the fact that Hussein Obama was born and raised as a Wahabbi Muslim. And, by the way, that’s the radical, extremist kind of Muslim if you didn’t know. Obama’s dirt-trail (like most politicians) is money-related. He’s guilty of the same type of real estate manipulation that put former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham [R-CA] in prison, and put Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] in the headlines in October, 2006 for collecting a $1.1 million real estate windfall on a deal that was shady at best.

Reid was allowed to buy a very expensive lot for $400 thousand to help the developers leap a whole bunch of political hurdles that sometimes stymie developers. Obama’s “Reid-deal” was with developer Tony Rezko, an indicted political fundraiser (who was, by the way, also one of Obama’s fundraisers). When Obama bought into the real estate deal, the Feds were investigating Rezko for attempting to extort kickbacks from government deals. The Obama-Rezko deal—like Reid’s—entailed buying adjoining lots in a residential subdivision. Obama bought his for $300 thousand less than market. Rezko’s wife paid the full retail price for hers—from the same owner. Rumors surfaced that the Rezkos paid part of the cost of Obama’s lot. Rezko also donated $60 thousand to Obama’s Senate campaign—and had Obama hire one of Rezko’s business associates—as an unpaid intern in his Senate office. The business associate, John Armanda, even kicked in a donation of $11,500 on his own to snag the job. When you have insider access to members of Congress, you have access to the wheelers and dealers than not even lobbyists have. I’m not suggesting they were, but handsome profits can be made with that type of access—even by an unpaid intern.

As Oprah Winfrey begins her tour with Democratic hopeful Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, the political windfall for the freshman Senator will be almost incalculable. Today, Obama is leading Clinton in Iowa 30% to 26%. While the Clinton talking heads claim the race for Iowa is neck-and-neck, the reality is that Obama has pulled ahead and it is unlikely Clinton will be able to make up the difference without some Clintonesque sleight-of-hand skullduggery. And, where Clinton had a 23 point lead over Obama in New Hampshire in September, she now leads him by only 10 points—34% to 24%. With Oprah campaigning for Obama, Hillary’s lead in New Hampshire will vanish like the Rose Law Firm billing records (which surfaced only after the statute of limitations for prosecuting Hillary ran out).

But, this is all old stuff. The words on everyone’s lips today is Huma Abedin. Is she, or is she not, Hillary’s lesbian lover? The British tabloids are having a field day with the rumors, because the Brits love smut. The Sunday Times admits that “…nobody is sure who is behind the attack on Mrs. Clinton…but the claims of lesbianism…found fertile ground on right wing websites.” Village Voice—not exactly what you would call a conservative cybervoice—wrote the story on November 1. The Observer covered it, and a host of blogs on both sides of the aisle covered the rumor that, as of yet, has not been substantiated as fact—even though a top level US Department of Justice official is telling bloggers who ask that the rumors of Hillary Clinton fooling around with Huma Abedlin is based on reality. So my question is: is Hillary doing a “Bill?”

© 2007 Jon C. Ryter – All Rights Reserved

[Read "Whatever Happened to America?"]

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.



Christiam Leaders Betray Christ For World Peace

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Christiam Leaders Betray Christ For World Peace

By Paul Proctor

November 28, 2007

Once again, leaders from the so-called “church growth movement” are demonstrating for us the Hegelian Dialectic – that transformational Marxist process of compromise and consensus made famous by Georg William Friedreich Hegel which seeks to rid the world of its divisive absolutes in the interest of global peace and unity.

Here’s the formula: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

The Christian Post reported the following in a November 23rd article titled, Christian Leaders Invite Muslims to Love God, Neighbors Together:


Christian leaders across denominational lines responded to the unprecedented open letter signed last month by 138 representative Muslim leaders with their own letter, calling on the two Abrahamic faiths to love God and neighbors together.

The key word here is “together.”

To begin with, nowhere in scripture are Christians instructed to unite with other religions and their deities to do anything. Such a plan doesn’t display a love for God at all, but only a disregard for Him and His only begotten Son.

Among other things, the dialectic process redefines “love” to mean tolerance instead of obedience, and calls Christianity and Islam “Abrahamic faiths” as if the two groups have some moral obligation to unite under a god of common ground.

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” – James 4:4

The Bible is uncompromisingly clear on this issue both in 2nd Corinthians 6:14-17, where we are specifically commanded to not yoke ourselves with unbelievers, and again in Ephesians 5:11, where we are instructed to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.”

Jesus Himself said: “He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23)

How then can Christians join Muslims to love God together and not be an abomination before Him? We’re talking about two entirely different “Gods” here – not the same God with differing names. And that’s the big lie hidden in this global agenda. By swapping love letters with Muslims, these “Christian leaders” endeavor to legitimize the illegitimate by setting aside the whole counsel of God for Results & Relationships.

Jesus Christ is not the Son of Allah; and to even imply that He is by claiming to love the same “God” as Muslims is not only being dangerously deceitful – it’s blasphemy!

But that’s what the Hegelian Dialectic does to the Christian faith – it unites opposites and enemies under a guise of goodness – all at the Lord’s expense; and that is and always has been the modus operandi of the “church growth movement” – to mingle the sheep with the goats until they are indistinguishable.

Christianity (thesis) + Islam (antithesis) = One World Religion (synthesis)

It should come as no surprise to the readers of my column that two of the reported signers of this letter who “share the sentiments” of Muslim leaders are none other than pastors Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Life fame, and the seeker-sensitive Bill Hybels from Willow Creek Community Church.

The CP article went on to say:


“Peaceful relations between Muslims and Christians stand as one of the central challenges of this century, and perhaps of the whole present epoch,” wrote the Christian leaders.

I thought the Great Commission was our central challenge as Christians – to love God and our neighbor by faithfully and obediently proclaiming His Gospel – to preach the cross – to call sinners to repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins through the shed blood of Jesus Christ!

Have we now abandoned that for an ecumenical Plan B to world peace?


“If we can achieve religious peace between these two religious communities, peace in the world will clearly be easier to attain.”

But Jesus said in Matthew 10:34, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” which is the Word of God that divides us, not just from the strange fire of other religions, but oftentimes from our own beloved family members.

“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” – Matthew 10:35-36

Do Warren and Hybels believe the Bible or not?

You be the judge:


Christian leaders urged for an interfaith dialogue that moves beyond “polite” ecumenical talks between selected leaders. Instead, leaders of both faiths should hold dialogues to build relations that will “reshape” the two communities to “genuinely reflect our common love for God and for one another,” the Christian letter stated.

My, how this bunch loves to re-imagine, re-interpret, re-define, re-envision, re-invent, re-think and re-shape the world to suit them!

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” – Jeremiah 6:16a

You see, they’re not just seeking to shake hands with Muslims on the street, at work or in the grocery store – the objective here is to “hold dialogues to build relations.” That’s the dialectic process I referred to earlier that relieves participants of their divisive absolutes for a compromised collective conscience, resulting in a synthesis of spiritual beliefs that both can embrace together peacefully. (i.e., religious groupthink)

Why do they want to “hold dialogues to build relations?”

To “reshape the two communities” so as to “genuinely reflect our common love for God.”

