9/11 - Key Issue of our Time
Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA
Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
Duncan Gardham | 28 May 2009
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.
At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.
Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.
Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11
Washington's Blog | May 27, 2009
A new article in U.S. News & World Report quotes a couple of psychologists, one sociologist and one historian to argue that people who question the government's version of 9/11 are prone to false thinking.
Initially, remember that, while there are many honorable psychologists and psychiatrists, psychologists helped to create the U.S. torture program, and actively participated in it.
Moreover, many mental health professionals have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the official version suffer from emotional problems or defense mechanisms. For example:
- Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
- Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
- Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
- Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
- Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
- Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
- Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
- Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
- Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
- Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
- Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
- Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
The Inner Worlds of Conspiracy Believers
By Bruce Bower, Science News | May 26, 2009
Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.
A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.
“Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says.
His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.
3 Good Reasons (and 1 Bad One) Why I Don't Buy Into Your Conspiracy Theories
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2009.
Conspiracy theories often pre-empt substantive analysis of the real political structures that shape our society.
Recently, a freelance writer sent a note to our editorial staff: "Perhaps I am stating the obvious," he wrote, "but AlterNet certainly appears quite hostile, in a kind of blanket sense, to any story labeled ‘conspiracy.' I am curious and eager to understand why."
It's a question that frequently pops up in readers' comments on our stories, and the most common conclusion they draw is that our writers are in on the conspiracy; if they weren't an active part of the cover-up, how could they possibly fail to see the outlines of such an obvious plot as (insert obvious plot here)?
I can only answer the question for myself, but I imagine it's the same answer many in the progressive media would offer. I've never felt pressure from above to "debunk" any particular theory, and, contrary to popular belief in some circles, am not in the employ of some murky organization that seeks to silence those brave enough to fight for the "truth."
To the degree that I am hostile towards conspiracism (the reality is that I find it fascinating as a sociological phenomenon -- like other forms of mythology), I can offer four reasons for the skepticism -- three are sound, one is not. The one that is not is, however, a matter of human nature.
'Jihad' girlfriends - FBI snitch used gifts to trick our men
By LORENA MONGELLI IN NEWBURGH, NY and LUKAS I. ALPERT IN NYC
May 23, 2009
A slick FBI informant roped four Muslim converts into a horrific terror plot to blow up synagogues and military jets by handing them piles of cash and gifts and even bags of weed, relatives of the suspects said today.
"Brother whatever you need, I will get it for you," said the man who the four petty thieves knew as Maqsood, according to Kathleen Baynes, whose long-time boyfriend, James Cromitie is alleged to be the ringleader of the plot.
She said Cromitie, 45, met Maqsood at the Masjid al-Ikhlas mosque about a year ago and promised to teach him the truth about Islam.
HOW TO STOP THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS RECRUITING INMATES TO TERRORISM
The man soon was coming by their apartment with increasing frequency and was always flush with cash.
"He was very persistent and every time he came for James he took him away. They said they were going out to eat dinner," she said. "Whenever we needed anything Maqsood would help -- like financially --he gave us money to pay rent.
"He was just constantly around. It was like he was stalking him."
Co-conspirator David Williams's girlfriend Cassandra McKoy insists the men were duped into the plot with the lure of a cash payday and that religious hatred had nothing to do with it.
"They aren't radicals they were just financially motivated. They aren't terrorists. If Maqsood wasn't in the picture they would've never come up with this idea," she said. "This was not their idea. They make it sound like they sought him out and said we want to do this when he's the one who approached them. He enticed them with money.
"Maqsood wasn't even allowed inside the mosque, he waited in the parking lot for them and offered them $25,000 to join."
Sources say Maqsood was really Shahed Hussain -- a Pakistani native who runs hotels upstate and has worked for the FBI since 2003 after getting into trouble in a fraud case. He played an integral role in unraveling another terror-related case in Albany in 2004.
New World Order
Simon Abrams | May 21,2009
New World Order
Directed by Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel
Premieres on IFC Network May 26 at 6:45 p.m. ET
Runtime: 83 min.
Up-and-coming filmmaking duo Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel’s latest doc, New World Order, admirably humanizes the “9/11 truthers,” a seemingly impossible task they accomplish handily by never condescending to or patronizing their less-than-credible subjects. Led by filmmaker/radio personality Alex Jones, the group’s most vocal mouthpiece, the “truthers” insist that the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by The Bilderberg Group, a shadowy international organization comprised of foreign and domestic businessmen and politicians. Meyer and Neel let a few of them tell their stories with a minimum of editorializing, arguably only inflating beyond its natural scope the fears and unshakable anger that fuels them: They exaggerate only where necessary and only what the “truthers” willingly put on display.
