Re: [CTRL] Rense and Savage...a combo
-Caveat Lector- I get a kick out of arguments over religion - they all demand belief in one thing or another, and that is humankind's downfall, the eviction from Eden. Practice of a religion puts one in the cult of belief and removes responsibility for one's own thinking. Pure laziness, IMHO. The only new age that will actually be new is when belief is seen to be the deception and is discarded. This would be one version of a new paradigm people keep talking and writing about. But I ain't holding my breath that it can happen anytime soon. -Original Message- From: Zuukie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 4:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Rense and Savage...a combo The New Age movement is not very well-defined. It is hard to imagine anyone marching lock- step with New Age philosophy. There are however, many cults, and many religions that require this kind of obedience. Steve On 12 Jul 2003 at 21:30, Zuukie wrote: New Age comes in thru both the right and the left, but once it's in, percentage wise, there is no deviation allowed. Just as in the Nazi period, no deviation from New Age thinking is allowed. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] FBI Polarized by 'Wahhabi Lobby'
-Caveat Lector- http://www.insightmag.com/news/446224.html Insight on the News - National Issue: 07/22/03 FBI Polarized by 'Wahhabi Lobby'By J. Michael Waller As FBI agents in the field moved in on a dozen suspected terrorists running recruitment operations in Northern Virginia, a senior FBI official appeared June 26 before a Senate Homeland Security panel and avoided testifying about what senators had called him to discuss. The issues were sponsorship of pro-terrorist ideology, extremist political action and terrorist recruitment financed from Saudi Arabia, supposedly a U.S. ally.Well into the war on terrorism, the FBI is a house divided. On one side, agents are wrapping up terrorist-support networks coast to coast that include radicalized American Muslims bent on unleashing a murderous jihad against their own country. On the other side, in Washington, a culture of political correctness seems to have settled in the bureau's upper management, which some insiders describe as a Clintonlike pandering to the latest favored victim group. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, a favorite self-proclaimed victim has been an aggressive band of Washington-based groups that purport to represent the nation's Muslims and hyphenated Arabs. That constituency is known as the "Wahhabi lobby" for many of its members' alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, whose state religion is considered by many to be an extremist and violent Wahhabi sect of Islam [see "'Wahhabi Lobby' Takes the Offensive," Aug. 5, 2002]. Sources say the FBI has silenced a senior counterterrorism agent, Robert Wright of the Chicago field office, for exposing how senior figures in the bureau blocked investigations of al-Qaeda terror networks inside the United States prior to Sept. 11, and for complaining that a Muslim special agent, Gamel Abdel-Hafiz, refused to wear a wire when questioning terror suspects, allegedly saying, "A Muslim doesn't record another Muslim." Wright's FBI colleague, John Vincent, says he also was called off pre-9/11 cases, and has been speaking in Wright's stead. Wright is receiving legal counsel from David Schippers, the Chicago attorney who led the House commission to impeach president Bill Clinton [see picture profile, Jan. 1, 2001]. Schippers tells Insight that the Wright case is symptomatic of out-of-control political correctness at the FBI.Meanwhile, senior administration officials tell Insight that FBI Director Robert Mueller was under orders from an unnamed senior White House campaign strategist to appease Muslim and Arab-American groups that have been complaining noisily that federal counterterrorism efforts are impinging on their civil rights. Mueller was widely criticized both inside the bureau and out for addressing the June 2002 national convention of the American Muslim Council (AMC). An FBI spokesman defended Mueller's appearance on grounds that the AMC was one of the most "mainstream" organizations in Washington. This proved especially embarrassing to the director when, at the very time of the Mueller speech, AMC spokesman Eric Vickers appeared on Fox News and MSNBC and refused, under questioning, to denounce by name terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.Mueller and other top FBI officials have met subsequently with the AMC and other high-profile Washington groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), that claim to be mainstream but seem to antiterrorism specialists to be more opposed to the FBI's efforts to fight terrorism than to the terrorists themselves. The FBI says it holds such meetings to build relations with Arab-American and Muslim communities. But some of its interlocutors are using those relations against the FBI's counterterrorism efforts, say careful observers of the Wahhabi lobby. Representatives of those groups reportedly have used these high-profile meetings to credentialize themselves while serving as character witnesses for terrorism suspects arrested by the FBI. In one case, the activists defended suspected Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor arrested earlier this year under a 50-count terrorism indictment. For the previous two years, Al-Arian was the lobbying coordinator at the AMC conventions, working to organize efforts on Capitol Hill to weaken U.S. antiterrorism laws, according to the programs of the 2000 and 2001 AMC conferences.According to testimony at the June 26 hearing of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, the FBI has retained members of the vocal Wahhabi lobby to run "sensitivity-training" classes at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. The FBI official the subcommittee called to address the Wahhabi issue, Larry A. Mefford, assistant director of the counterterrorism division, did not discuss it.Overall, some senior FBI leaders have shown a barely
Re: [CTRL] Air Fairy Crystal Wearers Comment by William