Which “God” – theirs or ours?

And that’s what this is really all about – systematically merging the two faiths into one through the dialectic process – not merely finding “common ground” or “reflecting” a “common love for God,” but actually creating a common god for the common good.

Who stands to benefit from this?

The coming antichrist, of course.

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the term “church growth movement,” doesn’t it?

In spite of their seemingly benevolent agenda, Jesus Christ came to offer peace with God – not peace with Allah.

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” – 2nd John 1: 9-11

Related articles:

1. Christian Leaders Invite Muslims to Love God, Neighbors Together
2. A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word Between Us and You’
3. The Church of Common Ground
4. What Rick Warren Wants
5. Willow Creek Hegelian Dialectic & The New World Order
6. The Test of Faith

© 2007 Paul Proctor – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Paul Proctor, a rural resident of the Volunteer state and seasoned veteran of the country music industry, retired from showbiz in the late 1990’s to dedicate himself to addressing important social issues from a distinctly biblical perspective. As a freelance writer and regular columnist for, he extols the wisdom and truths of scripture through commentary and insight on cultural trends and current events. His articles appear regularly on a variety of news and opinion sites across the internet and in print.





RFID and National ID As Electronic Stalking

November 28, 2007 1 comment

RFID and National ID As Electronic Stalking

Part 2

By John Longenecker
November 28, 2007

Tracking Americans Worldwide

The Right To Bare Arms means no RFID in the body. Virgin. Untouched. Unmolested.

With any sort of requirement to even eventually and for whatever reason take the RFID Chip implant, the officials pushing it makes them the New Bureau Of Engraving.

I had written years ago that when I was a Paramedic in the Fairfax District of Los Angeles in 1977, I had seen and treated many Jews who had Nazi Numbers on their arms. You know what those were for.

The RFID Chip is for that same purpose. Order.

You can call it fighting crime, you can call it tracking and you can call it Order, but it’s all the same: Control. And Control by knowing things about you is the foe of Liberty, because it subjects innocent everyday behavior to scrutiny, and this leads to mistake, abuse and retaliation.

When I say that tiny RFID Chips can track Americans worldwide, I am speaking of the shared databases we described in Part I. For years, I’ve been calling it the Flea — the tiny thing you don’t want on you. Let’s look closer.

Shared databases are already operating in fingerprinting, insurance coverage, point of sale, automobile records, medical records, sales leads for sales weasels, marketing tracking of both merchandise and customer habits, diesel parts, tires, grooming supplies, and much, much more. Enter Internet search term Keyword RFID and you pull up a host of news items. Take it a step further: Google for yourself your own tracking: Google Alert term RFID and you can begin to follow RFID newsbreaks as they happen by opting-in for e-mail notification of the latest. You may get ten a day. When one begins to view the enormity of the applications, delight of new technology turns to apprehension and suspicion. JMO, of course. .

As more and more agencies adopt RFID readers, more and more databases want to join, and many have made a good case for taking a peek at the data of what you buy, eat, read and watch. The fact is, that you are now watched, or soon will be.

As these are embedded in consumables, they are read wherever you take your consumables. This establishes the technology of worldwide reading of RFID Chips for a seemingly harmless tracking model: marketing. It also makes you trackable wherever you go by what you carry. (What’s in your wallet?)

And, naturally, if it’s proven in marketing, it will be of interest in law enforcement. The brunt of the cost will have been absorbed by business in pioneering the concept of following a single item anywhere in the world, and with such an infrastructure in place by then, law enforcement tracking is no longer three steps away, but one step away. The privacy defense will no longer be a voice, but a whimper by then, outweighed – bullied – by so-called necessity for a new crime fighting tool, and technical wonder for its ease of operation.

No wonder crime is permitted to continue: it paves the way for new technologic intrusions, equipment sales and the staff to man them.

Now, to the future Americans to be tracked, the children, as promised.

As I mentioned, Liberty, Sovereignty and Privacy need to be pushed aside for the industry of Personal Data Portability, otherwise known as Tracking. The customer’s view is convenience, while the marketer’s view is watching. What they do with the information they obtain morphs into wider and wider applications, inspired by more and more successful experiments – some technological triumphs, others societal triumphs, as in overcoming Privacy objections — all of which then translate into deeper and deeper intrusions.

But intrusion isn’t harmless, because such personal information can so easily be misinterpreted. Such personal data can so easily be subjective and abused. What they interpret can be pivotal in how you parent your children, and sooner than you think.

As RFID is embedded in more and more items, a greater acceptance and acceptability occurs, and over time, tracking becomes the norm. What we establish and accept today will become the norm for our kids, and will proceed from there. As with our U.S. History, what is erased or forgotten is what might have added powerful enough perspective to protect the nation on the issue, so acceptance today is essential to the control of tomorrow. Refusal today is critical to the safety and freedom of our kids tomorrow.

Erasing the baseline for perspective is to disarm the children of tomorrow in their protest against control when it comes time for them to grapple with the problem — long after we’re gone. Order. Irrespective of what we teach them today, our actions of acceptance will speak louder, and do much of the advance work of control — no.. more like surrender – to and for the industries which will thrive on adversity, war, terrorism and crime. And the need for….Order.

Now look at this: Who uses the Internet a lot in 2008? The kids. Who likes to buy all kinds of junk at the Mall? The kids. Where are RFID chips being placed? In all sorts of items, from those diesel parts to wet shaving razors . . . and RFID is placed in tons of stuff for… shall we say.. marketing purposes.

And who furnishes a free modem with new or upgraded service? ISP’s do. When was the last time you paid for a modem?

As the discussion has been posted on the world wide web [don’t forget to Google Alert the term RFID] modems are being geared for RFID readers for so-called marketing research in items brought home. This is not a new concept, not new at all. Haven’t you noticed the contactless ‘swipe’ or ‘pass’ feature on the terminal when you buy something? Internet. Various software already manages what they are calling Global RFID Networks already in place.

It’s no great leap to RFID readers in the home computer’s modem.

And here’s another frightening aspect of the nightmare: not only will chips of the near future be readable and tiny, they will also be writeable and re-writeable, just like the mag stripe on your membership card is. The mag stripe is just a piece of recording tape souped up for high print-through and durability. But make no mistake, when it is read at the supermarket, it is re-writing the stripe and updating it. How’s that for taking a swipe at Americans?

They’re not likely to leave this feature out of Portable Personal Data chips.

Every day the industry makes advances toward personal implantation, it’s an appraisal of our current Sovereignty.

In Part III, we can ask the denizens of the industry why they don’t take their own Chip and more.








© 2007 – John Longenecker – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

John Longenecker was one of the first Paramedics in Los Angeles EMS. Today, he a father of three, author, columnist, talk show guest and founder of the Good For The Country Foundation, a 501(c)(3) patriotic think tank examining policy adverse to the public interest.





Senator Gordon Smith’s Hate Crime Bill

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Senator Gordon Smith’s Hate Crime Bill

By Cindy Sizemore

November 28, 2007

Oregon’s junior U.S. Senator, Gordon Smith, is pressing hard for adoption of federal hate crimes legislation. Among other things, Smith’s bill would increase criminal penalties for a crime when it is determined that the person committing the crime was thinking bad thoughts about the sexual orientation of the person he or she harmed.