The most potent message New World Order conveys is its refusal to flinch in the face of what many would call fanaticism, training a focused, steady eye on their subjects without hastily making a satisfying knee-jerk judgment. Through the tears, constant rallying, paranoiac rants and hypocritical disclaimers of their subjects, Meyer and Neel remind us that these conspiracy theorists are not to be pitied but rather understood as people doing what they earnestly believe is their civic duty. They’re rabid and frankly more than a little nuts. For example, in the impending apocalypse, red and blue dots on mail apparently determine whether you get taken to a FEMA camp or get shot on sight by stormtroopers—but they’re also a determined and militantly organized group that dares you to ignore them.
Every point-of-view can easily be accommodated by Meyer and Neel’s sprawling footage, from the people that dismiss the group because they believe “truthers” want to simplify the reasons for 9/11 and President Bush’s “War on Terror”—after these theories “everything becomes simple,” as one “truther” says—to the people that insist that they’re just misguided by their personal pain—“They have no clue how real we are” says another as tears well up into his eyes. Even people that want to believe they’re uncovering some hidden reality buried in grainy, almost certainly photoshopped images and so-called eyewitness reports will find plenty of convincing ammunition in Jones’ words.
Media Ignores Real Controversy Behind Torture Photos; They Show Prison Guards Raping Children
Former Governor Jesse Ventura: Let Me Judge Torture Photos On Behalf Of The American People
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com | May 21, 2009
The real reason behind Obama’s reversal of a decision to release the torture photos has been almost completely ignored by the corporate media - the fact that the photos show both US and Iraqi soldiers raping teenage boys in front of their mothers.
The Obama administration originally intended to release photos depicting torture and abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of May, following a court order arising out of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit first filed by the ACLU in 2004.
However, a reversal of Obama’s decision was announced this week, after he “changed his mind after viewing some of the images and hearing warnings from his generals in Iraq and in Afghanistan that such a move would endanger US troops deployed there,” according to a Washington Post report.
In response, the ACLU charged that Obama “has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its coverup.” The Obama administration has also sought to protect intelligence officials involved in torture from prosecution at every turn.
The primary reason why Obama is now blocking the release of the photos is that some of the pictures, as well as video recordings, show prison guards sodomizing young boys in front of their mothers, both with objects as well as physical rape.
Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama
By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted May 15, 2009.
The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals.
As the Obama administration continues to fight the release of some 2,000 photos that graphically document U.S. military abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an ongoing Spanish investigation is adding harrowing details to the ever-emerging portrait of the torture inside and outside Guantánamo. Among them: "blows to [the] testicles;" "detention underground in total darkness for three weeks with deprivation of food and sleep;" being "inoculated … through injection with 'a disease for dog cysts;'" the smearing of feces on prisoners; and waterboarding. The torture, according to the Spanish investigation, all occurred "under the authority of American military personnel" and was sometimes conducted in the presence of medical professionals.
More significantly, however, the investigation could for the first time place an intense focus on a notorious, but seldom discussed, thug squad deployed by the U.S. military to retaliate with excessive violence to the slightest resistance by prisoners at Guantánamo.
The force is officially known as the the Immediate Reaction Force or Emergency Reaction Force, but inside the walls of Guantánamo, it is known to the prisoners as the Extreme Repression Force. Despite President Barack Obama's publicized pledge to close the prison camp and end torture -- and analysis from human rights lawyers who call these forces' actions illegal -- IRFs remain very much active at Guantánamo.
IRF: An Extrajudicial Terror Squad
The existence of these forces has been documented since the early days of Guantánamo, but it has rarely been mentioned in the U.S. media or in congressional inquiries into torture. On paper, IRF teams are made up of five military police officers who are on constant stand-by to respond to emergencies. "The IRF team is intended to be used primarily as a forced-extraction team, specializing in the extraction of a detainee who is combative, resistive, or if the possibility of a weapon is in the cell at the time of the extraction," according to a declassified copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta at Guantánamo. The document was signed on March 27, 2003, by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the man credited with eventually "Gitmoizing" Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons and who reportedly ordered subordinates to treat prisoners "like dogs." Gen. Miller ran Guantánamo from November 2002 until August 2003 before moving to Iraq in 2004.
