Jul 31, 2007

Unfriendly Fire: Pat Tillman Was Murdered or Executed

Consider the damning evidence that supports this bold headline, which this writer will even add to:

1. Not just one but 3 shots to the forehead, in close proximity, evidence of simultaneous and coordinated firing at close proximity, according to medical examiners at close range.

2. This is evidence that Tillman's body could not even react reflexively in a timely manner, as it would involuntarily, to not only one shot, but two shots, before the third shot struck, all in close proximity, which is evidence of coordinated timing as in a firing squad upon the command, "fire!" This is evidence consistent with an execution.

3. Consider the mathematical odds of ONLY the publicized celebrity being killed, and in this manner. NO OTHER SOLDIERS WERE EVEN WOUNDED. Tillman was singled out for this action, more evidence of a deliberate and selective murder.

Motive: In addition to the open evidence that he thought the war in Iraq was illegal, and protested against it, there could be more. Did he now know that the war against "terrorists" in Afghanistan, "hiding in caves", was pure propaganda and fiction (the Taliban were permitted to flee to Pakistan), and a deliberate lie, that he might expose publicly? (The neoconservatives already wanted to overthrow the government of Afghanistan prior to 9/11). The risk was too great for he had the celebrity power to attract national attention. Did they brand Tillman a traitor then, and order a field execution, then cover it up with a Silver Star?


New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed

Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the [fore]head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 27, 2007

Astounding new details surrounding the death of Pat Tillman clearly indicate that top brass decided to execute the former pro football star in cold blood to prevent him from returning home and becoming an anti-war icon.

These same criminals then engaged in a sophisticated conspiracy to create a phony "friendly fire" cover story.

Shocking new facts emerged about the case last night but were bizarrely underplayed by the Associated Press under nondescript headlines like 'New Details on Tillman's Death' - a complete disservice to the horrific implications that the new evidence carries.

(Article continues below)

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

The report also states that "No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck."

The article also reveals that "Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments."

So there was no evidence whatsoever of friendly fire, but the ballistics data clearly indicated that the three head shots had been fired from just 10 yards away and then the Army tried to concoct a hoax friendly fire story and sent gloating back-slapping e mails congratulating each other on their success while preventing the doctors from exploring the possibility of murder. How can any sane and rational individual weigh this evidence and not come to the conclusion that Tillman was deliberately gunned down in cold blood?

The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear - Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero.

As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, "You know, this war is so [expletive] illegal," and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Far from the gung-ho gruff stereotype attributed to him, Tillman was actually a fiercely intellectual man with the courage of his convictions firmly in place.

Tillman had even begun to arrange meetings with anti-war icons like Noam Chomsky upon his return to America before his death cut short any aspirations of becoming a focal point for anti-war sentiment.

According to Daily Kos, Wesley Clark appeared on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night and stated that "the orders came from the very top" to murder Tillman as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal.

The notion that the U.S. government gave orders for Army top brass to execute Pat Tillman in cold blood is the most damaging indictment of the Iraq war since it began, trumping the lies about weapons of mass destruction tenfold, but if the establishment media continue to soft-peddle and steam-valve one of the biggest stories of the century its impact will be completely diluted.

It is up to us to make this story go viral because the implications are so dire that they could act as the final death knell for the blood-soaked and illegal occupation of Iraq and become the clarion call to bring our troops home.

Jul 30, 2007

Do Americans Really Want to be under Surveillance? The Politics of Polls on the Surveillance Issue

"I love Big Brother".

-- G. Orwell, 1984

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--4th Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution

The provisions of the constitution of the United States, and of this state, are operative alike in a period of war as in time of peace, and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.

--West Virginia Constitution 1-3. Continuity of constitutional operation.


Front page Drudge report, and no doubt to be roaring through AP wires to every local news media, was this "news item" (consider how this narrow survey qualified as news) from ABC (the same that brought news of the "National Intelligence Estimate" and other recent "terrorist attempts":

Surveillance Cameras Win Broad Support

Majority of Americans Favor Extra Safety Factor of Cameras

The inference is plain and clear, this is propaganda for political purpose, released to the public. BUT, this so-called research is based upon ONLY ONE QUESTION in a survey conducted. http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1041a5Surveillance.pdf

This hardly passes for thorough research on the subject yet is paraded as if it is justification to enact and broaden the Leviathan rising Homeland Security system (similar to the total surveillance system in the UK) and local justification for police and crime prevention implementation. CAN THIS REALLY BE CONSIDERED THE DEFINITIVE RESEARCH OR OPINION GATHERING OF AMERICANS ON SURVEILLANCE?