As we shall see in a moment, Smith’s bill would make Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave.

Following is a press release recently issued by Senator Smith’s office regarding the legislation he and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy are at this moment jointly pushing through the United States Congress:

Smith calls for expanded hate crime law

November 20, 2007

PRESS RELEASE: November 20, 2007

Crime Data Demonstrates Need for Expanded Hate Crime Law

- Washington, D.C. – Crime data released recently by the FBI shows hate crimes continue to be a problem nationally and in Oregon, further reason for Congress to approve the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill. The percentage of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation rose to nearly sixteen percent across the country. One hundred and forty-one hate crimes were reported in Oregon. Twenty-five were crimes motivated by the victims’ sexual orientation.

“This is a problem that is not going away,” Smith said. “It is appalling that hate crimes continue to rise in a nation built on tolerance. We cannot be complacent in punishing these savage acts,” Smith said. “Congress needs to approve Matthew’s bill so there is protection in the law for every American in every community.”

Earlier this year, the Senate and the House approved The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a provision in legislation that outlines spending for the Department of Defense. The U.S. House is set to vote on a reconciled version of this bill.

The FBI’s 2006 Hate Crime Statistics are available here:

Of all the things Gordon Smith has done that fly in the face of the conservative philosophy he sometimes espouses (especially when in front of selected audiences), none is as abhorrent as his sponsorship of federal hate crimes legislation. Although Senator Smith has expressed support for maintaining the separation between church and state, I wonder if he has even read Thomas Jefferson’s famous Danbury Baptist letter. That letter is the source of Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” doctrine, a doctrine that has been enthusiastically opined into law by activist federal judges over the last half century or so.

Jefferson prefaced his famous quotation about the wall of separation with three sound reasons for wanting to maintain that separation. One of his reasons was his belief that legislation should only reach as far as a man’s actions and not to his thoughts.

Here are Jefferson’s exact words to the Danbury Baptists: “Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (emphasis added)

While Americans will continue to debate whether Jefferson’s wall was meant to keep government out of religion or religion out of government, and whether the wall was meant to keep prayer and Bibles out of schools (something Jefferson clearly never advocated) or to keep manger scenes out of town squares, the three reasons Jefferson offered for his wall are probably worthy of universal acceptation.

First, a man’s religion is between him and God. Second, he does not have to answer for his religious beliefs to anyone else, and finally, the legislative power of government must be limited to a man’s actions, not reaching as far as his opinions. This final reason is so fundamental to Americanism that Smith’s violation of its principle is inexcusable.

Perhaps Gordon Smith is merely trying to win reelection in Oregon, a moderate to liberal state with an organized and militant gay rights movement. Perhaps persecution of gays bothers Senator Smith more than most because he is a Mormon and Mormons themselves suffered major persecution in the early decades of their existence. Perhaps Gordon Smith simply disagrees with Jefferson and thinks government should punish us for what we think. Perhaps Smith really believes that an American should be punished more severely for assaulting a gay man than for assaulting a little old lady.

Regardless of his motivation for sponsoring it, Gordon’s Smith’s hate crimes legislation is about as un-American as any bill I have seen work its way through Congress. You might even say that Smith’s hate crimes bill is a kind of hate crime itself, a crime against the God-given freedom to think and believe as you wish. Yes, even the freedom to hate. After all, whom or what you hate and whom or what you love is between you and God. It is not Smith’s business and certainly not the business of the federal government.

If a man hits you with a club because you are gay or because he wants your money, it makes no difference. The crime is that he assaulted you, not that he hated you. The damage the club did is the business of government, not the opinions of the one who struck you. Assault is already a crime. There is absolutely no reason to make the victim’s sexual orientation an issue.

Consider the absurdity of Senator Smith’s stated reason for this legislation. He said in the above press release: “Congress needs to approve Matthew’s bill so there is protection in the law for every American in every community.” What is the senator saying? Is there some place in this country where it is legal to do what was done to Mathew Shepard? Of course not.

Without going into the much debated details of the Shepard case, assault is a crime in every state. Interjecting the opinions and motivations of the attackers into the Shepard case or any other involving a gay or lesbian adds no further protections to gays, except to make assaulting a homosexual more heinous under the law than assaulting a straight person. Certainly there is no rational basis for doing that unless your goal is not equal rights for gays, but special rights.

Finally, Oregonians represented by Gordon Smith ought to know that their senator has been so enthusiastic in pushing hate crimes legislation in the United States Senate that several gay rights groups in Washington D.C. have endorsed him for reelection. Smith has become to the national gay rights movement what another senator from Oregon was to the national abortion rights movement a couple of decades ago. He is a champion for their cause.

The more I have pondered this matter, the more troubled I have become by Smith’s actions. A person who does not understand the fundamental truth that someone’s thoughts and beliefs are none of the government’s business ought not to be in a position of authority in this nation. The magnitude of this error in judgment is sufficient to earn Senator Smith the utter disdain of any right thinking conservative or libertarian.

This is not one of those things on which conservatives may disagree. This is a betrayal of one of the foundational pillars of Americanism.

© 2007 Bill Sizemore – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Bill Sizemore is a registered Independent who works as executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers Union, a statewide taxpayer organization. Bill was the Republican candidate for governor in 1998. He and his wife Cindy have four children.

Bill Sizemore is considered one of the foremost experts on the initiative process in the nation, having placed dozens of measures on the statewide ballot. Bill was raised in the logging communities of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state, and moved to Portland in 1972. He is a graduate of Portland Bible College, where he taught for two years. A regular contributing writer to


Bill’s Web site:


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

November 28, 2007 Leave a comment – Printer Friendly / Low Graphics Page

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

Google Video
Monday November 26, 2007

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

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

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

Copyright © All rights reserved.

Printed from:

Holzer article: Archangel 1918 to Hanoi 1972 ( POW, MIA, etc. )

November 26, 2007 Leave a comment


November 26, 2007

Holzer article: Archangel 1918 to Hanoi 1972

Beginning today, at, in the “commentary” section, there appears the first of a 6,000-word, five-part original series by Henry Mark Holzer. It is entitled “Archangel 1918 to Hanoi 1972.” If you think this story deserves to be widely known, please forward it to others with the request that the recipients do the same.

About the Series:

On November 24, 2007, American newspapers and international news wire services carried the obituary of John H. Noble. The Los Angeles Times headline read “John Noble, 84; wrote, lectured about captivity in Soviet camps. The obituary went on to explain how Noble, an American citizen, had survived World War II in Dresden, Germany, been “liberated” by Soviet troops in 1945, and then spent years as a slave “in the Vorkuta coal mine and prison complex near the Arctic Circle.”

Although for years the Soviets denied knowing anything about Noble, nearly ten years after his capture he was released. Afterwards, John Noble tried to make the American people understand that his was but one of countless similar stories-and that thousands of Americans had vanished behind the Iron Curtain at the end of the War.

But Noble’s story, as compelling and informative as it was, did not start early enough.