Vice President Biden confronted with 9/11 evidence
After the last words were spoken, it was obvious that the press would not have an opportunity to ask questions, so Jeremy and Bruno moved quickly, crammed against the wall, toward the podium in an effort to create an opportunity to ask a question. We were at an advantage with our hand held cameras, and we actually found ourselves right next to Biden as he moved chairs aside to fulfill requests for photos with residents in attendance. The moment generated many smiles and laughter, and genuine joy could be seen in the faces of all the residents. Biden stood and addressed the residents, and the instant that the photo op was finished, Jeremy engaged him: Vice-President Biden, Im Jeremy Rothe-Kushel with WACLA Media. Biden said, "If I had your hair, I would be President!" Jeremy couldnt disagree with that and offered up that Biden could have some since there was enough to go around. Then it was time to get serious and Jeremy jumped right into the preliminary part of his question.
95 children killed in U.S. airstrikes
Afghanistan claims 95 children killed in U.S. airstrikes aimed at Taliban; U.S. disputes death toll
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Wednesday, May 13th 2009
Ninety-five Afghan children are among the 140 people said to have died in a recent U.S.-Taliban battle in western Afghanistan, a lawmaker involved in the investigation into the deaths said Wednesday. The U.S. military disputed the claim saying the graves they saw looked too small to contain so many victims.
Afghans blame U.S. airstrikes for the deaths and destruction in two villages in Farah province. American officials say the Taliban kept villagers hostage during the fight, and a spokesman said payments to the bereaved offered incentive to exaggerate the death toll.
A list of the dead, with names and ages, was compiled by members of an Afghan government commission based on the testimony of villagers who said their relatives had died, said Obaidullah Helali, a lawmaker from Farah and a member of the government's investigative team. Helali said they consider all those under 18 to be children.
The bodies were buried before the investigation took place, and there are no plans to dig them up. It was not clear how investigators determined that missing relatives had been killed and not simply fled the violence.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that women and children were among dozens of dead people its teams saw in scattered in the villages in the immediate aftermarth of the bombing. It did not provide an overall figure.
If the Afghan toll is correct, it would be the largest case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion to oust the Taliban.
But the U.S. military disputes the number.
U.S. military spokesman Col. Greg Julian said "there is no physical proof that can substantiate" the Afghan list of victims. The U.S. has refused to release a number of people it thinks died in the May 4-5 clash in Farah's Gerani and Ganjabad villages.
"I can sit down and give you a list of names too, given some time, but the physical evidence doesn't compare," Julian added.
Julian said a joint U.S.-Afghan investigation team was taken to three different grave sites a day after the clash — one with four mounds, one with 22 mounds and one mass grave that contained an unknown number of bodies.
"The locals couldn't decide among themselves whether it was 19 or 69 in that mass grave," Julian said. He added that the dirt displaced from the mass grave seemed to indicate far fewer than 69 bodies were buried there.
Julian also said that no one had indicated graves where the insurgents were buried, suggesting some of those buried were militants.
President Hamid Karzai has said the strikes were "not acceptable" and estimated that 125 to 130 civilians died.
The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means
By Mark Danner | 30 April, 2009
ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody
by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 43 pp., February 2007
When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.... These are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.
If it hadn't been for what we did—with respect to the...enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees...—then we would have been attacked again. Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the US....
—Former Vice President Dick Cheney, February 4, 2009
When it comes to torture, it is not what we did but what we are doing. It is not what happened but what is happening and what will happen. In our politics, torture is not about whether or not our polity can "let the past be past"—whether or not we can "get beyond it and look forward." Torture, for Dick Cheney and for President Bush and a significant portion of the American people, is more than a repugnant series of "procedures" applied to a few hundred prisoners in American custody during the last half-dozen or so years—procedures that are described with chilling and patient particularity in this authoritative report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Torture is more than the specific techniques—the forced nudity, sleep deprivation, long-term standing, and suffocation by water," among others—that were applied to those fourteen "high-value detainees" and likely many more at the "black site" prisons secretly maintained by the CIA on three continents.