Opinion polls measure, at one moment in time, "public opinion" by a particular statistical methodology which can have significant errors or distortions by

a) how questions are asked,

b) whom the surveys are able to contact,

c) the representative sample of a very small group of participants that might be subject to particular bias in the research, and

d) the timing of the polls corresponding to the context of recent events, news, or other public information programs.

Other research articles on this subject demonstrate that the very methodology on this particular subject of surveillance and privacy is faulty because of the very nature of just whom is surveyed in these polls. See here:

Research article: The Public Politics of Opinion Research on Surveillance and Privacy (pdf file)

A prominent criticism of opinion research is that it can force people to commit to opinions

on issues about which they had previously thought very little and which are only

tangentially relevant to their daily routines. The above anecdote, however, accentuates the

simple but important fact that surveys occasionally address matters that fundamentally

structure how some people live their lives. We want to dwell on this point in the context

of public opinion research on issues of surveillance and privacy (hereafter

surveillance/privacy). In particular, we accentuate the relationship between survey

response rates, contact rates and public concerns about surveillance/privacy.

This research article then explains how the methodology and demographic used in these polls on this particularly topic skews the results heavily toward a particular position:

Surveys are themselves essentially a form of surveillance that some individuals routinely interpret as a

privacy invasion. The issue of differential response in this context represents a classic

instance of a methodological difference that can produce a practical and political

difference. This is because we can expect that the people who systematically make

themselves unavailable for such studies would be precisely those individuals with the

greatest concern about surveillance/privacy. Findings for such studies are consequently

skewed towards what we might characterize as a "pro surveillance" position. It is

therefore particularly alarming to hear politicians appeal to the results of such surveys to

justify new security measures as something the public wants.

And so their conclusion about such polls on this particular subject is this, which inquiring minds ought to consider before concluding that the American population, as reported on Drudge, wants to be under surveillance:

Public opinion surveys on surveillance/privacy are an extreme instance where we can

expect a degree of important non-randomness to be structured into response rates.

The very factors which these surveys seek to document public attitudes towards

surveillance/privacy will, for a subset of the population, be intimately connected with

behaviours that would disproportionately predispose them to be excluded from such

studies. Individuals concerned about increasing surveillance or reduced privacy rights

would, for example, be expected to have a greater penchant for unlisted telephone



The polling numbers then for the subject of measuring public opinion on surveillance and privacy issues by the very nature and demographics of just who those surveys reach make it an unreliable measurement of comprehensive American public opinion.

What we DO know, and what is unmentioned, is what we published in our article here, that CCTV and surveillance cam studies in the UK, where they have long been pervasive, by the government itself prove that SURVEILLANCE DOES NOT DETER CRIME OR PREVENT CRIMINAL EVENTS. There are other better and more reliable methods of getting tips on crimes "going down" and that is the general public which 911 operators will tell you frequently call to report suspicious activity or crimes already. Read our article again:

Mayor Danny Jones wants to bring Big Brother to West Virginia

SECONDARY APPLICATION: RON PAUL and National Polls based upon Listed Phone Numbers and LAN lines.

These same polling methods, also, by direct implication, would greatly affect just who answers polls for particularly political representatives strongly associated with this issue, e.g. Ron Paul! Could this be the answer to why in national polling Ron Paul receives small numbers while on the internet (which reaches a broader audience than the limited public audience via LISTED PHONE NUMBERS AND/OR LAN LINES, INSTEAD OF THE GROWING VOIP PHONE SERVICE) he is the MOST RESEARCHED NAME and has more YouTube and other hits than other republican candidates by a landslide? Obviously the research would suggest this is the case.

Consider this Georgia GOP straw poll on July 4th, and just who faired better, Ron Paul or the Mayor who promotes the greatest threat to the freedoms of Americans:

A Fourth of July straw poll for Republicans

Year after year, the Fourth of July gathering by the Cobb County GOP is one of the largest in the state. On Thursday, 247 cast votes in a presidential straw poll.

To no one's surprise, Fred Thompson — who has a fund-raiser in Atlanta on Friday — was the leader. But the fact that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney finished second and third may be significant. Possibly. It was just a straw poll.

Jason Shepherd, the Cobb coordinator of the Georgia Draft Fred Thompson Committee, sent us the break-down:

Fred Thompson: 30 percent;

Ron Paul: 17 percent

Mitt Romney: 15 percent

Mike Huckabee: 13 percent

Newt Gingrich: 12 percent

Rudy Giuliani: 10 percent

John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore: 1 percent

No small wonder that Giuliani has decided to avoid straw polls like the prominent one coming up in Iowa! Giuliani, McCain to Pass on Iowa Straw Poll

Jul 27, 2007

Reality of Plan for North American Union Exposed

Jerome Corsi was interviewed Wednesday on WCHS 58Live talk radio by Michael Agnello over his new book exposing the very real and secretive plan implemented by the Bush administration for a North American Union. This was an excellent interview and something we had encouraged in our earlier article here that is worth reviewing again:

Jun 8, 2007

Behind Bush's Immigration Bill: The Secret Plan for North American Union

Dr. Corsi's book was summarized on World Net Daily (here) in these words:

Just two weeks after its release, "The Late Great USA" – which exposes government plans to promote integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada – has made the New York Times best-seller list.