The fact is that as early as World War I, when American troops fought the Bolsheviks in Siberia, the communists snatched and captured Americans who then vanished into the black hole of the Soviet slave labor system. This communist tactic continued in the 1920s and 1930s, during and after World War II, throughout the Cold War, in the Korean War, and, needless to say, as an integral part of North Vietnamese strategy in the Vietnam war.

The following article reveals in detail this decades- long unspeakable communist abuse of American military and civilian personnel, and then focuses on one case in particular-that of Air Force Captain Michael Joseph Bosiljevac. Mike-the Electronic Warfare Officer in an F-105G, who earlier had worked in our atomic weaponry program-was shot down in late September 1972, he landed safely, and was never seen again.

Until, that is, 1987, when his skeleton was suddenly returned to United States custody-containing extremely suspicious coloration.

Mike’s story, and the tale of what began in the frozen wastes of Siberia and has not yet ended for countless Americans who vanished at the hands of communists, cries out to be told.

I do so in the following article. The paragraphs below introduce each Part, the full text of each appearing on the named day.

The five-parts:

Monday. Part 1: Introduction

Since it was established as a distinct component of the Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office in the fall of 1994, the Joint Commission Support Directorate has carefully examined a series of reports and sightings of U.S. servicemen held in the Soviet gulag, a network of penal camps that crisscrossed the former Soviet Union. Several points have become clear.

Tuesday. Part 2: Three Shooting Wars, One Cold War, One Invasion

In World War I, the Allies (United States, Britain, France, and Russia) fought the Germans on the Western Front in Europe until the Brest-Litovsk Treat of 1918, engineered by Lenin, pulled Russia out of the war with Germany. One result of the treaty was an Allied Expeditionary Force being sent to protect the Russian ports of Murmansk and Archangel from the Germans. In a campaign little known except to historians, Americans fought Soviet Bolshevik forces in the Archangel area of the Northern USSR. According to the Senate Report, “[a]s a result of the fighting against Soviet Bolshevik forces around Archangel in 1918-1919, there were many…eyewitness accounts of hundreds of U.S. and British and French personnel who disappeared.”

Wednesday. Part 3: The First and Second Vietnam Wars

The information contained in the Senate Report and in “The Gulag Study,” covering the period immediately after World War I to the eve of the Vietnam War- through World War II, the Cold War, and The Korean War-prove beyond any doubt that American military personnel were held captive in the Soviet Union over the course of some forty years, from approximately 1918 to 1960. Whether these men were held by Soviets, Chinese, or Koreans; whether they were enlisted or officers; whether they were native born or immigrants; whether they were pilots or had other military occupational specialties; whether they were wounded or not; whether they were arrested, kidnapped, shot down, survived crashes, not repatriated, or were POWs liberated by the Soviets from Germans and Japanese prison camps; or whether they or fell under communist control some other way-the unarguable fact is that thousands- upon-thousands of our countrymen lived, and died, in Soviet prisons, labor camps, “hospitals,” and other detention facilities.

Thursday. Part 4: The Case of Captain Michael Joseph Bosiljevac

As noted, there is overwhelming evidence that ever since Lenin’s gang took over the Soviet Union in 1917 communists worldwide have been using captured American military personnel “1) as leverage for political bargaining, 2) as an involuntary source of technical assistance, and 3) as forced labor.” As further noted, “there were two other purposes for which the communists used American POW/MIAs: 4) to obtain hard cash and needed goods, and, 5) to turn them into human guinea pigs.” Based on the available evidence, it is very likely that Mike Bosiljevac fell into at least two of these five categories.

Friday. Part 5: The Conclusion

In its 1978 reclassification of Mike from Missing in Action to Killed in Action-a gambit that saved the government a lot of money-the United States Air Force effectively wrote him off, literally and figuratively. Even though from time to time tireless MIA-seekers like Bill Bell would make inquiries to the Vietnamese about Mike Bosiljevac’s status, after 1978 our government officially would no longer make serious efforts to ascertain whether he might still be alive, or even whether he had lived for some time after his 1972 shoot down.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

McCarthy: General Lawton punished for exposing Communists; General Zwicker rewarded for covering up for them

November 26, 2007 2 comments

Wes Vernon column

McCarthy Part 6

General Lawton punished for exposing Communists; General Zwicker rewarded for covering up for them

Wes Vernon

Wes Vernon
November 26, 2007

(See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5)

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy, spent the better part of a year (1953-1954) investigating efforts by Communists to infiltrate the ranks of the U.S. Army. As we mentioned in our last installment, it all began when the senator was tipped that the Rosenberg spy ring remained at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, after the Rosenbergs themselves were executed for their leading role. Herewith, a classic tale of how the CYA culture in Washington works:

Case No. 1 — Major General Kirke Lawton — the commanding officer of the post at Ft. Monmouth — tried to fix the security problems he found there. He testified before McCarthy’s committee that his efforts met with resistance and/or indifference “at higher levels,” according to M. Stanton’s brilliantly documented book Blacklisted by History.

In the senator’s executive closed-door hearings — released a half century later in 2003 — General Lawton told the committee that he had made a chart of security risks that he had sent up through channels to Washington. However, the general added that on the advice of John Adams — legal counsel to the Army Secretary who was present at the hearing — he was forbidden by a rule to disclose the number of security cases he had recommended for removal vs. those who actually were in fact removed.

“I would love to tell you,” Gen. Lawton added, “but I honestly feel that it is [a violation of the rules].”

Senator McCarthy said he understood Lawton’s position, but that “[i]t would be a good thing if the American people could learn that we have someone someplace who is kicking the Communists out.”

But at a later date…

Lawton: I have been working for the past 21 months trying to accomplish [getting security risks out] what has been accomplished in the last two weeks.

McCarthy: So that you would say that in the past several weeks you have been getting more effective results?

Lawton: Absolutely, than we have gotten for the past four years.

McCarthy: Could you tell us why it is only in the last 2 or 3 weeks that you have been getting effective results?

Lawton: Yes, but I had better not. I know this so well, but I am working for Mr. Stevens [Secretary of the Army]. (End of cited transcript)

Uh-oh! The general commits a boo-boo. He dares to imply that Senator McCarthy‘s pressure had something to do with the sudden activity. He will surely pay. The hearing was behind closed doors, but John Adams, counsel to Secretary Stevens, was present and he would make General Lawton an example of those who would not cooperate in a cover-up.

Bottom line

And Adams did in fact put General Lawton under pressure to ease up on security removals, as recorded in this telephone exchange between the two:

Adams: I hope you can see your way clear to withdraw certain cases which you have recommended for removal as bad security risks.

Lawton: I would not. Let the secretary take the responsibility.

More uh-oh!

General Lawton further cooked his goose when he gave a supposedly off-the-record briefing to Monmouth workers in which he reportedly praised McCarthy for encouraging action on security cases and also for the senator’s “fairness and courtesy” at the hearings. The remarks were leaked to the Asbury Park Press.

Getting rid of those who do the bidding of our enemies and then compounding the offense by cooperating with a duly authorized Senate committee! Not a team player at all, General. Shame on you.

Now let’s see, how’re we going to get rid of this guy?…

Relieving General Lawton of his command would surely have given McCarthy a reason to raise the proverbial roof. But Washington has its ways of dealing with whistle-blowers without leaving fingerprints on the dirty deed.

