Saturday, February 03, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he
was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the
US government itself. The former national security adviser was
The following exchange took place:
Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It
can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within
the US government itself?
A: I'm saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of
calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult
By MATT APUZZOThe Associated PressFriday, February 2, 2007; 12:56 PM
WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is fighting to keep his grand jury testimony about the leak of a CIA operative's name from being released and broadcast in the media.
Fwd: Essay by Dr. Bob Bowman, candidate for Congress 2008
By Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
The United States is in trouble. We're in danger of becoming
fascist dictatorship where big government and big business combine to
rule, and where the people are considered just a source of labor. The
marriage of government and the investor class has succeeded in
exporting our jobs, importing illegal aliens to provide a pool of
cheap labor, and thus driving down wages for all American workers and
destroying the middle class. Their foreign and military policies have
led us into unnecessary wars of aggression to gain raw materials and
enhance profits of the global robber barons. Their trade policies
have resulted in capital flight, job loss, trade deficits, and the
ownership of much of our infrastructure by foreign interests.
We've gotten into this fix because our presidents, of both
have been servants of the global investors, and because our
representatives in Congress, again of both parties, have abdicated
their Constitutional responsibilities and subjected themselves to an
We, the People of the United States of America, deserve
must demand a government which (1) follows the Constitution, (2)
honors the truth, and (3) serves the people. We Patriots can bring
about such a government by electing Patriots to Congress and
recruiting Patriots already in government to our cause. It is always
tempting to start yet another political party, but our system makes
such a course futile. Until we have instant runoff voting (IRV),
proportional representation, real campaign finance reform,
re-regulation of the media, and debates involving all political
parties, no third party can win the presidency or more than a handful
of seats in Congress.
Accordingly, "The Patriots" is not a political party, but a
nonpartisan organization of patriotic Americans seeking to return our
country to Constitutional government based on truth and in service of
the people. For now, we operate as a project of the non-profit
Institute for Space and Security Studies, a 501c(3) organization. Our
immediate mission is to educate the American people on the issues. In
the future, we may form a "Patriot PAC" to support candidates for
public office and to promote specific legislation. We also intend to
form a Patriot Caucus including members of Congress from all political
parties. However, for now we are concentrating on public education.
The first question usually raised is, "Is this organization
conservative or liberal?" The answer to that question is, "Yes." We
have both conservative and liberal members, and both conservative and
liberal ideas. But mostly, we are just patriotic Americans embodying
the best of both conservatism and liberalism in the service of the
We Patriots are "conservative" inasmuch as we are devoted to
Constitution, to limited government, and to fiscal responsibility.
As conservatives, we oppose NAFTA, the WTO, and the SPP/NAU
contrary to our sovereignty, antidemocratic, and against the interests
of the American people. We support the 2nd Amendment right of the
people to bear arms in order to deter and, if necessary, resist
tyranny. We oppose illegal immigration and "amnesty" as means by
which the corporate elite depress the wages of all working Americans.
We oppose the intrusion of government in our religious and private
lives. We oppose our nation becoming entangled in foreign military
ventures not essential to our national security.
As conservatives, we define "national security" narrowly,
protection of our nation, our borders, and our people – and excluding
the financial "interests" of multinational corporations and global
investors. This is not isolationism, for we support international law
and the creation of international institutions which serve the needs
of humankind by promoting cooperation on global issues such as
disease, pollution, and warfare which do not respect national
boundaries. We want the United States to be a responsible, respected
member of the family of nations. But we will not seek imperial
expansion through aggressive wars to make client states. Nor will we
surrender our sovereignty to "trade organizations" like the WTO
seeking to turn us into a third world country.
As conservatives, we support our military, including our
have served and survived. We insist that our government fully fund
the VA and fulfill its responsibility to care for our veterans and
their families. We also are determined that our government honor
promises made to veterans and our retired military members. To make
thousands of disabled veterans in corporate wars and then refuse to
take care of them is unacceptable, unconscionable, and un-American.
We believe that history has shown that combat veterans govern better
than draft dodgers and chicken hawks. Those who have experienced the
horrors of combat are less likely to send our sons and daughters off
to fight wars for the oil companies.
As conservatives, we will not tolerate "borrow and spend"
which saddles our grandchildren with trillions in debt and gives China
the ability to bankrupt us at will. We demand a return to balanced
budgets and fiscal responsibility.
As conservatives, Patriots oppose a closed, manipulative, and
secretive government, and demand the truth from our elected officials.
We will not tolerate "Gulf of Tonkin" incidents as excuses for war.