Written by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., co-author of "Unfit for Command" which became a No. 1 New York Times best-seller and a decisive influence in the 2004 election, "The Late Great USA" exposes the multifaceted plan to turn the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American version of the European Union.

Agnello admitted that he thought that what he had read about a North American Union was a bunch of "conspiracy huey" and was startled to find out that it is well documented and true. This refreshing admission deserves to be considered by all republicans on other topics as well. This awakening demonstrates again the dangers of partisanship (when all swear to defend and uphold the Constitution as a standard) which blinded republicans for too long to a neoconservative and CFR serving President (and Vice President and neocon administration) who holds the U.S. Constitution in contempt, and why blogs like this are adamant about the constitution being the basis for political judgments and not party labels or "conservative" rhetoric. Hopefully other conservatives and republicans will awaken to this very real and destructive agenda which threatens the independence and sovereignty of the United States and the final demolition of the Constitution by the globalists and pragmatists. This also sheds light on large, particularly international corporations, often too much applauded for "bringing new jobs" and being wooed by state governments, who incentivize them in desperation while subsidizing the destruction of local small businesses and creative entrepreneurs. (There should be more applause for local start up companies than for bringing Toyota to West Virginia).

This is a huge and primary issue that merits the attention of West Virginians! And Dr. Corsi, upon a question from Agnello of who in Washington was trustworthy and "ahead of the curve" in opposing this agenda, mentioned in no uncertain terms, with very strong implications, just who could be trusted on this issue. In his reply he named Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter, respectively, and in that order. The implication for republican voters in the primary is very clear, namely, that the "lead candidates" (supported and publicized by the major news networks and their debates) in the 2008 presidential race, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and even the unannounced Fred Thompson ARE NOT candidates who are on top of or oppose this anti-sovereign, anti-constitutional agenda of merging Mexico, the U.S., and Canada into an American EU! By implication the so-called early "lead" republican candidates would continue the agenda of the Bush administration, and so would the Democrats as well! Again, popularity thus far appears to be too much on the superficial image and ear-tickling soundbites than on solid, well-considered issues.

Specifically, Fred Thompson, like Dick Cheney, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which heavily promotes and drives the SPP and NAU agenda (piece by piece toward world government via economic pragmatism) mentioned in our previous article linked above (see the video in that article particularly), which is why he is termed a neocon globalist.

Ron Paul's positions, as Dr. Corsi mentioned, on this are well documented. On the NAFTA Superhighway, and being a Congressman from Texas (and opposing strongly all illegal immigration) he states this, hotly opposing it in his typical and principled constitutionally consistent manner:

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
Another article where he warns in Congress of a North American United Nations is here. Ron Paul is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to the republican 2008 Presidential candidates who ignore and duck this important issue (as they also do on their 2nd Amendment records and abortion) that effects American's "way of life" and security. Again, consistency in adherence to rule of law by the Constitution make him a trustworthy and consistent defender of national sovereignty and opposition to illegal immigration.

Ron Paul vehemently criticized the recent immigration bill pushed by the administration, refuting Bush's claim stating Amnesty Opponents are not Un-American.

Although action in the United States Senate this week has slowed passage of the amnesty bill, it is not yet dead as President Bush remains committed to this approach. That is why the President recently suggested that those of us who oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants are unpatriotic. Those of us who strongly oppose the new immigration reform bill before the Senate “don't want to do what's right for America ,” the president said. I reject that assessment as unfair and inaccurate.

Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem without new laws.

To make matters worse, as I wrote in a recent column, some 120 of our best trained border guards are going to be sent to Iraq to help them with border enforcement! In addition, National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start on the Mexican border are scheduled to also be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan .

He also demonstrates how the Bush administration has intertwined and pushed the illegal immigration "amnesty bill", a National ID (REAL ID), and SPP plan and how they are all related.

Although the “reform” of immigration in the amnesty bill is enough to cause alarm, other highly troubling provisions are tucked away that will serve to undermine our sovereignty and weaken our civil liberties. According to the most recent version of the Senate bill, the misnamed Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America is to be “accelerated.” It seems ironic that a project aiming to actually weaken US borders with Mexico and Canada would be added into a bill that purports to toughen border controls.