So, here’s the plan: Tell the General to stop cooperating with McCarthy, put him on “medical disability,” and then tell the world that General Lawton is still “in charge” at Monmouth. Visitors to his hospital room will say he seems to be in good health. But they won’t have our megaphone.

That script played itself out.

McCarthy was held at bay when Pentagon forces told his staff that if the general did appear before the committee again, there would be more punishment — like losing the benefits he was to receive as a long-serving member of the Army.

Once the heat was off, the Eisenhower administration finished the job. General Lawton was relieved of his command and the following year retired from active duty. His career was finished.

Case No. 2 — General Ralph Zwicker, perhaps profiting from General Lawton’s experience, took a different route when push came to shove.

But first, some background

McCarthy’s original tip on the doings at Ft. Monmouth included the suggestion that Camp Kilmer, also located in New Jersey, might be worthy of “some digging,” to quote Stan Evans in Blacklisted by History.

Following up on that and other tips, a McCarthy committee staffer, George Anastos, contacted the Kilmer commander, General Zwicker, who confirmed that a dentist — Dr. Irving Peress — was among the several suspects stationed there, and was scheduled to receive an honorable discharge.

Let me digress: At the time of the ensuing uproar of the Peress case, one of McCarthy’s critic said to me, “Look at all this fighting in Washington and what does he [McCarthy] come up with? A pink dentist.”

But as Evans points out, a dentist’s office could be (and in fact had already been in previous spy cases) “a very good cover for clandestine operations, as all sorts of people might come and go there without attracting much attention.”

Secondly, the issue was lax security procedures, not about Peress per se. Last I checked, subversives supposedly were not eligible for U.S. military service.

Third, Peress was more than a “pink dentist.” He took the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment when asked about Communist Party membership. Before McCarthy’s committee, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked if he’d attempted to recruit any military personnel at Kilmer into the Communist Party, whether there had been Communist Party meetings in his home attended by one or more military personnel, whether he himself happened to be a member of the Communist cell at Camp Kilmer, and if he had organized a cell at the military base.

Adams: “To hell with McCarthy”

McCarthy then fired off a letter to the Army — hand-delivered to the Pentagon — urging that the honorable discharge be canceled, and that Peress instead be turned over for court martial. As fate would have it, Secretary Stevens was out of town, so the letter fell instead into the hands of Army counselor John Adams. In his memoirs, Adams says he decided, “In short, to hell with McCarthy,” and so the discharge was granted.

Back to Zwicker

Obviously, this whitewash left Senator McCarthy more than a little indignant. So he dispatched his committee staffer James Juliana to Camp Kilmer to interview the general. Juliana came back with a report to the senator that Zwicker would be an informative and friendly witness — that he opposed giving Peress an honorable discharge — especially given that it was Zwicker who had put the McCarthy committee on Peress’s case in the first place. And this happened after the general had gone through channels to protest Peress’s previous promotions. Juliana — the only known living McCarthy staff person — recently repeated the account of his experience to author Stan Evans who was preparing Blacklisted by History.

The general receives a visitor

Here is something with which McCarthy and Juliana had not reckoned:

The night before he was to appear before the committee, Zwicker received “a flying visit” from Army counsel Adams who specifically told him to back off.

Adams acknowledged as much in his later book Without Precedent, which was published in 1983 — nearly three decades later after the damage was done.

The hearing

Unlike General Lawton, the “team-playing” General Zwicker folded like a cheap umbrella.

The next day at the hearing, McCarthy was not in his best form. His wife had been in a car accident the day before, and he had spent hours with her at the hospital until the wee hours and again on the day of Zwicker’s scheduled appearance. When he arrived for the hearing looking frazzled, his staffers wanted to postpone the session. But the senator insisted on going through with it. That turned out not to be to his advantage.

When Zwicker took the witness chair, he hemmed and hawed as if he had become a totally different person. He verbally fenced with McCarthy, refusing to answer many questions, claimed he didn’t know about Peress’s Red connections, and even said he didn’t know about the well-publicized fact that Peress had taken the Fifth Amendment.

The cat-and-mouse game went on until finally McCarthy asked him if a hypothetical general who signed the order to grant a security risk an honorable discharge should be kept in the military. Zwicker responded, “I do not think he should be removed from the military.”

Whereupon, McCarthy finally “lost it,” and fired a volley at the general that would haunt the senator in his upcoming battle to fend off attacks from his determined enemies. Said he, “Then, general, you should be removed from command,” adding that any general willing “to protect another general who protected Communists is not fit to wear that uniform, General.”

No winner in this bout

M. Stanton Evans is super cautious in his book — understandable when you’re crossing every “T” and dotting every “I” in making the case for the most reviled U.S. Senator of the 20th Century.

Accordingly, in my own interview with Evans — as well as in his book — he declines to go for the jugular, preferring to let the facts speak for themselves (facts which are not only convincing, but airtight). He does say that neither Zwicker nor McCarthy covered himself with glory at the hearing. Though the author believes McCarthy went over the line in telling a general he was not fit to wear his uniform, he also believes Zwicker gave the senator plenty of provocation.

In our interview, Evans also declines to make the flat charge that Zwicker committed perjury. Again, the reserve is understandable given his position. But when considering the hearing transcript and bearing in mind what we know about the Anastos and Juliana interviews, others — including this column — can read the hearing transcript and find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that General Zwicker was lying. If the general had been warned that telling the truth would damage his career, he could have asked his superiors to pass that word to the committee — as was done in General Lawton’s case. McCarthy never called Lawton back to testify once he was warned that to do so would jeopardize the general’s standing — benefits and all.

So McCarthy loses his temper while General Zwicker loses his integrity. Which is worse? The reader can decide, even if one does not justify the other.

The “team player” is rewarded

The investigation did not end there. The following year (1955), the committee — by then under Democrat control and chaired by Senator John McClellan (D-Ark.) pursued the case and referred Zwicker’s testimony to the Justice Department for consideration of perjury charges. Ike’s Justice Department took 19 months to respond and finally decide that (surprise!) the referral did not meet the “technical” requirements for a perjury indictment.

On January 17, 1957, General Zwicker was nominated for promotion to full rank as brigadier-general and temporary major general. At his confirmation hearing, the general was accompanied by Ike’s new Army Secretary Wilber Bricker and “a full array of Pentagon brass,” according to Blacklisted by History. The promotion zipped through the Senate.

Not bad for someone who had been a candidate for a perjury rap. He learned the Lawton lesson: Play ball or else. It’s amazing how someone can really go places in Washington if he just plays ball, pushes principle to the back burner, cuts enough corners, and stands up like a man to his conscience. (To be continued)

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

© Copyright 2007 by Wes Vernon

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

It’s Time for a New Look at Isolationism

November 26, 2007 2 comments


It’s Time for a New Look at Isolationism

By Christopher Nichols

Mr. Nichols is Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia. He is an American historian currently completing a study of isolationism and internationalism in the United States during the Progressive Era. He can be contacted at:

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned Americans at the nation’s birth to “steer clear of foreign entanglements.” It’s a warning we scoff at today – at our peril. We need a new approach, a new isolationism.