Torture, as the former vice-president's words suggest, is a critical issue in the present of our politics—and not only because of ongoing investigations by Senate committees, or because of calls for an independent inquiry by congressional leaders, or for a "truth commission" by a leading Senate Democrat, or because of demands for a criminal investigation by the ACLU and other human rights organizations, and now undertaken in Spain, the United Kingdom, and Poland. For many in the United States, torture still stands as a marker of political commitment—of a willingness to "do anything to protect the American people," a manly readiness to know when to abstain from "coddling terrorists" and do what needs to be done. Torture's powerful symbolic role, like many ugly, shameful facts, is left unacknowledged and undiscussed. But that doesn't make it any less real. On the contrary.
Torture is at the heart of the deadly politics of national security. The former vice-president, as able and ruthless a politician as the country has yet produced, appears convinced of this. For if torture really was a necessary evil in what Mr. Cheney calls the "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business" of "keeping the country safe," then it follows that its abolition at the hands of the Obama administration will put the country once more at risk. It was Barack Obama, after all, who on his first full day as president issued a series of historic executive orders that closed the "black site" secret prisons and halted the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that had been practiced there, and that provided that the offshore prison at Guantánamo would be closed within a year.
Download the text of the ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody by The International Committee of the Red Cross, along with the cover letter that accompanied it when it was transmitted to the US government in February 2007. This version, reset by The New York Review, exactly reproduces the original including typographical errors and some omitted words.
Cheney May Be Willing To Testify Under Oath About Torture Program
Amanda Terkel | 10 May 2009
Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Vice President Cheney vigorously defended the Bush administration’s torture policies and his belief that by rejecting them, President Obama is raising “the risk to the American people of another attack.” Cheney said that the Bush administration’s interrogation policies will one day be viewed as “one of the great success stories of American intelligence.”
When host Bob Schieffer asked Cheney whether he would be willing to testify to Congress under oath, Cheney initially hedged, but then indicated that he would be willing to do so:
SCHIEFFER: Would you go back and talk to the Congress?
CHENEY: Certainly. I’ve made it very clear that I feel very strongly that what we did here was exactly the right thing to do. And if I don’t speak out, then where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have free run, and there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth. So it’s important — it’s important that we…
SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?
CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly.
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
Paul Craig Roberts | 7 May 2009
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.
To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.
Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House.
As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.
It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.
It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.
In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.
Richard Gage at the recent AIA Convention interviewing architects
Media Breakthrough! 9-11 Press for Truth to Be Shown on Mainstream Television
I am very happy to announce that for the first time in our movements history, 9-11 Press for Truth will be shown on a mainstream media television station. KBDI Channel 12 in Denver Colorado has just confirmed that they will be showing this groundbreaking film during their upcoming pledge drive on June 3, 2009.
As has been the case in the recent past, Colorado 9-11 Visibility will be there manning the phone banks and expect to get some prime time during this showing to make our plea for a new investigation into the crimes of September 11th, 2001.
As many of you may know, this is not the first time that Colorado 9-11 Visibility has made an appearance on KBDI. Our most recent appearance was in March of this year during the showing of America, Freedom to Fascism. Our time at KBDI actually goes back a couple of years when one of our members, Michael Anderson approached the station about our group volunteering to man the phones during their pledge drive. As a perk for the volunteering organization, KBDI gives the opportunity to promote the group on-air during their time on the phone banks and promote we did! We do not know the whole story on what kind of effect we had, but during this initial appearance on KBDI, we handed out DVD's and other 9-11 related literature to the staff at the station. To me, they were friendly enough, but I felt their reception of us was lukewarm at best. What a nice surprise to us when we were invited back again and again for all subsequent pledge drives since and given and increasingly warmer reception. And now this! We are ecstatic over this as it is the result of years of determined work by our group of very dedicated activists here in Colorado.
You can see our previous appearances on KBDI here.
Congratulations to the makers of the film, and to the members of Colorado 9-11 Visibility, and BRAVO to KBDI Channel 12 in Denver for having the guts to do what no other television station in this country has done.
Police Terror Stops Occur Every Three Minutes In London
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
London Police stop and search a member of the public every three minutes under anti-terrorism laws, new figures have revealed.
Potential terrorists clearly lurk around every corner as statistics released to the BBC show that the Metropolitan Police used section 44 of the Terrorism Act more than 170,000 times in 2008 to stop people in the capital.
The figures represent a more than 140% increase on 2007 numbers.
Of all the stops last year, only 65 led to arrests for terror offences, a success rate of just 0.035%, the article notes.
Furthermore, when you take into account how many of those arrests have translated into convictions, according to the Home Office, you come up with a round figure of 0.0%.