We reject the deceptions which involved us in the first Gulf War under
George H. W. Bush and in the rape of Yugoslavia under Clinton. We
abhor the lies about WMD, "yellow cake," and "mushroom clouds over New
York" which got us into the 2nd Iraq War and its interminable and
As conservatives, we call for a "Sunshine Law" which will make
conspiratorial meetings like that between Dick Cheney and Ken Lay on
energy policy impossible (or at least illegal). We reject as totally
inadequate the Kean-Hamilton-Zelikow 9/11 Commission Report which
admittedly contains perjured testimony, refrains from assigning
responsibility and accountability for our defense's failures, and
fails to even address dozens of unanswered questions and obvious flaws
in the Bush Administration's official story. We therefore demand a
new and truly independent investigation of 9/11. We demand an
investigation of the cover-up which followed 9/11 involving the
confiscation and destruction of evidence, lying to investigators, and
obstruction of justice. Finally, we demand an investigation of the
exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy to launch unnecessary wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses.
As conservatives, we reject the misnamed Patriot Act,
wiretaps, the loss of "habeus corpus," and all other attacks on our
God-given freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of
Rights. We will not tolerate infringement of our first amendment
rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly,
and redress of grievances. We agree with Teddy Roosevelt and others
who insist that dissent is often the height of patriotism, and we will
not stand for dissenters being interred as "enemy combatants."
As conservatives, we Patriots insist that our government
Constitutional responsibility to provide for the general welfare. We
agree with the liberals that this must, for example, mean providing
health care, including prescription drugs, for all Americans. The
most fiscally responsible way to do that is to eliminate the overhead,
profit, red tape, and obstructionism of the insurance companies by
removing them from health care altogether with a Single-Payer National
As conservatives, we take seriously our responsibility to
the environment, our natural resources, and the beauty of our land, so
that we may pass these on to our grandchildren and their grandchildren
for generations to come. We acknowledge our role as stewards of God's
creation, and will not tolerate a government which puts creation at
risk or allows corporate interests to do so. As fiscal conservatives,
we insist that polluters clean up their own messes instead of forcing
the taxpayers to bail them out. Destructive activities such as strip
mining, clear-cut logging, and the burning of fossil fuels should be
taxed sufficiently to provide the funds needed for repair and
amelioration. There is no industrial free lunch, and there should be
no corporate welfare.
As Constitutional conservatives, we demand that the democratic
underpinnings of our Republic be respected. Free elections under the
"one person, one vote" principle and in which every person has an
opportunity to vote and to have their vote counted are essential. We
therefore declare any method of voting which does not produce a paper
ballot which can be counted, recounted, and audited as necessary to be
unconstitutional. We also call for non-partisan apportionment of
Congressional districts, making election day a federal holiday,
preference voting, and proportional representation.
We Patriots are also "populist" inasmuch as we declare that
government should serve the people – not the big money interests and
giant multinationals. We declare that corporations and other
fictitious entities are not people and should have none of the rights
and responsibilities thereof under the U.S. Constitution. This means,
for example, that corporations have no Constitutional right to buy up
politicians through campaign contributions and other favors, nor to
buy elections through unlimited "issue ads."
As conservatives and populists, we declare that the
principle of limited government is not so much about government's size
as it is about what government can do. Most of all, it is about whom
government should serve. It should serve the people. The present
partnership (or marriage) between giant corporations and big
government is precisely what Mussolini defined as fascism. We must
once and for all dispel the myth that conservative political
philosophy favors the rich and big business. It does not. That is
fascism. True conservatism honors individual rights and puts people
first. We demand a return to such a true conservatism.
As conservatives, we insist on laws being enforced.
entice illegal aliens across the border and exploit them in order to
avoid having to pay American workers a decent wage should be fined and
jailed. Once the jobs dry up, the illegal aliens will go home. We
won't have to deport them.
As Constitutional populists, we Patriots are open to those of
political parties. We welcome Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians,
Greens, Reformers, and independents. We embrace conservatives and
liberals who share our values. But we understand that "If it feels
good, do it" libertine so-called liberals will probably reject them.
Similarly, "I've got mine, you go get yours" big-money so-called
conservatives won't like our values either.
The kind of liberal we embrace is that described by President
Kennedy as "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who
welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about
the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their
schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties –
someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions
that grip us in our policies abroad. If that is what they mean by a
`Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a `Liberal'!" As conservatives,
we Patriots are concerned about morality. But as liberals, we insist
that government concern itself more with morality in the boardroom and
the war room than in the bedroom.
As conservatives, we do not sanction a welfare state. Yet at
same time, as liberals we want every member of society to share the
benefits of productivity, and we expect workers to receive a fair
share of the wealth they create. And we see no conflict between these
views. Patriots can be conservative without being selfish and
cold-hearted. True family values mean valuing families. As
Conservatives, we insist that women not be forced to work outside the
home to support themselves and their children. Being a mother is hard
work. Doing it well is a benefit to society. Compensating mothers
for their contribution to society is not welfare. It is justice. It
is beneficial to families and therefore to society. As liberals,
however, we recognize that in some families the wife will be the
breadwinner and her mate a house-husband. It should be their right to
make that choice.
The bottom line is that we cannot be put into a box with an
ideological label. We address each issue on the basis of what is best
for our nation and the American people.