Time and again, Americans rightly return to see the merits of isolation during moments of perilous engagement abroad. One example of this from the recent past came during America’s involvement in Vietnam. As early as January 1965, Sen. Richard Russell Jr., a Georgian with aggressive views on American international policy, reluctantly admitted to the public, “We made a terrible mistake getting involved in Viet Nam.” As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, he remarked, “I don’t know just how we can get out now, but the time is about at hand when we must re-evaluate our position.” Talking to Russell in a private conversation, President Johnson expressed deep doubts but saw no way out. “I don’t think anything is going to be as bad as losing and I don’t see any way of winning,” said LBJ. Journalist and pundit Walter Lippmann agreed. “If it is said that this is isolationism,” he wrote, “I would say yes. It is isolationism if the study of our own vital interests and a realization of the limitations of our power is isolationism.”

The less-than-hoped-for success of the “surge” in Iraq has led to similarly heartbreaking conclusions about the limits of U.S. military power. Modest security gains do not seem to be able to propel significant political change or overcome four years of unsuccessful efforts in Iraq to draw democracy out of chaos. Recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans are convinced that their leaders failed to calculate the consequences of the nation’s intervention and underestimated its long-term implications. Despite enormous sacrifices, the U.S. is still far from accomplishing a nation-building mission in Iraq.

In making new choices, the nation can learn from Washington and Jefferson. And we should look to the more recent lessons provided by the words of Johnson, Russell, and Lippmann. It is time to chart a middle path – avoid the extremes of heartless realism and brainless idealism – and blend cautious isolationism with active internationalism.

So how would this new isolationism look? Its core aim would be to avoid military conflicts. Isolationist principles would discourage an interventionist or preemptive foreign policy, but would not preclude self-defense. It would promote diplomatic strategies, rather than military approaches. History has shown that interventions often have unintended, unforeseen consequences, and getting out is hard to do.

The best course now in Iraq is not total disengagement, but redeployment. Overall, the U.S. should renew the “soft power” essential to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. That is, America should do what it does best — making the world a better place through education, science, development, culture, and free global trade. Lead by positive example.

Other foreign policy aims should be to boost U.S. prosperity with global economic growth while reducing anti-Americanism abroad. Jane Addams, the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931, called this an “international consciousness.” A new isolationism would cultivate a comparable “consciousness” by strengthening transnational cultural ties in education and the arts, and increasing aid to the developing world. Hallmarks of this process should include an imaginative commitment to opportunities for national service, such as Peace Corps, VISTA, and Teach for America. And let’s revive efforts to provide the world with accurate information about America, such as through the U.S. Information Agency, and by expanding efforts to assist refugees and developing countries, such as through a revitalized U.S. Agency for International Development.

A policy of new isolationism also would mean a thoughtful effort to seize important challenges at home. Once a model for the world, much in America cries out for fixing. Let us take three symbolic examples that demand an inward focus: the dilapidated state of the nation’s bridges and transportation infrastructure, the threadbare capacity for public health and preparedness for pandemics, and the nine million uninsured poor children under age 18. Given sufficient means and commitment, these (and other) vital domestic national interests can be solved.

Unless we muster the wisdom of prudent isolationism and elect a leader bold enough to advocate it, the conflict in Iraq will match that of Vietnam. So, fellow citizens, let us heed the powerful injunction to steer clear of foreign entanglements and prolonged interventions abroad. Take a new look at the benefits of isolationism.

Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….
HISTORY ETC. — The Gunny G History Wiki!
Police Out of Control! – A Gunny G Wiki…
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!

The “Original/The Only “Gunny G”

Annapolis Equals de facto Recognition of Israel

November 26, 2007 Leave a comment

November 26, 2007

Annapolis Equals de facto Recognition of Israel
By James Lewis

Expectations are generally low on the Annapolis Middle East Peace summit starting this week.  Yet a strong case can be made that the mere fact of this meeting between the Arab countries, the Palestinians and Israel is the biggest breakthrough in Israel-Arab relations since the 1979 Peace Treaty with Egypt.

Nothing else needs to happen for this conference to be an historic landmark. Why? Because in diplomacy, sitting down with an enemy in public is equivalent to official recognition. The rest is just words — especially when any country’s leader can pick up the phone and talk privately to any other.

The first peace conference with wide Arab participation therefore partially resolves the long denial of Israel’s existence, one of the great stumbling blocks of the past sixty years.

Egypt’s Anwar Sadat created the first breakthrough in 1978 by traveling to Israel and literally kissing Golda Meir’s cheek in public. President Sadat was an extraordinary leader, who paid for his breakthrough with his life. Egypt recovered the Sinai Desert in that peace treaty, but the Sadat model found no imitators, because nobody else was willing to risk assassination. Instead, there have been de facto peace arrangements with Jordan, Lebanon, and perhaps even Syria. The long Jordan-Israel border has not seen war since 1974. Step by quiet step, the biggest flashpoints of the past have gone quiet.

We have not taken much note of that because the Palestinian conflict has seized all the headlines. But we cannot fail to notice that nation-to-nation warfare has lessened dramatically over time.

Behind-the-scenes contacts between Israel and Jordan have been going on for decades. The Saudis have apparently been having serious discussions with Israel for a few years. Yet nobody has been willing to make those meetings public. Every Arab government at Annapolis is taking the risk of domestic outrage (or worse) from the mere fact of its attendance — which is why they are doing it together, to diffuse opposition and avoid the fate of Saddat.

So this conference is already an history landmark, which should go to the credit of SecState Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush. It is already a diplomatic coup, but Rice and Bush won’t get the credit in the media. This administration cares more about substance than being fawned upon, and that is the adult thing to do. As Ronald Reagan put it, it’s amazing how much you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.

So the media have it wrong, as usual. All the buzz is about the results of this conference, and everybody is pessimistic about that.

But that’s not the real story. The real story is why it is happening. A tectonic shift has taken place in the Middle East, because suddenly the Arabs and Israel have a common enemy, Khomeinist Iran. The danger posed by Ahmadi-Nejad has eclipsed all the old antagonisms. Ahmadi-Nejad has publicly threatened all the Arab participants — along with France, Germany, the United States and of course Israel. He’s a scary guy, leading a scary regime, which is going to get a scarier very soon. Iran was deliberately excluded from Annapolis.

The Iranian threat is responsible for the long secret talks that have already taken place among the participants. The Saudis, for example, may be sharing intelligence about the Khomeinist regime with the US and Israel. It is virtually certain that Turkey, Egypt and Jordan are doing so. The fact that Syria is going to the Annapolis conference in spite of Israel’s bombing of its secret nuclear facility ten weeks ago is remarkable: It suggests that Syria, an Arab regime, is not entirely comfortable in the clutches of the Khomeini regime either.

Those concerned about the survival of Israel are skeptical about Annapolis, pointing to the failure of the Gaza withdrawal and other peace moves. Others are cautiously positive. Nobody expects a big breakthrough. Cautious, step-by-step confidence building  seem a lot more sensible.