Also, this bill will bring us closer to a national ID card, which without a doubt runs counter to American values and history and will punish American citizens without doing much to counter those who would come here illegally.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who completely rejects and exposes the danger of all these elements for Americans. Politicians and candidates who take oaths to uphold the constitution as rule of law must take the same positions consistent with it. (See our side column links against North American Union).


Jul 23, 2007

Reagan Official Warns of a False-flag 'Second 9/11' to Cement Neo-Republican Power

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

--Thomas Jefferson

Paul Craig Roberts has not kept silent. An important radio interview with Paul Craig Roberts of the Reagan administration (see link below).

Note: Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com


"False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own."
-- Wickipedia
This Reagan Administration official warns Americans to be suspicious of the very real possibility of a false-flag Second 9/11 "attack" to cement neoconservative republican political power, and to revive both the foreign wars and domestic terrorism policies being met with resistance. HE IS DEAD SERIOUS! If not a second 9/11, certainly sufficient "news" or "terror" headlines to terrorize Americans into supporting the vague, perpetual "war on terror" and tyrannical domestic legislation (REAL ID, Homeland Security, PATRIOT ACT continuity, etc.). He mentions Iran as a theatre that Cheney, leading the neoconservative charge, is hell-bent on getting America into before Bush leaves office.

If and when this happens remember it was forewarned of as an event to benefit the present agendas, foreign and domestic, and that no terrorist motive could possibly exist to give Americans a reason to change their minds about an unpopular neoconservative President's policies and agenda. Why would terrorists attack now (as the controlled media is now warning in this political season again, without credible evidence), after 6 years of absolute silence in America!


The radio interview with Roberts was based upon his recent column that we also posted on the blog called Impeach Now; Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy , where he stated this:
Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

He maintains that the hijacked republican party, through the republican 2008 candidates (as the debates thus far have demonstrated), apart from the constitutional republican Ron Paul, represent nothing more than a continuity of an unpopular neocon-controlled President with a blueprint for a "new middle east" and domestic police state, and will therefore fail to win in 2008, (we can state in the same words as the Project for the New American Century penned it in September 2000), "...absent a catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor".


What is interesting is the bleak analysis of the republican party and its presidential candidates, due to its neoconservative (RINO) positions by the (media-supported) "leading candidates" was also mentioned by Gnewt Gingirch recently in a speech to an Zionist-based political group:
"Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency."

Giuliani, Romney, and the undeclared "Law and (new world) Order" Thompson represent the very same neoconservative agenda as George W. Bush. Period. These are the neo-republican candidates, and only Ron Paul is an alternative (who defends the "just war" theory of Christianity, opposes abortion absolutely, defends 2nd ammendment rights, as well as the whole Bill of Rights, better than all of them, and has a track record to prove it).

Just look at all the polls here! --well over 60% disapproval! The majority of Americans are highly dissatisfied and hate this present government--but you would never get the neo-republican candidates to admit it, who want to continue it! Desperate times will lead to desperate acts. The American people will not be satisfied with these candidates' new late method of "Bush-bashing" (to create some perceived difference), with plastic bats, on immigration issues alone or saying he has merely "mismanaged the (neocon pre-planned, unjust, imperialist, without imminent threat") war" while also ignoring the growing domestic police state! So suddenly we see headlines like this: Republican '08 hopefuls seek distance from Bush, and "Bush-bashing" (a previous act of blasphemy against the Christian-feigning President, always an element in fascism), is now in vogue by republicans because it is practical!


Returning to Craig Roberts, this sober Washington insider has written numerous columns (all worth reading!), as a republican, consistently against the neoconservatives and the constitution-trampling Bush administration, warning about the danger of their virtual coup since 9/11 in no uncertain terms. His experience and knowledge within the government during the Reagan administration enables him to speak and write with insight, and he informs or reminds listeners that "Reagan fired" the neoconservatives!

This related news article below also, included in CLG's news alerts, smacks of the same type of craft and secrecy that Paul Craig Roberts writes about were a spectacular "second 9/11" to occur, about the government's continuity of operations. SECRECY IS A CONSISTENT MARK OF BUSH GOVERNMENT, and the historical mark of fifth column revolutionaries that design to overthrow governments from the inside, which is precisely what has happened since 9/11 based upon the tyrant's plea of "necessity".

Ore. Rep. asks to see gov't plans for aftermath of terror attack, denied access 20 Jul 2007 Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack. As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents. On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED. "I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says. Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio said.

Jul 17, 2007

Military Favors Ron Paul Over All Other GOP Candidates in Campaign Contributions

WOW! Bet you will not hear this on national media or talk radio. (Linked to original source).

Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain

The US Federal Election Commission has released the Selected Presidential Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly, and there are a few surprises. No surprise, of course, is that people in the armed services and veterans overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. However, after digging through individual candidates’ contributions by employers, we find an elating (or disturbing, if you’re rooting for Rudy McRomney) trend. The breakdown? Here you go.

Ron Paul 6975 7765 4650 1500 1250 22140
McCain 6225 6480 1570 1600 800 16675
Romney 2051 0 1500 0 1000 4551
Giuliani 1450 370 250 0 250 2320
Hunter 0 1000 0 0 0 1000
Richardson 50 750 0 0 0 800
Huckabee 250 0 500 0 0 750
Tancredo 350 0 0 0 0 350
Brownback 71 0 0 0 0 71
Thompson 0 0 0 0 0

This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services. The “veteran” column was derived by looking for “retired ______,” “______ retired,” or anything containing the word veteran, with the exception of Veterans’ Affairs (or the like).

What conclusions can be drawn from this surprising, exciting information? One might jump to the conclusion that the troops are tired and demoralized and angry to be fighting in the desert sand, and willing to leap on the only Republican candidate who wants an immediate end to the war. But that’s an insufficient explanation, since veterans favor Ron Paul as well.

Our military forces have a strong tradition of valorization and an implicit belief that they have served to protect the freedom of private citizens in the United States. So profound is this belief that it ranks as the #1 reason that veterans and active duty say they joined (even though education ranks as the #1 reason prior to enlistment).

This culture of pride in service particularly to safeguard American liberties and freedoms — regardless of whether it is true or not — disinclines those in service to contribute to candidates like Romney and Giuliani who want to expand Executive power and increase spying on Americans. This is why Ron Paul and John McCain are the clearest front-runners in terms of contributions. Well, that and the fact that McCain was a Captain in the Navy and Ron Paul was a flight surgeon.

Or … (one final thought) … does it run in the other direction? Does the military favor Paul and McCain because they were military, or do Ron Paul and John McCain have a favorable set of values for military servicemen and women because they themselves have served?


Also, a recent Ron Paul campaign letter stated this:

I talked about all our ideas: marching out of Iraq just as we marched in; no more meddling in the Middle East; bringing the troops home, from hundreds of expensive bases all over the world, so that we could have the money we need for the transition to freedom in social programs, and to abolish the personal income tax and the IRS. They are not compatible with a free society.

In a Ron Paul administration, we would also repeal the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, restore habeas corpus and stop the spying on Americans. No more eavesdropping on our emails and bank accounts, our phone calls, home and businesses. No national ID -- just the bracing freedom of the Constitution.

We must have sound money, and not a giant counterfeiting machine called the Federal Reserve that causes recessions and inflation. We must have private property rights, with no pollution or other attacks on property. We should enforce the Second Amendment, and all the Bill of Rights. We can have privacy for us, not secrecy for a corrupt bureaucracy.

It is all within our grasp, the restoration of the republic and our sovereignty-no UN, no North American Union, no Nafta, no WTO, no World Bank, no IMF. Just federalism, free enterprise, peace, prosperity, and the kind of future we all want for our families, ourselves, and our fellow Americans.


More Breaking here:

From NBC's Mark Murray

Our friends at Hotline made this excellent point: We all know by now that Paul has more cash on hand than McCain. But he also has more cash on hand than seven other presidential hopefuls combined (Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee, Kucinich, Hunter, T. Thompson, and Gravel).
Podcasts: Ron Paul Interviewed
By Kent Snyder
Congressman Ron Paul was interviewed by the editorial board of The San Francisco Chronicle on July 13. "Straight-talkin' presidential candidate Ron Paul". "Candidate Ron Paul would shrink military-industrial complex"
Ron Paul 2008 - http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/
Other interesting facts about Ron Paul:

1. Ron Paul has almost as much net cash on hand as Mitt Romney (to get that number, you deduct the $9 million of debt that the Romney campaign owes).

2. Ron Paul has been the number one most searched person on the entire blogosphere for the last three months straight per http://www.technorati.com

3. Ron Paul has more than 4 times as many volunteers as Obama, 22 times more volunteers than Hillary, and hundreds of times more volunteers than Giuliani or Romney, per Meetup.com. In addition, new Ron Paul volunteers is growing at a rate of 36 times faster than Obama, and 96 times faster than Hillary as documented at:


4. Liberty is popular and honesty is popular. Ron Paul leads in polls of people who have heard him speak. And it is still 5 months before the primaries, so there is still plenty of time for people who haven’t yet heard Ron Paul's message to hear it.


Go Ron Paul!