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 7/13/2003 9:20:03 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As long as you remember that Maurice Strong is one of the air fairy crystal wearers as are Robert Muller and Barbara Marx Hubband and Javier Solana and Peter Singer and Bill Gates and Dennis Kucinich and others who have bought into New Age. Laugh your head off while they run things. Can't be any worse than the Israel-firster neocon chickenhawks. Bill. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] MRC Alert: 'Daily Drumbeat of Media Questions' Aiding Democratic Candidates (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible,with liberty and justice for all. visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto: http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:35:31 -0700 From: Media Research Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MRC Alert: 'Daily Drumbeat of Media Questions' Aiding Democratic Candidates ***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** 10:35am EDT, Monday July 14, 2003 (Vol. Eight; No. 130) The 1,537th CyberAlert. Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996 Daily Drumbeat of Media Questions Aiding Democratic Candidates Clift Puts Bush Team's Credibility Gap at 9 on 1 to 10 Scale Couric Provides Benevolent, Non-Ideological Tag for MoveOn.org By 2-to-1, Public Sees Liberal Over Conservative Bias Vermont Media Have Never, Ever Labeled Howard Dean as Liberal Gumbel Launches Name-Calling, Rebukes MRC's Bozell as Bozo Distributed to more than 14,000 subscribers by the Media Research Center, bringing political balance to the news media since 1987. The MRC is the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias. Visit the MRC on the Web: http://www.mediaresearch.org. CyberAlerts from this year are at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/welcome.asp For 2002: http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/archive02.asp Subscribe/unsubscribe information, as well as a link to the MRC donations page, are at the end of this message. When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030714.asp 1) Democratic presidential candidates may be attacking President Bush's credibility over the single sentence in his State of the Union address, but they are being aided by the media which are turning it into a summer scandal. CBS anchor John Roberts referred to the swirl of controversy, but in a self-fulfilling statement, he argued that the issue refuses to go away. Yet as ABC News Political Director Mark Helperin suggested, the media are enabling the Democratic presidential candidates: Why are the Democrats now directly going after Mr. Bush in the very area where he has been so strong? Over a shot of the cover of Time magazine with Untruth Consequences over photo of Bush, Halperin answered: For one thing, there's the daily drumbeat of media questions. 2) Newsweek's Eleanor Clift put the Bush administration's credibility gap at a very high eight or a nine, she asserted on the McLaughlin Group over the weekend. 3) Katie Couric on Friday morning benevolently referred to MoveOn.org, the far-left anti-war group, simply as an organization started by two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs frustrated by the political process. 4) Most Americans (53%) believe that news organizations are politically biased, while just 29% say they are careful to remove bias from their reports. When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are 'liberal' (51%) than 'conservative,' a just-released Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey discovered. Even a plurality of Democrats see a liberal slant over a conservative one. 5) CNN's Judy Woodruff stumbled upon an insight that doesn't do much to instill trust in the Vermont media's credibility. A veteran Vermont reporter and columnist told Woodruff, in a story run on Friday's Inside Politics, that in Howard Dean's entire career as a legislator, Lieutenant Governor and Governor, there was never a sentence in any newspaper in the state of Vermont that contained the word 'liberal' and 'Howard Dean.' 6) The very mention of Brent Bozell, President of the MRC, causes Bryant Gumbel to get angry. As both the Washington Post and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on Saturday, during an appearance to plug his new PBS show, at the very mention of Bozell's name Gumbel turned angry, denigrated Bozell as a bozo, and refused to address the complaint of his liberal bias. Clarification: CyberAlert was unwittingly swayed by skewed media coverage and in the July 9 edition mis-reported that in his State of the Union address President Bush had cited how Iraq had received uranium from Niger. In fact, Bush only said that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium. The sentence in Bush's speech which is fueling the media eruption: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Technically, an accurate statement, conveying what a British report stated. 1) Democratic presidential candidates may be attacking President Bush's credibility over the single sentence in his State of the Union address, but they are aided by the media which are becoming obsessed as a summer
[CTRL] Stay Out Of Liberia
-Caveat Lector- http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030714/index.php Stay Out Of Liberia by Charley Reese By the time you read this, the president will probably have made the decision to send or not send troops to Liberia. I hope he has chosen not to send the troops. Let's clear the intellectual debris away from this subject. The fact that the American government played some role in establishing Liberia in the 19th century does not in any way obligate America in the 21st century to clean up the mess the Liberians have made in their own country. There are no foreign invaders in Liberia. The people who have been killing, mutilating and brutalizing Liberians are Liberians. President Bush will not have any problem finding bad guys. His problem will be finding good guys. The people opposed to the present president, Charles Taylor, are just as bad as he is. So just what will our troops do? Shoot Liberians on a random basis? Disarm all the factions? Stay in the country indefinitely to keep the Liberians from cutting each other's throats? Install a new dictator more to our liking? That's probably what will happen if we get involved. Furthermore, no matter how much we spend, no matter how many lives we lose, none of it will benefit the American people one iota. The