We may see some symbolic concessions, along with a willingness to keep talking. The most significant symbol would be extraterritoriality for part of Jerusalem, to give the Palestinians a giant symbolic presence in Jerusalem with minimal security risks. Since the top of the Temple Mount is already controlled by the Muslim Waqf, extraterritorial status there might make little practical difference.

Palestinian control of some Arab neighborhoods might be dangled as the next carrot. That could serve as an incentive for further progress.

The real kicker comes from ceding Israeli territory that has real strategic value. This is a tough one. Arguably, in the nuclear age, a checkerboard population of Arabs and Jews would help protect the Holy Land from nuclear assault. Even the Iranians might think twice about destroying tens of thousands of Muslim Arabs.

As strategist Anthony Cordesman has just made clear, a nuclear exchange would be the end of Iran and Syria, and of part of Israel. Cordesman’s report makes for very grim reading.  That is the worst-case scenario everybody is trying to avoid.

The irony is therefore that the regime in Tehran is actually driving the Arab world to make peace. In doing so, the Arab League may also be clearing the way for a conventional air attack on Iran’s known nuclear facilities, presumably by Israel with the tacit consent and help from both the Arabs and Americans. Nobody wants these suicidal ideologues to have nukes — certainly not their Arab neighbors. So they will voice outrage in public and privately thank Allah if the strike succeeds. A successful strike may set Iran’s nuclear program back by half a dozen years. A rigorous sanctions regime could help weaken the regime further.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. This is just one. If Annapolis comes off reasonably well, we should all count ourselves lucky.

James Lewis blogs at

Page Printed from: at November 26, 2007 – 06:11:16 AM EST


News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen… Elsewhere!
The “Original and Only” Gunny G!

By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)



November 25, 2007 1 comment

Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET


"America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."

The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OR RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.

This time, Buchanan goes all the way:

"America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive."

The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America's global commitments.

The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.

U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.

The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.

The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class.

A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.

All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises.

Specifically, Buchanan contends:

• Pax Americana, the era of U.S. global dominance, is over. A struggle for global hegemony has begun among the United States, China, a resurgent Russia and radical Islam

• Bush's invasion of Iraq was a product of hubris and of ideology, a secular religion of "democratism," to which Bush was converted in the days following 9/11

• Torn asunder by a culture war, America has now begun to break down along class, ethnic and racial lines.

• The greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence is the scheme of a global elite to erase America's borders and merge the USA, Mexico and Canada into a North American Union.

• Free trade is shipping jobs, factories and technology to China and plunging America into permanent dependency and unpayable debt. One of every six U.S. manufacturing jobs vanished under Bush

• "Sovereign Wealth Funds," controlled by foreign regimes and stuffed with trillions of dollars from U.S. trade deficits, are buying up strategic corporate assets vital to America's security

• As U.S. wages are stagnant, corporate CEOs are raking in rising pay and benefits 400 to 500 times that of their workers

• The Third World invasion through Mexico is a graver threat to our survival as one nation than anything happening in Afghanistan or Iraq

* European-Americans, 89% of the nation when JFK took the oath, are now 66% and sinking. Before 2050, America is a Third World nation

• By 2060, America will add 167 million people and 105 million immigrants will be here, triple the 37 million today.

• Hispanics will be over 100 million in 2050 and concentrated in a Southwest most Mexicans believe belongs to them

Buchanan's Recommendations:

• A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops

• A purge of neoconservative ideology and the "Cakewalk" crowd" from national power.

• To avert a second Cold War, the United States should "get out of Russia's space and get out of Russia's face," and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union

• To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

• To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers

• To prevent America becoming "a tangle of squabbling nationalities" Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a "timeout" on all immigration.


Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Shaping A New Civilization

November 25, 2007 1 comment


<>Shaping A New Civilization

Part 1

By Berit Kjos

November 25, 2007


“A re-spiritualization of society is taking place….” [1] New Age futurist Willis Harman, speaking at the “evangelical” Consultation below.

“Part of our reason for meeting in this conference is to re-examine our storehouse of images of the future…. Is it necessary for us to limit the evangelical image of the future…?”[2, page 31] Leighton Ford, Billy Graham’s brother-in-law, addressing an “evangelical” Consultation on the Future.

“The world is undergoing an extraordinary revolution, an intellectual rebellion against the exclusionary belief structure that has dominated Western thought for centuries…”[3] Willis Harman, “Global Mind Change”

Do you wonder why yoga, labyrinths and other meditational practices have suddenly emerged in churches across America? Or why “Christians” now use the old occult formulas practiced by sorcerers, alchemists and “enlightened” yogis (a combination of concentration, meditation, visualization and mental projection) to invoke the presence of “God”?

This East-West synthesis didn’t happen by chance. For several decades, influential church leaders have been promoting a “new way of thinking,” a more experiential religion, an end to “separatism,” and an inclusive oneness that would fulfill their vision of an earthly “Kingdom of God.”

The hidden seeds of this unholy transformation began sprouting about five decades ago. In an article titled “The Higher Self Gets Down To Business,” Christianity Today credits Willis Harman, a former Stanford Professor and management guru with the occult revival:

“The esoteric use of ordinary words like self-actualization, intuition, and visualization in the New Business spirituality cannot be appreciated without considering their role in the cosmic scheme of the movement’s unofficial father: metaphysical futurist Willis Harman.

“Harman, who died in 1997, founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences and helped start the World Business Academy. Noetic comes from the Greek word for intuitive knowing. Intuition was no mere ‘gut feeling’ for Harman, but the very means of connecting to the one Universal Mind. Nor was visualization merely a means of clarifying goals, but of altering material reality.” [4]

Instead of opposing this spiritual revolution, pastors and leadership gurus have been driving it — and training others to do the same. Those who resist it are unjustly labeled fearful, divisive and — worst of all — fundamentalist! As Rick Warren said, “…Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism – they’re all motivated by fear. Fear of each other.”[5]

“People are threatened by change,” wrote Willis Harman who, in spite of his New Age/Theosophical views, had been invited to speak at an “evangelical” Consultation on the Future back in 1979. “The prospect that ‘truths’ they have known all their lives might be superseded by some other beliefs can be especially threatening. Thus there is a tendency to ‘fight back’ — to actively oppose the change.”[ 3, Foreword]


Actually, it takes courage, not fear, to stand alone against such pressures to conform! The evangelical leaders who participated in that Consultation almost three decades ago showed no such boldness. The conference transcripts suggest that they valued “common ground” more than Biblical integrity.

These strategists included Leighton Ford (Vice President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Honorary Life Chairman of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization), Howard Hendricks (Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and Chairman of The Center for Christian Leadership), Dr. Gene A. Getz (pastor and author), Dr. Ralph Winter (founder of U.S. Center for World Mission) and many others.

These high profile pastors and presenters simply listened, dialogued and accepted Dr. Harman’s disturbing views of occult experience and evolving oneness. Notice his promotion of a mystical form of universalism:

“…the ultimate goals of all societies that ever existed have come from the profound inner experiences of some group of people – religious leaders, prophets, mystics, poet-philosophers, or — in some visionary cultures — the majority of the adult population….