Until now, the globalist big-money elites have divided
Patriots by artificially using hot-button social issues which the
federal government has no business getting involved with in the first
place. But no longer. It's time for us to come together to take back
our country. Patriots of the left and of the right share a great deal
Both love their country but fear their government. Both abhor the
domination of America by the World Trade Organization and its
multinational masters. Both want to preserve our Constitutional
freedoms. Both cherish families. Both want government to serve the
people. Sure, the left and right use different language to describe
the same thing, and often differ on the means for achieving their
common objectives. But there will be time enough to work out those
details once we Patriots of all stripes take back our country for our
values, our objectives, our Constitution, our heritage, and our
There is a Bible verse which says, "There is no longer male
female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free …" I would like to adapt that
idea to our purpose. "There is no longer Republican nor Democrat,
conservative nor liberal, hawk nor dove. There are only we Patriots
speaking truth to power and taking back our country for the people."
Let's get on with it. Patriots, arise and join together.
work to be done!
"Follow the Constitution, Honor the Truth, Serve the People"
To join The Patriots, write to us (enclosing a tax-deductible
contribution check) at:
1494 Patriot Drive
Melbourne, FL 32940
Or call Dr. Bob Bowman at (321) 752-5955.
Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. is President of the
for Space and Security Studies, Executive Vice President of Millennium
III Corporation, and retired Presiding Archbishop of the United
Catholic Church. The recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F.
Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the
Republic Aviation Airpower Award, the Society of American Military
Engineers' ROTC Medal of Merit (twice), the Air Medal with five oak
leaf clusters, and numerous other awards, he is one of the country's
foremost authorities on national security. Dr. Bowman spent several
years as an unpaid "People's Lobbyist" to Congress. Colonel Bowman
flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam and directed all the DoD "Star
Wars" programs under presidents Ford and Carter. He has been an
executive in both government and industry, and has chaired 8 major
international conferences. Professor Bowman taught at 5 colleges and
universities, serving as Department Head and Assistant Dean. His
Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He has
lectured at the National War College, the United Nations,
Congressional Caucuses, the Academies of Science of six nations, and
the House of Lords.
--- End forwarded message ---
Vermonters for a Real 9/11 Investigation asks for help -- Please forward
A movement is quickly growing in the small – yet influential –
city of Burlington, Vermont. We have collected enough signatures to
advisory question on the ballot asking our congressional delegation
demand a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation
fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of
September 11, 2001."*
We need to educate our fellow voters about the many unanswered
surrounding September 11th.We will be talking to as many people as we
registering new voters and pushing on this issue for discussion. But
For too long the truth and the hard facts have been ignored. For too
important questions have been left unanswered. And for too long our
officials have remained silent while we demand they take action. We
that if we can put the city of Burlington, Vermont on record as
new 9/11 investigation, we will attract substantial media attention
9/11 Truth effort. We have only until March 6, 2007, to convince
of Burlington voters to support our ballot article. We need your
support to make this happen, and we need it now!
You can also help us out by writing or calling our Congressional
asking them to consider an independent investigation.
*Senator Patrick Leahy *
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
(at Constitution and Delaware)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
*Senator Bernie Sanders*
SRC-2 United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone - 202-224-5141
*Representative Peter Welch*
1404 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
We can find out the truth but we have to work together. Thank you for
*Vermonters For A Real 9/11 Investigation*
For more information on our group and to follow our progress please
Judge: Doctor Can't Treat Terrorists]
01 February 2007
Judge: Doctor Can't Treat Terrorists 31 Jan 2007 A doctor accused of pledging to treat [alleged] al-Qaida members can be prosecuted because medical care counts as material support to terrorists under federal law, a judge said Tuesday. Dr. Rafiq Abdus Sabir, an Ivy League-educated doctor, had argued it was unconstitutional to prosecute a doctor for providing medical services. [Right, they can only *torture* them. See: Abu Ghraib doctors knew of torture, says Lancet report 20 Aug 2004. Also, see: US doctors 'aided' Abu Ghraib abuses 22 Aug 2004.]
Please forward this update to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the Newsletter list can sign up: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg. Please write to: firstname.lastname@example.org for inquiries.
CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, Manager. Copyright © 2007, Citizens For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Fwd: Truth Videos Surge Into Google Top 100; Terror Storm at Number 11
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
A wave of 9/11 truth and other alternative documentaries have
suddenly surged up the Google Video rankings, with three "conspiracy"
videos in the top eleven alone, including Alex Jones' Terror Storm.
Loose Change is at number three and Aaron Russo's America From
Freedom to Fascism at number four.
9/11 Mysteries sits at number fifteen.
Please send this link out to all your friends and e mail lists and
help push Terror Storm even further up the charts.
Having so many activist documentaries in the higher echelons of the
Google top 100 ensures that new people who have not previously
encountered this kind of information will become exposed to the truth.