Constitution, the supreme law of our land, does not authorize the federal government to create a global police force to respond to so-called humanitarian situations. Sorry, it only authorizes a military force for the common defense of these United States. That we have forces spread all over the globe in peacetime ought to outrage Americans, but sadly the Constitution has been so loosely interpreted as to become almost meaningless. But for those of you not interested in Constitutional questions, let's approach this on a practical level. Our forces are already spread thin. There is no exit strategy for American troops in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq or the Sinai. We don't know how to "fix" Iraq and Afghanistan. Adding Liberia to the already-existing problems simply doesn't make sense. It is a nice dream to imagine that we can send our troops around the world as a sort of a global 911 service to rescue people in distress from their own governments. But it's only a dream. We don't have that capability. We would inevitably be highly selective, and almost as surely there would be some hidden motive that has nothing to do with humanitarianism. Besides, making war for humanitarian purposes is a contradiction. War is by its nature inhumane. Our forces in Iraq made an honest effort to avoid civilian casualties, but by some counts we killed about 6,000 innocent people anyway. Being in the vicinity of a war conducted with high explosives is inherently dangerous. Americans are a compassionate people, and when we see people suffering there is a natural tendency to want to help. Suffering, however, is universal, and, as blessed as we are, we have much to do in our country. Africa was colonized by Europeans, and if anyone has a responsibility to help Africans it is Europeans, not Americans. It's true that in the Cold War we dirtied our hands by backing certain dictators, but even that pales compared with the decades Europe exploited the continent. Forgive my cynicism, but I do not believe that President Bush has been suddenly struck with a deeply passionate concern for Africa and Africans. He is probably trying to counter the bad image he created when he scornfully ignored the United Nations and went to war against Iraq despite worldwide opposition. The United Nations nothing but a convenient tool or an annoyance to us is the only forum smaller countries have. They resent the administration's cavalier attitude toward the world body. But creating photo opportunities and tossing money at AIDS isn't going to repair that damage. The people of Africa are not stupid. They can recognize indifference masked behind a smile as well as anyone. And trying to solve Liberia's problem is more likely to reinforce the image of an American bully than to mitigate it. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe
[CTRL] 'THE PARADOX OF U.S. POWER'
-Caveat Lector- http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/qanda/article.jsp?content=20030721_62715_6 2715 Q and A July 21, 2003 'THE PARADOX OF U.S. POWER' British historian Niall Ferguson explains how an imperial America could benefit the world NIALL FERGUSON has made a healthy career out of turning history on its ear. The 39-year-old author and academic -- he's a professor of financial history at New York University's Stern School of Business and senior research fellow at Oxford University -- has produced six books on such diverse subjects as the First World War and the Rothschild business empire. Ferguson's latest book, Empire, examines the dawn and sunset of England's global ambitions, arguing that Britannia's rule wasn't so bad. He recently spoke with Maclean's National Correspondent Jonathon Gatehouse about Britain's past and the lessons for America's future. Around the world, the level of anti-Americanism has never been higher, but it seems to matter less than ever before. Why is that? Being liked or being loved isn't really an integral part of being a successful great power, or indeed a successful empire. You could point to the British experience 100 years ago, and ask how popular were they? These things only matter if they translate themselves into a meaningful threat. And at the moment, the strategic threat posed by the hate-filled antagonists of the U.S. -- whether they be in the Middle East or Western Europe -- is much less than the strategic threat once posed by the Soviet Union, which was ideologically hostile to the U.S. and capitalism. Is there any connection between the slow unravelling of the British Empire over the first half of the 20th century and the growing level of resentment its subjects felt? I don't think so. To understand the decline of British power you need to look at Britain's relative economic decline, but more importantly at Britain's strategic failure to deter the biggest threat to her power -- Germany. The obvious response to that threat prior to 1914 was to create a large and credible land force that would deter the Germans from going to war. The British failed to do that. The nationalist movements that arose in the British Empire, in Egypt and India for example, needed Britain to suffer a massive strategic setback and serious economic weakness before they could really make headway. So from an American point of view, being unpopular isn't that big a deal, unless you are strategically or economically weak. And so far, it's only really manifested itself in a very small number of terrorist attacks -- including the spectacular events of Sept. 11. There has been concern recently about the deficit and debt problem facing the U.S. Do you see that as a threat to their empire? Yes. I think the American fiscal position gives cause for long-term concern because, when you calculate the present value of all the liabilities of the social security and Medicaid system, it exceeds future revenues by $US44 trillion. At some point in the foreseeable future there will be a crisis in the American welfare system that will lead to a cancellation of social programs currently in existence. The irony about American overstretch will be that it's not due to the cost of intervening in Afghanistan, Iraq or anyplace else. It's domestic policies. You argue that the U.S. is the only country capable of righting the ills of the world. What problems should America fix? One that springs to mind is the extreme poverty