Impeach Now; Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

Paul Craig Roberts, from the Reagan administration, again warns of the anti-constitutional seizure of Executive powers, the saber-rattling about Iran, again, from Dick Cheney (see our other articles under the Cheney label) recently, and the "gut feeling" of Chertoff regarding summer terror "threats", along with the rest of the renewed terrorism propaganda lately, and what this all points toward. The time is almost up for the Bush administration and we have stated ourselves what this republican Washington insider himself asserts could very well take place. This is why we talk so much about fascism and totalitarianism of this administration, not because it is FELT, but because they have established (contrary to the Constitution) a new LEGAL FRAMEWORK from which totalitarian rule could be implemented, by the Executive Branch (of EITHER party in power), at any time. The definition of tyrannical government is arbitrary rule outside of established constitutional law, which the USA PATRIOT ACT(s), REAL ID, MEPHA laws, Homeland Security (America's Gestapo), and Military Commissions Act, etc., have established a legal framework for. Read his sobering article, and his warning that the present neoconservative-controlled administration must be stopped, using constitutional powers, for violations of its oath of office, and major breaches and violations of Constitutional rule of law. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate that would restore Constitutional government, but it is also possible 2008 elections, under Robert's scenario, might not even take place--unless the neoconservatives can get one of their pre-selected candidates (Rudy McRomney or Fred Thompson) into power, although the Israeli lobby also owns Hillary and Obama as well, and no others are trustworthy or would adhere to Constitutional principle strictly.

Impeach Now

Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy


07/17/07 "
ICH ' -- -- Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008. Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.

The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.

The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Jul 16, 2007

Summer of Terrorism or "Catalyzing Events"? Media Stories with "Terrorism Experts" Cross-examined


Americans need to examine just how they get their "news". (See also our article about Bill Moyer's documentary 'Buying the War'). It is no secret that news is designed like other consumer merchandising for mass consumption, and that it is disseminated through contracted newswires which local media buy and republish. For most newspapers this means that ALL of their national news is "contracted" through AP or another newswire, and they simply publish (or parrot) whatever the newswire writes, or now releases on video format. The potential for this is mass deception of the public (via controlling "free press") and a direct impact on immediate public opinion, unless the public cross-examines and plays the skeptic and more analytical position consistent with both liberty of conscience and more cautious deliberation. This is why alternative media, largely the internet, is becoming a new popular medium of obtaining news, apart from contract national newswires, which reasonable minds can no longer regard as trustworthy. (Local newspapers should also consider that simply being on the internet while continuing AP contracts, for reasons of ease of rapid publishing and economic pragmatism, will not increase their readership against alternative media).

The AP video title on our local newspaper's website (the same video contracted to thousands of newspapers country wide) states this (url is now closed):
Al-Qaida Works to Plant U.S. Operatives. Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned. (July 12)
Questions and Causes for Doubt: How do they know, yet have "no specific evidence", as Homeland Security listens to email "chatter" (but cannot locate their ISPs)? What operatives? We were told of "sleeper cells" 6 years ago, but where? Are they still hiding? Why no attacks when anyone could do almost anything without check? You can know for certain that if any member of the public were to send any email or have an "extremist website" consisting of threats the FBI or other agencies of government could track you down in a New York minute! The idea of terrorists using websites is absurd, for that would spell their immediate end (disclosing their locations), unless of course it was desirable to let this propaganda be obtained by national media! (This is also a way to circumvent official government reporting of disinformation by letting sycophant media publish it as sensational "news", which then leads to debate on foreign and domestic policy. ABC and Brian Ross now appear to have a virtual monopoly on "terror news"). Yet the most spurious and incredible "sources" of terrorist claims and videos are mentioned in mainstream news as the basis for a terrorism news story or that 'attacks could be imminent". How does the public swallow this whole without choking?


Of course, it is Presidential primary season, Bush is now facing republican opposition to the war (not just from Ron Paul now, but key Senators like Lugar and Warner), and the anniversary of 9/11 is coming up while the "war on terrorism" is looked upon with suspicion by the slowly awakening American people who no longer believe the "there is no doubt" rhetoric of a lying administration who "fixed [fabricated] the intelligence around the policy" to go to war! PROPAGANDA IS NEEDED TO REIGNITE THE DYING FIRES OF NEOCONSERVATIVE FANATICISM TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA. It is no secret that the neocon plan includes the overthrow of Iran and that Dick Cheney has been laying plans (not President Bush?) to attack Iran on a "Second 9/11", which now Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has a "gut feeling" about without any "specific knowledge". How convenient! Why would terrorists attack, after 6 years of silence, just when Americans are pressuring to end war in Iraq, and prevent one from starting against Iran? Just who would would be behind such a "spectacular attack surpassing that of 9/11" and who would benefit most? The time is short for Cheney and the neoconservatives to implement their "regime change" blueprint for "a new middle east" before Bush's time in office (since "impeachment is off the table"--Pelosi) expires. Would it not be suspiciously coincidental for a (false flag, or provoked) "terrorist attack" to engage in new wars? Those who would answer "no" do not know the history of the first Pearl Harbor (see Day of Deceit in bookstore below), nor the Gulf of Tonkin facts which began Viet Nam, nor would dare review the simple facts of 9/11 which entirely refute the official story. Of course it also serves the purpose to remind the American public about 9/11, as if it gives carte blanch justification to do whatever they want.