We can provide a fresh outreach to millions more around the world but
only with your help. Please help circulate the Terror Storm link and
the other great films via Google Video.
Fwd: Real ID Act Gets 'No' Vote in Maine
JANUARY 31, 2007 | Maine is the first state in the nation to reject
the Real ID Act, but even Republican lawmakers who support the
president's vision of a national identity card are leery of the
Republican Rep. John C. Robinson of Raymond is one of the four Maine
lawmakers who voted against a resolution protesting the Real ID Act,
which is part of the Department of Homeland Security's jurisdiction.
Robinson says he opposes the law but that he didn't want to take a
swipe at the last Republican-led Congress and President George W.
"Frankly, I don't support state mandates, and I certainly don't
support federal mandates," he says. "I didn't want any part of a
political maneuver taking a swipe at the past Congress and the
president. From my standpoint, I wasn't elected to waste the people's
time with symbolic gestures."
The Real ID Act aims to link driver's licenses and state
identification to a central database, where all states can access
information. It also aims to prevent identity crime and improve
national security by imposing stricter requirements for obtaining and
creating licenses. The act calls for machine-readable technology but
doesn't specify the type.
The Maine Legislature passed a joint resolution Thursday demanding
the repeal of the law and announcing they were the first state
lawmakers in the country to do so. The resolution states that the
Real ID Act of 2005 would place an unfair financial burden on states,
threaten privacy, and leave citizens vulnerable to identity theft. It
also states that the law, scheduled to take effect next year, fails
to accomplish its mission of improving security.
Robinson, the only Maine representative who responded to phone calls
requesting information about opposition votes, says that a statement
from the Maine Civil Liberties Union made it clear the protest wasn't
just against the Real ID Act. The Maine Civil Liberties Union issued
a news release last week stating that its lawmakers "protest the
treatment of the states by the President and the United States
The group also said it anticipates a "cascade of state refusals" to
implement the law. According to the American Civil Liberties Union,
lawmakers have filed similar bills in Georgia, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington.
A Maine Republican who sponsored the resolution opposing Real ID said
that broad support for the resolution indicates opposition isn't
based on partisan politics.
"It wouldn't make any sense to implement a program that is opposed by
so many people from both sides of the aisle and doesn't seem to have
any real benefits for the people of Maine," Scott Lansley, a
Republican from Sabattus, said in a prepared statement.
The National Conference of State Legislatures opposes the Real ID Act
and estimates it will cost states $11 billion in five years.
Supporters argue that the law would enhance national security by
making it harder for terrorists or illegal immigrants to forge
licenses or obtain identification fraudulently.
— K.C. Jones, Information Week
--- End forwarded message ---
DC 27th Protest pics
32 bps stream http://126.96.36.199:2005/listen.pls
16 bps stream
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Fwd: 9/11 in top spots on Google Video
prothink: awesome: Loose Change #3, America F2F #4, Terrorstorm #11, &
9/11 Mysteries #15 in google's Top 100 of their video page!!. just
yesterday alone Freedom to Fascism was watch 98,000 times!! its going
to be a busy year.
--- End forwarded message ---
By Jason Leopold and Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t Report
Wednesday 31 January 2007
Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by defense attorneys for former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.
Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy's stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.
But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador begs the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA?
Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy...
...This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.
Fwd: Corporate Media Downplays Washington Anti-War Rally
Wayne Madsen � Wayne Madsen Report January 28, 2007
Corporate media and DC law enforcement collude once again in shaving
anti-war march numbers. On a postcard perfect weather day in
Washington, in excess of 150,000 people gathered on the Washington
Mall, west of the US Capitol, to hear members of Congress and
Hollywood celebrities call for the Bush administration to withdraw
U.S. troops from Iraq. However, as with past anti-war demonstrations
in Washington, the corporate media, largely influenced by New York-
and Los Angeles-based special interests, downplayed the number of
Associated Press reporters Calvin Woodward and Larry Margasak wrote
an article that described "tens of thousands" of demonstrators.
Editors around the world penned headlines for the same article that
read "thousands" demonstrated in Washington. The three words
� "tens of thousands" � were echoed in newspapers from
Melbourne, Australia to Vancouver, Canada and Vienna, Austria to
London. Broadcasters, including the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), and Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), used "tens of thousands" in their
This editor noted that although the National Park Service once again
used snow fences to block off access to grassy areas on the
Washington Mall, thus forcing many demonstrators off on side streets
and thus skewing an accurate count (the Washington Mall can hold one
million people), the numbers of demonstrators were in excess of
150,000 and possibly over 200,000. "Tens of thousands" is therefore a
misleading description of the actual numbers.
In the press area, this editor noted a conversation between two
mainstream media reporters who, even before many demonstrators had
arrived at the Mall, were already using "tens of thousands" to
describe the numbers. It was clear from the conversation that the
major media had been issued a number of pre-conceived editorial
points: use "tens of thousands," ignore rally organizer numbers --
one speaker predicted 400,000 marchers, and point to the marchers as
largely consisting of "fringe groups."