in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America. I think one ought to emphasize how many of the world's poor are poor not because they're exploited by wicked multinationals or hurt by the policies of the International Monetary Fund, but because they're governed by corrupt dictators. The only agency that exists on paper to address these problems through interventions against lawless regimes is the UN. But the UN's resources are very limited, and most of its efforts at peacemaking have been unsuccessful. The argument I've tried to make is that, unless the U.S. commits to intervening against lawless regimes, nothing is going to change. That's the paradox of American power -- great potential, but culturally, politically and fiscally unlikely to sustain its engagement with strategically crucial parts of the world. Your book also talks about the good points of the British Empire. Are there lessons the U.S. should be learning from its ally's experiences? It's particularly striking in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries the British tried to anglicize and transform politically in the 19th and 20th centuries. To my mind the most obvious lessons are in nation-building -- creating liberal regimes based on the free market and the rule of law. These were British objectives 100 years ago -- there's nothing novel about talking the language of liberty while at the same time using military force. But the way the British did it was far more sophisticated than the
[CTRL] What Israel Does to Palestine, We Are Doing to Iraq
-Caveat Lector- http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=924 What Israel Does to Palestine, We Are Doing to Iraq Robert Fisk - The Independent, 12 July 2003 A few days ago, the American forces in Baghdad drove 17 truckloads of rubble and dirt up to the secret military area of Baghdad airport to air-freight to the United States. No journalists reported on this macabre operation, even if they knew about it. For the muck came from the site of an atrocity committed by the US Air Force at the end of its bombardment of Iraq. The Americans believed Saddam Hussein was hiding in a suburb called Mansour and so, despite knowing that the area was packed with civilians - the operation would not be "risk-free", as one of the US spokesmen later claimed, the nearest he acknowledged that it was a gross breach of the Geneva conventions - they dropped "bunker-buster" bombs on the densely packed houses of Mansour. They killed 16 civilians, including children. But where was Saddam? It was a sign of their desperation that almost two months after they occupied Baghdad, the Americans suddenly began scrabbling through the Mansour debris. Back in the United States, scientists would be tasked to hunt for evidence of Saddam's DNA in the dirt. I'm not sure whether precedents allow others to commit war crimes in the future - or whether a repeat performance allows others to justify past precedents. But does Mansour not remind you of Ariel Sharon's little operation in Gaza a few months ago, when he ordered an Israeli pilot to drop a massive bomb on a crowded Gaza slum, demolishing a building, killing a Hamas official and - by the strange and beautiful symmetry of such atrocities - massacring 16 Palestinian civilians, including many children? We condemned Sharon's slaughter of the innocent, which he called "a great success". But how can we do so now, when we are silent about our own murders in Mansour? Want to criticise the Israeli army for brutally shooting down stone-throwers in the West Bank and Gaza? Well, we'd better be careful now that the US army does the same in Falujah. Care to demand an end to the torture of Palestinian prisoners at the notorious Russian Compound interrogation centre in Jerusalem? Not much point any more. With three prisoners beaten or tortured to death by American interrogators at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan - the US admitted to two of the three "deaths under interrogation" back on 6 March - and the scandal of Guatanamo with its trussed-up, drugged and hooded prisons, its drumhead courts and its probable death chambers (for Brits, too, it seems), we can forget Israel's beatings. Loud were we in our outrage when Israel's indisciplined soldiery looted and vandalised the Palestinian homes of Ramallah last year - but we can complain no more. For now we know that America's indisiplined soldiery (from the 3rd Infantry Division, to be exact) looted their way through Baghdad airport in the days after its capture on 3 April. All praise to Time magazine - of all publications - for breaking this story. But please, no more criticism of Israel's venal soldiers. Europeans chorused their indignation at Israel's murder of "wanted" Palestinians - or "targeted killing", as Israel and the BBC like to call this revolting practice. Yet now that America openly boasts just the same vile tactics - attacking cars in Yemen, convoys in Iraq, villages in Afghanistan (and just who did they kill in that latest convoy attack near the Syrian border?) - we must be silent. Last year, the Israelis produced a "dossier" culled from captured Palestinian documents, "proving" that Arafat was directing "terrorism" against Israel. The papers, mistranslated and doctored, proved nothing of the kind. But after Tony Blair's mendacious "dodgy dossier" before the Iraq war, who are we to criticise Israel for its lies? And how can we ever protest Israel's flagrant violation of UN Resolution 242 and its occupation of Palestinian territory when the United States is occupying the entire ancient land of Iraq after illegally invading the country, killing thousands of its civilians, taking over its oil fields and then failing even to capture the murderous dictator who brutalised his own people (let alone the weapons of mass destruction which don't exist?) Yes, precedents are dangerous things. Take the signal prescient event that occurred in the life of many Independent readers. A massive construction, symbol of a nation's power, was destroyed by "terrorists". The nation's president immediately signed into law a decree for the "protection of the people and the state", including mass arrests and the right to impose "restrictions on personal liberty ... violations of the privacy of postal ... and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches ..." The government then said it had "proof" that "terrorists" were going to attack the homeland, to destroy "government buildings, museums ... and essential plants". This