“Survey data indicate a significant cultural shift in the direction of more interest in spiritual and psychic matters…. The growing suspicion is that traditional religion and conventional science alike are both partial and flawed, and due to be superseded by a more unified view of reality.”[6]

“Remarkably, Willis Harman was able to proclaim an alternative Luciferian future to evangelical leaders without any significant resistance,” states Herescope , a respected discernment ministry. “This is because potential debate at the 1979 Consultation on ‘Future Evangelical Concerns’ was stifled.” True to the dialectic process, “the format of the Consultation was orchestrated in such a manner that no contrary opinions were permitted.”

“…the Consultation was broken down into six sessions of ‘Addresses and Responses.’… The Preface [2, transcripts] states that ‘contrary to the 1977 format, responders had been instructed to summarize and capsulize the assigned paper rather than debate the issues raised.’ In other words, the presentations – some of them very controversial and heretical – were not to be challenged! Some responders merely ‘urged cautions.”’ [7]

According to Herescope, “one of the stated purposes of the Consultations was to integrate Harman’s alternative eschatology with evangelical eschatology. Consultation presenter E.V. Newland, proposed creating an ‘imaginative hybrid’ of eschatology based on Harman’s models.” He said,

“Well, what then could be a transformed society? We are very impressed. We have links with people who are looking at these areas, sadly perhaps only from the secular groups or the academia. We are not yet in touch with theological colleges. We have established in that way contact with people who are thinking about a transformed society and they are exemplified by the Stanford Research Institute where there is a little group that’s called the Social Science Research Unit and it’s led by… Willis Harmon [sic]…. The California school feels that the next 30 years or hundred years is going to be a period in which we’ll restore this balance of inward man and outward man.”[2, pp 81-83]

Herescope asks — and concludes,

“Is it possible that this event marked the beginning of the public phase of the integration of Theosophy with Christianity? Indeed it seems so, when one reads the proposals made by Willis Harman to integrate the psychic into Christianity to create a new synthesized ‘truth.'” [8]


“The seeds of Theosophic syncretism were planted when Willis Harman’s address to evangelical leaders in 1979 was not challenged. It began to produce recognizable fruit by 1991 in the work by Leonard Sweet. And it has now come to full fruit in neo-evangelicalism today.”[9]

To crush Christian resistance to this deception, globalist visionaries both inside and outside churches are using a growing arsenal of psycho-social tactics. One of the more visible strategies for mass transformation is the seductive marketing of mystical practices and occult philosophies through books like Leonard Sweet’s Soul Tsunami and Marjorie Thompson’s Soul Feast.

Less visible but just as effective are the large leadership conferences that gather Christian pastors and leaders, train them in a social context that normalizes “systems thinking” and facilitated dialogue, then sends them out as change agents — missionaries for a new world order, determined to transform both church and world.


Scheduled for January 2008, the upcoming Re-think Conference shows the latest phase of this unholy quest for unity in diversity. Considering its team of speakers, it will surely encourage more dialogue, compromise, and fuzzy convictions. Visionaries will establish new norms for “positive thinking” and feel-good relationships while closing the door to the old “divisive” truths.

The list of speakers could hardly be more diverse — or influential:

  • Robert Schuller (co-host). Founding pastor of the Crystal Cathedral.

  • Erwin McManus (co-host). Lead pastor and “Cultural Architect” of Mosaic and author of The Barbarian Way — “whose primary focus is to serve the post-modern, post-Western, and post-Christian world.”

  • Rupert Murdoch. The controlling shareholder and chairman of News Corporation.

  • Kay Warren. Wife of Pastor Rick Warren.

  • Larry King. Internationally-known broadcaster and author.

  • Lee Strobel. Author of The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith.

  • Chuck Colson. Founder of Prison Fellowship.

  • George Barna. Founder of the Barna Group and Good News Holdings. Author of Revolution, Think Like Jesus, The Power of Vision, and Transforming Children into Spiritual Champions.

  • Former president George H. W. Bush who previously served as UN Ambassador and Ambassador to China. When introducing his version of our current US/UNESCO education system in 1991, he said,

“Nations that stick to stale old notions and ideologies [Biblical Truth and values?] will falter and fail. So I’m here today to say, America will move forward…. New schools for a new world…. Re-invent–literally start from scratch and reinvent the American school….”

What do you suppose the former president mean by “stale old notions and ideologies?” Biblical absolutes? That makes sense in light of the education program he had just endorsed: the U.S. version of UNESCO’s global education system.

Remember, UNESCO is no friend of Christianity. In 1995, UNESCO’s Commission on Culture and [human] Development issued a report titled, Our Creative Diversity. It denounced “extreme doctrinaire views” that “look to an imagined past” and called for a global transformation not unlike Dr. Harman’s futuristic vision:

“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living.”[10]

Everything must be changed — especially the way we think of ourselves in relationship to the “greater whole.” When applied to religion, the “new ways of thinking” means setting aside “narrow” or inflexible beliefs for the sake of unity, universalism and “common good.” Christianity must either bend or break.

Or, as Leonard Sweet wrote in Soul Tsunami (endorsed by Rick Warren): “Postmodern culture is a change-or-be-changed world. The word is out: Reinvent yourself for the 21st century or die.” [11]

Those who trust God and His Word will see the futility behind such revolutionary aims and claims. We have no reason to fear the rising hostility toward those who reject our Lord, for He has promised,

“…in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” John 16:33


1, International Spirit at Work Award
2, The “Continuing Consultation on Future Evangelical Concerns” was held in Overland Park, Kansas, December 11-14, 1979 — sponsored by the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College. Transcripts from the 1977 and 1979 consultations were published in a book titled An Evangelical Agenda: 1984 and Beyond (Copyright 1979 by the Billy Graham Center and published by the William Carey Library, Fuller Theological Seminary). Cited by Herescope in “Proposing ‘A New Theology.'”
3, Willis Harman, Global Mind Change (Warner Books, 1988). Back cover.
4, Jeff M. Sellers, “The Higher Self Gets Down To Business,” Christianity Today, 2-1-03.
5,The purpose-driven pastor” Rick Warren: Fundamentalism… “one of the big enemies…”,
6, An Evangelical Agenda: 1984 and beyond, copyright 1979 by the Billy Graham Center and published by the William Carey Library (Fuller Theological Seminary). pages 33-35.
7, Herescope, “Willis Harman speaks to evangelicals virtually unopposed
8, Herescope, Why was a Theosophist teaching Christians about the future?
9, Leonard Sweet & Willis Harman — Metanoia/Transformation
10, Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO Commission on Culture and [human] Development, 1995, page 67, 11.
11, Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsunami: Sink or Swim in the New Millennium Culture (Zondervan, 1999), pp. 74-75.


© 2007 Berit Kjos – All Rights Reserved


Order Berit’s book Brave New Schools

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Berit Kjos is a widely respected researcher, writer and conference speaker. A frequent guest on national radio and television programs, Kjos has been interviewed on Point of View (Marlin Maddoux), The 700 Club, Bible Answer Man, Beverly LaHaye Live, Crosstalk and Family Radio Network. She has also been a guest on “Talk Back Live” (CNN) and other secular radio and TV networks.  Her last two books are A Twist of Faith and Brave New Schools. Kjos Ministries Web Site:



Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,197 other followers