After having covered two past massive anti-war demonstrations in
Washington, this editor can state unequivocally that the demographics
of the crowd had altered from past marches. The participants were
largely white, middle and upper class, and from a cross section of
professions. Men and woman, young, middle-aged, and seniors, African-
American, Asian-American, Hispanic, and white Southerners and
Midwesterners, they hailed from affluent suburbs of Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cleveland, among other cities, and rural
areas. Many came in buses from small towns in Iowa, Michigan,
Kentucky, Connecticut, South Carolina, and New Jersey. In fact, the
crowd more resembled those which are found at annual Independence Day
celebrations on the Mall than those seen at past anti-war
The few "fringe groups" present, such as Revolutionary Communists,
were minutiae compared to the major unions, church groups, and
veterans organizations that participated.
On January 18, 2003, the editor wrote the following about an anti-war
march in Washington: "A large banner hanging on the side of the East
Building of the National Gallery of Art could not have been more
appropriate for the January 18 anti-war protest on the Mall in
Washington, DC. Promoting an art display inside the museum, the
banner read: 'Deceptions and Illusions.' It could have easily applied
to the deception foisted on the public by the Washington Metropolitan
Police Department and the corporate news media.
The Park Police cleverly fenced off a large portion of the Mall
closest to the Washington Monument, forcing large numbers of
protestors on to Jefferson and Madison Drives. If one were to count
the numbers solely on the grassy area of the Mall it would appear
that 30,000 or, as the news media is now reporting, 'tens of
thousands,' were present. However, if the count were to include those
forced on to the periphery of the Mall, the number was well over
The New York Times has become the chief perpetrator of low balling
anti-Bush protestor numbers. A photo caption on its web site
stated, 'thousands of protestors' took part in the January 18
protest. A similar anti-war protest held in Washington last October
26 was estimated at between 100,000 and 200,000. It was the largest
anti-war protest since the Vietnam War, but the Times reported the
number of protestors as being in the 'thousands.'
However, an April 15, 2002, pro-Israel rally at the US Capitol, was
reported by the Times to be 100,000. In reality, the numbers were
merely in the low thousands. The 'Old Grey Lady' later admitted it
had erroneously reported the inflated number due to a 'coordination'
problem with one of its desks. Five days later, a pro-Palestinian
rally was held on the White House Ellipse. Organizers claim the crowd
was 100,000 but Washington police chief Charles Ramsey put the
numbers at between 35,000 and 50,000. Once again, the Times reported
the numbers to be in the 'tens of thousands.''
This is not just shoddy journalism but willful disinformation being
perpetrated by corporate newspapers that want to curry favor with the
White House, Congress, and the Pentagon. In fact, the January 18
protest was larger than those held in October and April last year.
That would obviously put the January 18 numbers well over 100,000.
But the failure to accurately report the numbers is not entirely the
fault of the news media. In the past, the media was permitted to use
their news and traffic helicopters to more accurately gauge crowd
numbers. But in the wake of September 11, the only helicopters now
permitted over Washington are those belonging to the police. They
count the numbers, divide and subtract, and then feed the phony
figures to a sycophantic media."
It is clear that the White House spin doctors and their facilitators
� "New York money people" as Gen. Wesley Clark accurately
describes them � long ago decided that "tens of thousands"
and "thousands" would be used to describe anti-war and anti-Bush
rallies in Washington. The media continues to stick to those numbers
even when confronted with facts.
Fwd: War Criminals 'R' US
Published on Monday, January 29, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
by Richard Curtis
Many years ago during boot camp I learned a series of General Orders.
And while these are difficult to recall (and oddly enough even to
find) any longer, one of the things I recall learning was an
obligation to follow all lawful orders. Part of what we learned had
to do with the military having made changes in training following the
War Crimes at My Lai. My clear impression was that the Navy intended
us to know our obligations under the Hague Conventions of 1889 and
1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Nuremberg Conventions.
These Conventions have legal standing as US law due to their having
been ratified by our Senate. These days the most one hears about such
things tends to involve the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, and his refusal
to follow orders to deploy to Iraq. Watada's claim is that as the
Iraq War was instigated on false pretexts it is clearly a violation
of the above Conventions and in particular a Crime Against Peace. The
Army's position is that Watada refused orders and that this behavior
is criminal under the Army's legal system. The judge hearing the case
refuses to allow the defense to even use Watada's reasons for
refusing these illegal orders to be considered.
Why would a military judge refuse to allow an officer to make the
case that in refusing an order the officer was following a higher
law, which is itself recognized by the military? This seems to be
obviously irrational. A judge should be bound by the law, including
important provisions of international law that have been incorporated
into domestic law. For a judge to refuse to follow the law is beyond
But there is a reason. Watada's challenge is that the Iraq War is
illegal. This fact seems beyond question. A legal war cannot
logically be premised on lies, and we all know the Iraq War was
premised on a series of well coordinated lies (the "Downing Street
Memo" being the proof any rational person needs). The judge cannot
allow Watada to argue the War is illegal because it is obviously
illegal, and as such constitutes a War Crime, so the judge disregards
the law - much to the shame of us all.