[CTRL] Impeach Bush! Justification: Offsetting Political Expediency
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/lang071403.shtml IMPEACH BUSH! JUSTIFICATION: OFFSETTING POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY By: Ted Lang The impeachment process is an inquiry. It is the process directed at former President Clinton for lying about a matter that Democrats offered was personal, only a matter of sex, and the outcome of the politics of personal destruction. The impeachment process is initiated in the House of Representatives, which serves as an investigation of wrongdoing. The Senate must conduct a trial examining legal ramifications that can result in removal from office. Curiously, the justification for both an impeachment and its use are found in virtually the same place in the United States Constitution: Article II [powers of the President], Section 3 [State of the Union Message], and Section 4 [removal from office]. The Congress unconstitutionally conveyed to President George W. Bush, the authority of war-making powers, thereby violating Article I [powers of Congress], Section 8, paragraph 10 [the power to declare war]. Presidents in the past have maneuvered to obtain this concession from Congress, justifying it as necessary for the political expediency of a quick response to a national emergency or attack. Such political expediency is nevertheless unlawful and unconstitutional, subverting the intent of our republics spirit of a separation of powers, specifically as it relates to the control of the Nations military might. The Congress, by having abdicated its war-making powers in the absence of an attack upon our Nation, gave President Bush dictatorial powers during peacetime. Simply avoiding entangling alliances can obviate such expediency. It can be avoided to even a greater extent by deploying our military only when attacked. This eliminates the need for our maintaining standing armies in other nations and their staggering related costs, as well as the need for foreign treaties and their intrigue. But President George Bush did maneuver for such power in his State of the Union address. And part of that address alleged that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger in order to construct a nuclear weapon. How many other nations, including our own, are currently engaged in this activity? This is no justification for war. Along with an absence of weapons of mass destruction, the falsification of intent citing the need for a regime change, and now the falsification of a report on uranium procurement, President George Bush appears to have lied outright to the American people in his State of the Union speech. He falsely cited a clear and present danger to America. He implied that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attack upon our nation, yet to date, no such evidence has been presented. In their headline article of July 12th in the New York Times entitled, C.I.A. Chief Takes Blame in Assertion on Iraqi Uranium, David E. Sanger and James Risen launch their piece stating: The director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, accepted responsibility yesterday for letting President Bush use information that turned out to be unsubstantiated in his State of the Union address, accusing Iraq of trying to acquire uranium from Africa to make nuclear weapons. The article continues: Mr. Tenet issued a statement last night after both the president and his national security adviser placed blame on the C.I.A., which they said had reviewed the now discredited accusation and had approved its inclusion in the speech. For days, the White House has tried to quiet a political storm over the discredited intelligence, which was among many examples cited in Mr. Bush's speech to justify the need for confronting Iraq to force the dismantlement of Saddam Hussein's arms programs. It is clear, and hoped for as well, that the upcoming report from Republican Thomas Keans 9-11 investigation committee, which has been reputedly hampered by both funding as well as information delays from the White House, that the incompetence of intelligence gathering, a process that had it been handled properly could possibly have prevented much if not all of the devastation of 9-11, will point blame at both the CIA and the FBI relative to that terrorist act. Yet Mr. Bush has consistently stood by FBI directors Mueller and Freeh, and CIA director Tenet. Now Mr. Tenet is accepting responsibility. What does that mean? Is that the same responsibility former Attorney General Janet Reno accepted for the Waco massacre? What was her punishment? What will Tenets be? The article quotes Bush as saying; I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services. In contract law, the question of reliability as concerns the warranty made by one party to a contract focuses both on whether the other party relied upon a statement made, and whether or not the relying party could reasonably be expected to have had a right to rely upon that representation of fact. Could Bush be reasonably expected to rely upon his own intelligence
[CTRL] COUNTERFEIT - REPUBLICAN SOCIALISM
-Caveat Lector- http://www.etherzone.com/2003/cron071403.shtml COUNTERFEIT REPUBLICAN SOCIALISM By: Al Cronkrite Republicans have been had! The Grand Old Party has been taken over by a group of pseudo-Communists in the form of Neo-Cons. The expose that is being bandied about in a number of venues refers to Trotsky as being the root of the movement. Trotsky was a Communist; one of the mostly Jewish cadre involved in implementing the brutal regime that followed the 1917 Russian Revolution. His proper name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. In 1940, Stalin ordered him assassinated in an effort to rid the Russian Communist Party of pandemic Jewish hegemony. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution and a hero to many Jewish intellectuals who left Russia during anti-Semitic purges. The political philosophies of the ghosts of Trotsky and Sixteenth Century Italian political writer NIcolo Machiavelli coupled with contemporary thoughts of Professor Leo Strauss and Michael Ledeen are prominent in the policies being instituted by the Bush II Administration. Believing that the end justifies the means, Machiavelli recommended despotic, elitist government, mendacity and guile. He authored a book entitled The Prince. His name has become synonymous with expediency, craftiness, and duplicity. Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The War Against the Terror Masters in which he lauds CREATIVE DESTRUCTION BOTH IN AMERICA AND ABROAD and goes on to propose the pre-emptive annihilation of the enemy. The Bush II Administration is rife with proponents and pupils of this secular philosophy. The guru behind some of this was William Kristol's father, Irving Kristol, who was for many years a well-known Trotskyite. The viewpoint is pervasive. Neo-Cons count among their numbers Christopher Hitchins, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. The media, both written and viewed, provides almost total support for the Neo-Con agenda. Rupert Murdock's Fox Network has successfully rattled the sabers for several months and his other holdings The New York Post and The Weekly Standard (William Kristol is Editor) are key promoters. Evangelicals lend obtuse support to this tragic agenda. Their backing is fostered by Zionism and a futile attempt to facilitate the Second Coming of Messiah. A portion of the support is simply a loving reverence for the race of their Savior and failure to apprehend how real Godly love should be executed. In agreement with the Christian position, Ledeen contends that man is essentially evil and needs strong restraint. It is in the nature of the restraint that he moves into the historic Jewish Socialist position which recommends authoritarian government. Ledeen's book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership was passed out to members of Congress. The beliefs and policies being foisted on America bear no resemblance to the sentiments of the Founders of the Nation and are diametrically opposed to its Founding Documents. The Republican Party has now lost every vestige of the Conservative position it formerly espoused. Republican nominees to the Supreme Court voted special privileges to citizens by skin color and erased the laws against sodomy that had been on the books for over a century. Henry Hyde, a Republican leader of long standing, branded the Constitution anachronistic. Republican leaders are now supporting a Socialist drug program. The preservation of the Bill of Rights has been relegated to the trashcan and tyrannical laws are being passed that mirror Hitler's Germany. If those who value freedom do not soon wake up and vote for a political party that supports righteousness, America, if it remains, will no longer be the land of the free. These policies have placed our Nation on the road to ruin. The enormous debt being generated cannot long be sustained. We are now accumulating debt at a rate of a half-trillion dollars a year while our industrial base is being eroded and the economy ruined. With a closely held and uniformly aggressive press the culture is being diluted with diversity, the social order is being decimated with pornography and homosexuality, Christian moral standards are being banned, and the Laws of God are being overridden by the evil laws of men. The roots of the cadre controlling America are evil. Secularism and the albatross of unending war and despotic government are alien to the will of the God of Peace Whom we serve. When the Laws given to Moses that were designed to bring peace and prosperity to God's creation are replaced with the laws of men, captivity is soon the result; it was true in ancient Israel and it is still true today. The insanity that has overtaken our Nation is a direct result of replacing His statutes with the statutes of men. Governments that fail to honor The Creator quickly become centers of confusion and soon fall into
[CTRL] Fire Paul Wolfowitz!
-Caveat Lector- http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2754 Fire Paul Wolfowitz! [You are probably expecting today's memo was written yesterday or today. Of course, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz should be fired, but this memo was written on October 9, 2001, almost one month after 9-11. It was clear even then that Wolfowitz was eager to use 9-11 to boost his plans for war against Iraq. I've known Rumsfeld since 1966 or 1967, when he was still a member of the House from Illinois. He of course did not take my advice, but did everything in his power to help Wolfowitz persuade President Bush to go to war. As a result of the fiasco now unfolding, it may be necessary for President Bush to fire Rumsfeld. The only good explanation of how the President believed he was telling the truth is that he was not experienced enough to be able to assess the material being fed to him by his Cabinet. Wolfowitz should surely go and I now think Rumsfeld should go too, and so should Condi Rice, the hapless National Security Advisor. Before this is all over, I suspect Mr. Bush will also have to pick a new running mate in 2004.] October 9, 2001 Memo To: Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense From: Jude Wanniski Re: The Monkeys on your Back In case you have not noticed, Don, your deputy at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, has promoted himself and is now the Defense Secretary, and you are his deputy. We still see you quoted here and there, but Paul has already wrested policymaking from your hands and is making it himself. It is almost as if you have become his press secretary. He was bored with Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden long before the strikes began Sunday, as he is maniacally determined to cut to the chase, "finishing the war against Saddam Hussein," as his many followers in the pundit community put it. Do you realize how much more difficult it is for President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to hold together the coalition of the international community in the fight against terrorism when the Islamic world every day reads in the public prints or sees television commentary about how Iraq is next on the list? Do you realize that Wolfowitz, and his pal Richard Perle who chairs your Defense Policy Board, have been calling all their friends in the press corps, urging them to beat the drums for war with Iraq? Perle actually signed the famousletter of 41 drafted by Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, who is Perle's mouthpiece in Washington. (Bill Safire of the NYTimes is of course Perle's mouthpiece in New York.) It is incomprehensible to me that you would allow Perle to remain at that post, where he is permitted to read all the most sensitive secret traffic flowing through the Pentagon. Not that he wouldn't see it anyway, courtesy of Wolfowitz, but how brazen can he be and get away with it. The only thing I can conclude, Don, is that you have become so addicted to these monkeys over the years that you can't get them off your back. Why is Wolfowitz so maniacal about Iraq? Remember that in 1991 he was the senior member of the network created by the late Albert Wohlstetter in the Bush administration, working for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It was Wohlstetter to whom I introduced you in 1975 when Albert was masterminding the strategic victory over the USSR from his office at the RAND corporation in Santa Monica and his seat at the Presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). In 1991, the more senior Perle had left the government to make megabucks as a consultant to foreign governments (Turkey being the most generous at $800K per year). So Wohlstetter gave Wolfowitz, next in line, the assignment of persuading Cheney to not only kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but also to chase him all the way to Baghdad, slaughtering the Republican Guard on the way. Thank God Wolfowitz failed in his assignment!! Cheney sided with Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, thus keeping our word to the Islamic world. You are a smart fellow, Don. Did you ever think of the jihad that would have begun back then if we gave the finger to our Islamic allies? Take a few minutes, take a deep breath, and try to think this through. One of my favorite conservative columnists, who has thus far resisted the mindless entreaties of Perle and Wolfowitz to finish the job in Iraq, on Monday wrote a boilerplate rendition of the nonsense being turned out by the press ringleaders: Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Michael Kelly. It was so alarming to me that they might persuade the President to take out Saddam that I wrote the fellow an e-mail. I won't mention his name, but here is how I put it: Now that Osama bin Laden has pushed us into the arms of the Russians, Chinese and French...who have for years been advocates of lifting the embargo against Saddam...it is not likely that Wolfowitz is going to persuade Bush/Cheney they have to give Moscow, Beijing and Paris the finger. For the same reason, an outlay of
[CTRL] BOGUS FROM THE BEGINNING
-Caveat Lector- http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html July 14, 2003 BOGUS FROM THE BEGINNING The backlash against the War Party's lies is only just starting As the lies of the War Party come unraveled, we find that, like a sweater with a loose thread, if we pull on one lie the whole thing comes apart. When disinformation from forged documents purporting to show Iraq's efforts to procure uranium in the African country of Niger somehow found _expression_ in the President's state of the union address, CIA director George Tenet agreed to fall on his sword. But the bloodshed won't stop there. The effort to rope the American people into war was contingent on galvanizing the anger generated by 9/11 and the key to making that connection was to implicate Saddam as being in cahoots with Al Qaeda. (Go here for an extensive record of the administration's efforts to conflate the two.) If, in fact, as Vice President Dick Cheney said, Saddam Hussein had "reconstituted nuclear weapons," then the specter of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda alliance would loom larger and more ominously. Even if the Iraqis had, somehow, overcome the tight sanctions, evaded UN inspectors, and become the second Middle Eastern nation to join the nuclear club, Saddam still could have been deterred the same way his idol, Stalin, had been contained: with the threat of massive retaliation. But Al Qaeda, without any geographical center or civilian population to defend, would not be so constrained. It wasn't just the possession of WMD that would single Iraq out as the target of our post-9/11 rage: it was the possibility indeed, given the tone of the administration's rhetoric, the inevitability that Osama bin Laden would get his hands on them that impelled us to act. Or so the White House led us to believe. Now we learn there never was any connection. The administration's efforts to link these two competitors for power in the Middle East were just as clumsy, in their way, as the outright forgeries of the Niger uranium fiasco. The first such effort was the much-touted meeting alleged to have taken place between an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, and 9/11 plotter Mohammed Atta, in Prague. This story has gone through several transmutations, with both the Czechs and U.S. government officials changing their stories at least once. Newsweek reported that this tall tale was based on the "uncorroborated claim" of a Czech informant who says he saw the two men together on April 9, 2001. But, as Kate Taylor put it last year in Slate: "Who needs evidence? According to Newsweek, when an FBI agent recently told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that the meeting was 'unlikely,' Wolfowitz grilled him until he agreed it was technically possible, since the FBI can't cite Atta's whereabouts on April 9." Czech President Vaclav Havel definitively debunked the myth of the Prague meeting by categorically but discreetly denying it ever took place, effectively settling the matter to everyone's satisfaction but Wolfie's. Now ex-U.S. government officials are chipping away at the flimsy foundations of our most pervasive urban myth, which at one point had 66 percent of the American people pinning the 9/11 attacks on Saddam rather than Osama bin Laden. This sentiment is largely unchanged, at present, but may be about to undergo a major revision. In his February 5 presentation to the United Nations, at the time widely praised as "masterful," Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants." He went on to claim "when our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq." As William O. Beeman observes, however, the entire case for