“The new Metropolitan Police commissioner should look at London again from the viewpoint of section 44,” commented Lord Carlile, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism laws.
“It catches no or almost no terrorism material, it has never caught a terrorist and therefore it should be used conservatively.”
The new figures follow on from recent revelations that the use of the ’stop and search’ power has increased exponentially by over ten times in less than ten years.
Alex Jones Youtube channel deleted by management
Corporate gatekeeper claims that showing a print out of an article on live TV, something which happens on every mainstream TV news network every day, equates to copyright violation
Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo
Monday, May 4, 2009
You Tube has once again proven itself to be a corporate gatekeeper working to destroy free speech and the alternative media after it suspended the popular ‘Alex Jones Channel’ - primarily because Alex Jones showed a print out of a news article during a live show.
The Alex Jones Channel, started by a fan but since embraced as the “official” Alex Jones micro-site on You Tube, has routinely featured in the website’s most popular ranking charts and has collectively attracted millions of views for videos painstakingly catalogued and uploaded over the past two years.
Those videos are now completely gone after You Tube bosses deleted the channel, primarily because the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette complained that Alex Jones had shown a computer print out of one of their articles about the Poplawski cop killer incident last month.
To claim that showing a print out of an article is a violation of copyright is of course completely insane - not a day goes by without TV news anchors showing newspaper stories on live television. Indeed, C-Span’s popular Washington Journal program almost entirely consists of the host showing clippings of newspaper stories every morning.
The real reason for the deletion in undoubtedly the fact that Alex Jones has been on the forefront of exposing stories that have later become major national scandals, such as the MIAC report. Our coverage of the swine flu hoax has again propelled us to the top of the video ranking charts and this no doubt had You Tube’s corporate owners Google running scared. As we have previously documented - Google has intimate ties with the CIA and the military-industrial complex.
Major 9/11 Breakthrough in Japan
Spectacular Support for Yukihisa Fujita
Yukihisa Fujita, a member of the Upper House of the Japanese Diet (Parliament) has recently published a book titled:
"Questioning 9/11 Terror at the National Diet - Can Obama Change the USA?"
Co-authors of the book are David Ray Griffin, Yumi Kikuchi, Akira Doujimaru.and Chihaya
Councilor Fujita is a current member and former director of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense. In this function he questioned 9/11 three times in parliament. Fujita claims that 9/11 as the main reason for the "War on Terror" needs to be newly investigated in order to find peaceful solutions.
On April 8 there was a reception on the ocassion of the publishing Mr. Fujita's book
at the Tokyo Dome Hotel.
The event was organized by a group including the Chairman of the daily newspaper Japan Times, several leading representatives of the Democratic Party and several business excecutives. They hosted the event in honour of Mr. Fujita
Yumi Kikuchi, a well known peace and 9/11 activist first presented a video lecture that had been prepared by co-author of the book, Akira Doujimaru, who lives in Spain and was not present at the event. The presentation explained in great detail the numerous main points that completely contradict the official 9/11 account of the US administration and the mainstream media. It was made clear that 9/11 is used to constantly justify wars.
Takao Iwami, a political commentator who writes a column in the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper then questioned Mr. Fujita about the book, the consequences of 9/11 and perspective of the world politics
Niels Harrit on the Alex Jones Show
Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years.
In 2009 Prof. Harrit co-authored a paper titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". The paper was published in a peer reviewed science journal ("Bentham Open") in April 2009.
The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Volume 2 | ISSN: 1874-4125
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
Late breaking news:
ALEX JONES YOUTUBE CHANNEL DELETED BY MANAGEMENT!
John Pilger: The Madmen Did Well
By John Pilger | April 28, 2009
The American soap Madmen offers a rare glimpse of the power of corporate advertising. The promotion of smoking half a century ago by the "smart" people of Madison Avenue, who knew the truth, led to countless deaths. Advertising and its twin, public relations, became a way of deceiving on a scale imagined by those who had read Freud and applied mass psychology to anything from cigarettes to politics. Just as the Marlboro Man was virility itself, so politicians could be branded, packaged, and sold.
It is 100 days since Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. The "Obama brand" has since been named Advertising Age’s "marketer of the year for 2008," easily beating Apple. David Fenton of MoveOn.org describes Obama’s election campaign "an institutionalized, mass-level, automated technological community organizing that has never existed before and is a very, very powerful force." Deploying the Internet and a slogan plagiarized from the Latino union organizer Caesar Chavez – Si se puede! – "yes, we can," the "mass-level, automated technological community" marketed its brand to victory in a country desperate to be rid of George W. Bush.