If the war is acknowledged as illegal that means admitting that
everyone who participates in it, plans it, or orders it is a war
As a society, our morality is incredibly shallow, and we have a
difficult time dealing with challenges such as these. Watada is
obviously right and those who prosecute him can only succeed if they
can put the law aside in making their charges stick.
We don't like to think that a young Marine drafted into the military
via the Poverty Draft and then sent off to war in Iraq is a War
Criminal - but he is. They all are. This is the obvious moral truth
that follows from Watada's challenge.
This is what the Nuremburg Conventions demand. One cannot be excused
from illegal acts simply because one was ordered to commit those
acts. We are all moral beings, even in the military, and as such have
a legal and moral obligation to refuse to participate in War Crimes.
And yet tens of thousands of military personal, not to mention the
entire military command up to the president, are by definition War
This is why Watada is not allowed to make a reasonable defense. This
is why our politicians and media refuse to discuss the details of his
case. This is why most Americans know nothing of international law.
The law is clear. The history and origins of the war are clear. It is
a crime. And those who prosecute this war are criminals.
These are just the facts of the case. The real question is will the
American people tolerate being lead by War Criminals? Will the
American people decide that the law and morality matter? Or will we
continue to pretend that if someone in a position of power says that
it is so that it is so? Nuremburg demands of us that we think morally
and think for ourselves. Nuremburg stands in the shadows condemning
our leaders and our military.
Watada properly and legally refused an illegal order and we must now
admit the truth of his position and recognize that we as a society
stand condemned in the light of this truth. Morality is not easy, and
thinking for oneself in a time of wars and lies is even harder. There
are times when we are tested. This is one of those times.
Are we any better than those Germans who just followed orders?
Richard Curtis, PhD is a recent graduate of the School of Religion at
Claremont Graduate University and presently an adjunct professor of
philosophy at Shoreline Community College in Seattle, WA. ###
Monday, January 29, 2007
Fwd: Choppers go cheap in US army sale
Local sheriffs around the US seeking a few armoured fighting vehicles
or a couple of attack helicopters are turning to the military for a
Thousands of police forces in the US have recently grabbed some
380,000 pieces of discounted military kit.
Some snapped up night vision goggles, while others asked for combat
fatigues to help hunt drug dealers.
About 16,000 US departments obtained equipment during 2005, worth
some $124m (£63m), the Associated Press found.
The news agency asked the US Department of Defense to release an
analysis of each state's second-hand trading during the 2005
The results revealed a roaring trade in military equipment now
surplus to requirement on the 21st Century battlefield.
Many smaller items, ranging from helmets to rifles, are essentially
free apart from shipping costs.
Other "big ticket" requisitions, such as weapons, vehicles or boats,
come at a fee, but one much lower than charged on the open market.
Officials in Buck County, Pennsylvania, bought two armoured vehicles
to protect their officers during hostage negotiation stand-offs.
That saved local taxpayers an estimated $140,000 (£70,000), they say.
Several 1970s helicopters appear to have found a new lease of life
near Birmingham, Alabama - although one has been cannibalised for
Jefferson County Sheriff Mike Hale said he balked at paying $1
million for a brand new chopper, preferring to put his faith in
the "bargain basement" instead.
"The product we put out is a first-class helicopter."
The programme is run by the Defense Logistics Agency, a branch of the
Department of Defense.
It was set up in the 1990s to transfer surplus military parts to
police for anti-drug and anti-terrorism operations.
--- End forwarded message ---
Fwd: 9/11 Truth Protest Video Austin TX, 1-27-07
Fwd: Kevin Ryan launches lawsuit, website--ULtruth.com
By all accounts, the unprecedented events of September 11th,
2001 "changed everything". It is therefore critical that
conscientious Americans, as well as all good people around the world,
understand these events in detail. Unfortunately the official
reports, including The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST WTC
Report, written by those working under the direction of the Bush
Administration, fall far short of providing the explanations needed.
Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and my
former employer, Underwriters Laboratories (UL), seem to have taken
the stance that the public does not have a right to know what fire
resistance tests were performed on the steel component assemblies
used to build the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. But since NIST's
latest story for collapse of the WTC towers depends on the fire-
induced failure of these steel components, there is little
information that could be more important at this time.
When I worked there, top management at UL made clear to me that UL
performed these required tests. They have since stated that there
is "no evidence" that any firm tested the steel. Being tax-exempt,
due to their status as a public safety-testing organization, UL
should be held accountable for being honest and open with the public
about the history of their testing.