Returning again to this particular video story recently from AP the film clip includes an interview with someone who has a subtitle "terror expert" during his very short statement, which basically says "they are planning to kill us every day", straight from the neoconservative catechism. Now this type of statement is so obviously propaganda, and obviously untrue (after 6 years of no terrorist incidents in the entire 50 contiguous states, filled with "sleeper cells" we were told in 2001) that it begs for a rational argument. Just who is this "terror expert" (we all want to know)? This man's name was Neil Livingstone. Now most of us would draw a blank at this point. Who? Should we not look into just what makes someone a "terror expert" to make such outrageous propaganda statements? A quick Google search turned up the answer as Mr. Livingstone is the Chairman and CEO of a company called ExecutiveAction, LLC. Again, what company is this? Going immediately to the board members I was in earnest to see if what I suspected was true, whether the board was infested with at least one key neoconservative figure, who would surely link this fake propaganda back to the secretive and powerful minions of the PNAC agenda. I was not disappointed, and my hypothesis was quickly proven true (again), for this very generic-labeled LLC, that sounds more like corporate consulting than an intelligence or military think tank, had this key neoconservative on the board:
R. James Woolsey Chairman, Advisory Board

Indeed, no light-weight neocon here--possibly the stealth mastermind of implementation behind neoconservative and Zionist plans for world domination via "Democracy" (while Islam is blamed for this very ambition)! And straight from the halls of the Project for New American Century, yes, former CIA director, militant unabashed Likudnik brand pro-Israel Zionist, who is a member of about as many neocon think tanks and propaganda fronts as Carters has pills. Note that clicking on his name brings up his biography which makes NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to his many neoconservative think tank memberships or the plethora of boards of which he is a part of. So let us list some of the organizations that Mr. Woolsey has been apart of, documented from RightWeb (an excellent source):


  • Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Member, Advisory Board
  • Foundation for the Defense of Democracies [PNAC CONTINUITY PROGRAM]: Distinguished Adviser
  • Freedom House: Chairman, Board of Trustees
  • Center for Security Policy: Honorary Co-Chair, National Security Advisory Council
  • Coalition for Democracy in Iran: Supporter
  • Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Member
  • American for Victory over Terrorism: Former Senior Adviser
  • National Institute for Public Policy: Study Participant
  • Project for the New American Century: Signatory, PNAC Advocacy Letters
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies: Former Trustee

  • Private Sector [Military-Industrial Complex]

  • Booz Allen Hamilton: Vice President, Global Strategic Security Division (2002-)
  • Paladin Capital Group's Homeland Security Fund Investment Committee: Principal and Member
  • Linsang Partners, LLC: Board Member
  • BC International Corporation: Board Member
  • Fibersense Technology Corporation: Board Member
  • Invicta Networks, Inc.: Board Member
  • DIANA, LLC; Agorics, Inc.: Board Member
  • Sun HealthCare Group, Inc.: Board Member
  • Global Options LLC: Vice Chairman, Advisory Board
  • Benador Associates: Member, International Speakers Bureau
  • Shea & Gardner (Washington, DC): Former Managing Partner (1995-2001)
  • Martin Marrietta: Former Board Member
  • Fairchild Industries: Former Board Member
  • DynCorp: Former Board Member
  • British Aerospace: Former Board Member
  • Titan Corporation: Former Board Member
  • Yurie Systems, Inc.: Former Board Member
  • USF&G: Former Board Member
  • Aerospace Corporation: Former Director