No one knew what the new brand actually stood for. So accomplished was the advertising – a record $75 million was spent on TV commercials alone – that many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush’s wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush’s warmongering and its congressional funding. Many Americans also believed he was the heir to Martin Luther King’s legacy of anti-colonialism. Yet if Obama had a theme at all, apart from the vacuous "change you can believe in," it was the renewal of America as a dominant, avaricious bully. "We will be the most powerful!" he declared.
Perhaps the Obama brand’s most effective advertising was supplied free of charge by those journalists who, as courtiers in a rapacious system, promote shining knights. They depoliticized him, spinning his platitudinous speeches as "adroit literary creations, rich, like those doric columns, with allusion" (Charlotte Higgins, the Guardian). San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote that "many spiritually advanced people I know … identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who … can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet."
In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus, and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush’s gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On April 24, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo prisoners were not "persons" and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Adm. Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, America experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of "defense," Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, have been retained by Obama.
All over the world, America’s violent assault on innocent people, directly or by agents, has been stepped up. During the recent massacre in Gaza, reports Seymour Hersh, "the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ’smart bombs’ and other high-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel" and being used to slaughter mostly women and children. In Pakistan, the number of civilians killed by American missiles called drones has more than doubled since Obama took office.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. "strategy" of killing Pashtun tribespeople (the "Taliban") has been extended by Obama to give the Pentagon time to build a series of permanent bases right across the devastated country where, says Secretary Gates, the U.S. military will remain indefinitely. Obama’s policy, one unchanged since the Cold War, is to intimidate Russia and China, now an imperial rival. He is proceeding with Bush’s provocation of placing missiles on Russia’s western border, lying that they are a counter to Iran, which he accuses, absurdly, of posing "a real threat" to Europe and the U.S. On April 5, in Prague, he made a speech reported as "anti-nuclear." It was nothing of the kind. Under the Pentagon’s Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, the U.S. is building new "tactical" nuclear weapons designed to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war.
Perhaps the biggest lie – the equivalent of smoking is good for you – is Obama’s announcement that the U.S. is leaving Iraq, the country it has reduced to a river of blood. According to unabashed U.S. Army planners, as many as 70,000 troops will remain "for the next 15 to 20 years." On April 25, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, alluded to this. It is not surprising that the polls are showing that a growing number of Americans believe they have been suckered – especially as the nation’s economy has been entrusted to the same fraudsters who destroyed it. Lawrence Summers, Obama’s principal economic adviser, is throwing $3 trillion at the same banks that paid him more than $8 million last year, including $135,000 for one speech. Change you can believe in.
Much of the American establishment loathed Bush and Cheney for exposing, and threatening, the onward march of America’s "grand design," as Henry Kissinger, war criminal and now Obama adviser, calls it. In advertising terms, Bush was a "brand collapse," whereas Obama, with his toothpaste-advertisement smile and righteous clichés, is a godsend. At a stroke, he has seen off serious domestic dissent to war, and he brings tears to the eyes, from Washington to Whitehall. He is the BBC’s man, and CNN’s man, and Murdoch’s man, and Wall Street’s man, and the CIA’s man. The madmen did well.
Fox News: Martial Law If It's a Pandemic?
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A segment on Fox News’ Fox and Friends this morning explored the issue of whether a swine flu pandemic could result in a declaration of martial law in America and a suspension of constitutional rights.
“If it becomes a pandemic, you could lose some simple rights - like going to the movies,” said host Steve Doocy, before introducing legal analyst Peter J. Johnson, Jr.
“People in our government need to start thinking about how, if this actually becomes a pandemic, how it’s going to affect our daily life and our rights,” said Johnson, before asking if people who try to escape quarantines or refuse mandatory vaccinations would face jail time.
Johnson added that Americans were willing to give up rights in order to “stay alive” but that an orderly discussion of how that would happen needs to take place.
Closing schools, closing the border, forcibly quarantining Americans and eliminating the right to freely assemble, including preventing people from going to shopping malls, were all mentioned as possibilities.
“What about legislatures? What about the U.S. Congress? What about courts of law? What about not impaneling juries because we don’t want to have public assemblies?” asked Johnson.
“Plus the possibility of martial law, but that’s a whole other conversation,” added Doocy, with Johnson responding, “not going there”.