To help ensure this accountability, I've filed a lawsuit against UL
for wrongful termination. My attorneys and I hope to gain more
information about UL's role in the testing of the WTC steel
assemblies, and any other involvement UL has had with the WTC towers
or the NIST investigation. Since this lawsuit represents a critical
need for information about public safety, we invite the public to
contribute to our legal defense fund.
Thanks for your help. Kevin Ryan
Pelosi approves the 9-11 coverup
By Carol Wolman
By now, over half the American people believe that the American
government was somehow complicit in 9-11. Yet no one wants to talk
about it. The implications are too enormous to contemplate. The
parallels with the Reichstag fire are too frightening. The depth of
evil which we must overcome if we are to remain free, if we are to
survive, is too shocking, too awesome.
The coverup of the 9-11 conspiracy has been flimsy at best- fake
passports at the scene of the Twin Tower demolition, Bin Laden as a
handy villian, while his family is hurriedly flown out of the
country, and a fake investigation that focused on "the failure of
intelligence" rather than on the usual question: "whodunit"?"
Now Pelosi has put the Democrats' seal of approval on the report of
the 9-11 coverup commission, with the very first piece of legislation
passed by the new House-
H. R. 1, "implementation of the recommendations of the 9-11
commission". I've published Chuck Baldwin's piece on this: "H. R.1
puts America in a giant bird cage"
H. R.1 doesn't question the findings of the 9-11 Commission, and
accepts its recommendations- such police state measures as national
identity cards. Pelosi made its passage her very first priority. Why?
The Democrats in Congress must know about the many, many questions
surrounding 9-11: Why was Bush not surprised? Why did he act so
strangely? Why did Rumsfeld take control over the scrambling of
fighter planes several months prior, and then disappear that morning?
Why did building 7 go down? Why did Marvin Bush's company (Marvin is
the youngest of the four Bush brothers), which was in charge of
security at the Twin Towers, order a complete power shutdown and
evacuation for a few days, just a week before 9-11?
So much evidence points to complicity on the part of the
administration that a full investigation is urgently needed. The
entire Bush strategy, the "war on terror", invasion of Iraq, the
Patriot Act and Homeland Security, are based on the premise that this
country was attacked by Al Qa'eda terrorists. If, in fact, 9-11 was a
false flag operation, then Bush, Cheney et al are guilty of high
treason and much, much more.
The new Democratic Congress should be demanding a new, full
investigation to see if the many allegations that 9-11 was an inside
job are true. Instead, they rushed to endorse the 9-11 coverup
commission's report. Why? and why is no one taking notice? Are we all
too frightened of the implications?
The truth will set us free.
In the name of the God of truth and justice,
Authors Website: http://voteCarolWolmanforCongress.com
Authors Bio: Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern
California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on
the psychology of our times. She is actively working to impeach Bush
and Cheney, and suggests you join or form a local group at
http://impeachbush.meetup.com/ She is running for Congress as a
nonpartisan write-in candidate in CA district 1, and is a coordinator
of The Longhouse Coalition.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
[suijuriscourtangels] Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Abuse of Discretion
In all jurisdictions judges are given discretion to decide certain
matters based upon the law and facts presented. They are required to
do this, however, within what is called the reasonableness test.
A lop-sided deal. An adhesion contract "takes advantage" of people in
a weakened bargaining position, such as the proverbial widow on the
farm in the clutches of the mustachioed villain Simon Legree. If the
deal is too lop-sided, the court may award damages to the victim or
disregard the contract altogether and leave the victimizer without a
Abuse of Power
The act of any government official that exceeds his or her authority.
This differs from abuse of discretion, in that no government official
(judge, legislator, executive officer, or local bureau employee) ever
has discretion to act outside his or her authority. When an officer
of government acts outside his or her authority, the law provides a
remedy in the writ of mandamus.
An order of the court enforcing the law or its separate orders by
directing that some act be performed, as opposed to an order of
judgment declaring a debt (as in a case for damages in tort or breach
of contract) or enjoining some future action (as in a case to enforce
the terms of an agreement or to prevent one person from causing or
threatening harm to another). There were in the common law many
different types of writs. A few still in use are listed hereinafter.
Writs are obtained by motions or petitions to a court having
jurisdiction over the matter.
Writ of Mandamus
A writ ordering a government official (regardless of branch or level)
to give an answer on the public record explaining by what authority
he or she is acting in a particular situation or requiring such
person to act in accordance with his or her lawful authority. Thus,
if the mayor of a town refuses to convene the city council, an
aggrieved citizen can move the local court of competent jurisdiction
to issue a write of mandamus requiring the mayor to act in accordance
with his or her legal function. Or, if the mayor takes it upon
himself or herself to act as a judge and jury, directing the local
police chief to put people in jail at his or her command, a motion
for writ of mandamus will move the court to issue an order directing
the mayor to explain by what authority he or she is having people
jailed without due process of law.