  • We can add to this his co-chairmanship on the advisory council for Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy (see their advisory council's membership!). And also add to this his board membership on American Congress for Truth (neither a "congress" nor truthful), the radical Zionist propaganda tank (Bridgett Gabriel, professional propagandist, who wrote a book Because they Hate) mainly designed to cast evil suspicion on all of Islam to inflame the "Clash of Civilizations" and fuel the "war on terrorism", mainly on behalf of Israeli interests, but also for world democracy (which rejects the Bible as much as the Koran), by fear-mongering Americans. This fanatical woman (who could be the subject of someone else's book "Why She Hates") comes across in interviews as the most irritating, brainwashed, high-strung, "kill them all" genocidal maniac who pretends to care about Christianity to inflame naive modern Christian listeners (who have different doctrines and beliefs than historical Christianity), primarily those who believe the 20th century judaizing heresy called Zionism. (This writer is not defending the false religion of Islam or its unholy Koran either and wishes agnostics would play the skeptic with that book as much as they attempt, vainly, with the Bible!) Her stories are built on the sensational, highly spurious accounts of how Muslims persecuted her and try to "kill everyone" that does not follow their religion (while we see little evidence of this in America and Britain today among Muslims) to inflame gullible minds. The problem with this is that some of us had Christian missionary friends who went to Beirut, Lebanon, over two decades ago, who never observed or made the same testimony (though there was concern about persecution) of what this firebrand claims. Are we to be blind to her neoconservative-Zionist affiliations or political and economic motives? Of course it is too politically incorrect to cross-examine her personal testimony which is defended (like all propaganda) through allegation, repetition, pure force, and "how dare you question" positioning.


    There appears to be a very narrow funnel as to who actually collects and interprets these "terrorist websites"--which the most expensive Intelligence agencies in the world are incapable of using to locate or track said terrorists, but which conveniently are used, and their messages then broadcast to all America (aiding terrorism?) by sycophant media, while their authenticity is often officially questioned by government sources--and are of the most incredible and spurious content, quality, and timing. What would be the motivation behind such websites? Do they want to be found? Clearly this propaganda has a purpose more akin to persuading the American people toward an undefined "war on terror" otherwise the government would censor it.

    One primary source in particular
    , which bills itself as the "preferred source", from which news agencies and others receive and obtain "interpretations" of videos that suddenly appear, from the Arabic languages, is LauraMansfield.com which states this:

    Laura Mansfield is your preferred source for up-to-date, credible information from professionals who speak the language and understand the religion, history, and culture of the Islamic world. ...We bring you the most important translations of foreign press reports, jihadist videos, audios, and Arabic-language message boards on a daily basis.

    It is worth noting that this is the preferred source for the neocons who have deliberately lied to us and brought us false information, false intelligence about WMD, in order to justify the Iraq war. Laura Mansfield and James Woolsey in particular, seem to run frequently together in appearances and seminars. Should this not be questioned? May we not be objective about just WHO is providing the "expert" analysis, "translations", and other "jihadist" propaganda? In fact, here is a conference on the Roots of Islamic Terrorism, sponsored by America's Truth Forum, in which Mansfield, Woolsey, Bridget Gabriel, and advisors from Frank Gaffney's firm participate together toward a Christian audience.

    It is also a preferred source for major news networks, such as this recent "terrorism" ABC report here:

    The tape was first discovered by Arabic language specialist Laura Mansfield, who believes the release of the tape is timed to coincide with Pres. Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow and directed to an American audience.

    Note the timing of that tape. Just whose message does it reinforce? Now we have a new Bin Laden appearance, always before major elections and campaigns, always when the support for war is waning. Coincidence, or are the alleged terrorists stupid? Why does it always benefit a neoconservative agenda? Now we have documentation that the "new Bin Laden" tape was produced at least five years ago! And This Newsbusters post demonstrates the very point we make in this article, how the contracted news publishes this bin Laden propaganda video, and it appears to justify neoconservative policy, and Chertoff's "gut feeling":

    A terrorist website releases a tape of Osama Bin Laden, claiming it's new. And how do the MSM react? By rushing to air it, or in the case of wire services like AP, trumpet it in print. As of 6:30 A.M. EDT this morning, the AP story Bin Laden Appears in New al-Qaida Video was featured on Drudge.

    There's only one problem. A senior Bush administration official informs this NewsBuster that:

    "intelligence agencies have determined the video was previously aired as a portion of a longer show first on MBC TV (Middle East broadcast station) on April 17, 2002."

    Clearly then, someone is playing a "terrorist" game with American's minds, using very narrow sources for "expertise", and using, again, "intelligence fixed around the policy" for the American public, and disseminated by the American media.



    It is absolutely crystal clear that a pre-set agenda was locked and loaded before the "new Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 was executed by illusive perpetrators who had to have an intimate knowledge of U.S. flight and system defenses as well as carry out an attack that required piloting skills that were so extraordinary that expert pilots insist that not even the most trained could have pulled off the attacks with such precision against the WTC and Pentagon. It is absolutely clear just who benefited most and raised the propaganda to a fever pitch immediately on that infamous day, and who continue to charge and brand Islamic terrorists as the evil behind it all, while advancing their own agenda toward global democracy, through force:
    "The process of transformation is likely to be a long one,
    absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
    -- Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses; Sept. 2000

    "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."
    --President Bush's journal, allegedly recorded on 9/11