DC free press here. Jan Issue. Peace Movement
The Rock Creek Free Press
Week of January 27, 2007 - P.8
*PEACE MOVEMENT MUST MAKE 9/11 TRUTH THE LEADING EDGE OF FIGHT AGAINST
by Webster G. Tarpley
The escalation announced in Bush's January 10 television speech was
bigger than many expected: the threats he made against Iran and Syria
threaten a wider US aggression, quite possibly carried out with
weapons. In addition to his 21,000 extra GIs, Bush is sending an
carrier battle group and Patriot missiles to the Gulf. Admiral
new Centcom commander, is a carrier admiral trained in air attacks,
warfare. John "Death Squads" Negroponte, Rice's new deputy at the
Department, is said to be assembling a team of private contractors to
prepare the attack on Iran. Russian intelligence reports indicate
are four US missile-firing submarines in the Gulf. The *London Sunday
Times*says that the Israeli air force is actively drilling for a sneak
Iranian military facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Bushehr. The ING
international banking group is telling its clients that the Israelis
attack Iran in February or March. February 17 or March 18, the
sneak attack times of the new moon, may thus mark the beginning of a
regional Middle East war, a war tending to slide into World War III.
*THE 9/11 MYTH IS THE EXPLICIT BASIS OF ALL THE WARS*
...Peace activists often ask why the 9/11 truth movement insists on
the truth about terrorism a central component of anti-war agitation.
answer is that we bring up 9/11 frequently because Bush and Cheney
do – they
incessantly parrot slogans about the "global war on terror" and "the
of 9/11." Bush claims that he is fighting terrorists in Iraq so that
will not have to fight them over here. He raves that, if US forces
of Iraq, the terrorists will follow them back home and launch attacks
territory. There can be no doubt that 9/11 is the foundation of Bush's
castle of warmonger lying – the fountainhead, motivation, and
of the entire policy of unilateral aggression. To ignore the
9/11 to Bush's every move is like trying to fight Hitler without
anti-Semitism. Attacks on Bush that do not include 9/11 truth are
impotent, and will not be effective.
*THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REPUDIATE THE OFFICIAL MYTH OF 9/11*
The vast majority of the American people have repudiated Bush's
war and terror. Back in October, a CBS-New York Times poll showed
of Americans – including the most benighted and backward Republican
strongholds – thought that the US government was either hiding
mostly lying about the events of 9/11. This extraordinary shift in
opinion reflects the success of the 9/11 truth movement over the past
years. This shift explains why the Bush-Rove demagogy of terror,
traction in 2002 and 2004, simply did not work in 2006. It was only
these conditions that the Republican machine could be defeated. In
broad sense, the 9/11 truth movement was a critical component in
the climate of opinion for Bush's defeat at the polls in November
challenge is now to bring US institutions – the political parties, the
media, academia, etc. – into line with what the American people have
*9/11: THE KEY TO DISMANTLING BUSH'S BASE OF SUPPORT*
Only 12% of Americans support a surge in the abstract, but once Bush
brought into the question, support rises to almost one third – about
Many of these are persons who are sincerely terrified by the notion
Qaeda and Bin Laden as malevolent forces that want to come to their
communities and kill them. Unless and until this belief can be
these persons will continue to support Bush and his promises to
from the terrorists. (We note in passing that these persons have been
shamefully betrayed by the leading left-liberal intellectuals,
Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and The Nation magazine,
whom obsessively parrot the Bush propaganda line.) These persons are
impervious to antiwar and related arguments about genocide, torture at
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, illegal rendition, wiretapping,
police-state totalitarianism, and related issues, which they dismiss
the comment that these are the necessities of self-defense forced
United States by an unprovoked attack by foreign terrorists. The only
attrit and erode Bush's hard-core base of support is to bring home the
leading facts of 9/11 truth: the 9/11 attacks did not emerge from the
of Bin Laden, Atta, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the laptop, and the cave
Pushtunistan; they were a deliberate war provocation and coup d'etat
launched by the invisible government or rogue network which infests
highest levels of the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, DIA, and other military and
security agencies, all for the purpose of starting the War of
in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria and Iran. These are revelations
greatest explosive power, capable of tearing apart Bush's political
opening the way for impeachment and removal from office. They are also
capable of defeating the Hillary Clinton-Lieberman-Rahm
Emmanuel-Lantos-Stenny Hoyer warmonger wing of the Democratic Party,
removing the sabotage of impeachment from that quarter...
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They
this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
--- End forwarded message ---
[Fwd: Watada hearings - Testimony worth listening too]
From: "dennis kyne"
Date: Sun, January 28, 2007 11:19 am
This testimony is from the heaing regarding LT WATADA. His trial is on 2/ 5/ 2007. please visit www.thankyoult.org Darrell Anderson (purple heart, '04) and Chanan Suarez-Diaz (listen to what he is saying.)
Thanks to Ryan Tompkins, many thanks. listen to the song that is telling the same story. here Ain't Going Back Again - Peace Machine http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/lwwsongspage.html #28
Support the Truth