identifying Zarqawi as the focal point of Iraq's support for Bin Laden's cause is based on an "argument by proximity." Zarqawi, no doubt a low-level Al Qaeda operative, did visit Baghdad for medical treatment, but there is no evidence of any cooperative effort or even meetings with Iraqi officials. On the other hand, Beeman writes, "Washington officials also acknowledge that al-Zarqawi had support from a member of the Qatari Royal family, Abdul Karim al-Thani, who hosted him in Qatar. However, Washington officials do not claim that, as with Iraq, these facts show that the Qatari court is also connected to al Qaeda particularly since the United States depends on Qatar to provide staging support for the U.S. Central Command." My own favorite among the War Party's lies is this canard about the "terrorist camp" ensconced in the midst of northern Iraq, where Saddam's forces had absolutely no presence and which was surrounded by territory completely under the control of pro-U.S. Kurds. No need, here, to google endlessly for obscure bits of information. One has
[CTRL] THE DISCOVERY OF THE TESLA COIL AND TRANSFORMER
-Caveat Lector- An excerpt from THE DISCOVERY OF THE TESLA COIL AND TRANSFORMER, being chapter four of MY INVENTIONS: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla The meeting with Edison was a memorable event in my life. I was amazed at this wonderful man who, without early advantages and scientific training, had accomplished so much. I had studied a dozen languages, delved in literature and art, and had spent my best years in libraries reading all sorts of stuff that fell into my hands, from Newton's "Principia" to the novels of Paul de Kock, and felt that most of my life had been squandered. But it did not take long before I recognized that it was the best thing I could have done. Withing a few weeks I had won Edison's confidence and it came about in this way. The S.S. Oregon, the fastest passenger steamer at that time, had both of its lighting machines disabled and its sailing was delayed. As the superstructure had been built after their installation it was impossible to remove them from the hold. The predicament was a serious one and Edison was much annoyed. In the evening I took the necessary instruments with me and went aboard the vessel where I stayed for the night. The dynamos were in bad condition, having several short-circuits and breaks, but with the assistance of the crew I succeeded in putting them in good shape. At five o'clock in the morning, when passing along Fifth Avenue on my way to the shop, I met Edison with Batchellor and a few others as they were returning home to retire. "Here is our Parisian running around at night," he said. When I told him that I was coming from the Oregon and had repaired both machines, he looked at me in silence and walked away without another word. But when he had gone some distance I heard him remark: "Batchellor, this is a d__n good man," and from that time on I had full freedom in directing the work. For nearly a year my regular hours were from 10.30 A.M. until 5 o'clock the next morning without a day's exception. Edison said to me: "I have had many hard-working assistants but you take the cake." During this period I designed twenty-four different types of standard machines with short cores and of uniform pattern which replaced the old ones. The Manager had promised me fifty thousand dollars on the completion of this task but it turned out to be a practical joke. This gave me a painful shock and I resigned my position. Immediately thereafter some people approached me with the proposal of forming an arc light company under my name, to which I agreed. Here finally was an opportunity to develop the motor, but when I broached the subject to my new associates they said: "No, we want the arc lamp. We don't care for this alternating current of yours." In 1886 my system of arc lighting was perfected and adopted for factory and municipal lighting, and I was free, but with no other possession than a beautifully engraved certificate of stock of hypothetical value. Then followed a period of struggle in the new medium for which I was not fitted, but the reward came in the end and in April, 1887, the Tesla Electric Company was organized, providing a laboratory and facilities. The motors I built there were exactly as I had imagined them. I made no attempt to improve the design, but merely reproduced the pictures as they appeared to my vision and the operation was always as I expected. In the early part of 1888 an arrangement was made with the Westinghouse Company for the manufacture of the motors on a large scale. But great difficulties had still to be overcome. My system was based on the use of low frequency currents and the Westinghouse experts had adopted 133 cycles with the object of securing advantages in the transformation. They did not want to depart from their standard forms of apparatus and my efforts had to be concentrated upon adapting the motor to these conditions. Another necessity was to produce a motor capable of running efficiently at this frequency on two wires which was not easy of accomplishment. At the close of 1889, however, my services in Pittsburg being no longer essential, I returned to New York and resumed experimental work in a laboratory on Grand Street, where I began immediately the design of high frequency machines. The problems of construction in this unexplored field were novel and quite peculiar and I encountered many difficulties. I rejected the inductor type, fearing that it might not yield perfect sine waves which were so important to resonant action. Had it not been for this I could have saved myself a great deal of labor. Another discouraging feature of the high frequency alternator seemed to be the inconstancy of speed which threatened to impose serious limitations to its use. I had already noted in my demonstrations before the American Institution of Electrical Engineers that several times the tune was lost, necessitating readjustment, and did not yet foresee, what I discovered long afterwards, a means of operating a machine of this kind at
[CTRL] What Happened to Conservatives?
-Caveat Lector- http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst071403.htm What Happened to Conservatives? by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) July 16, 2003 The so-called conservative movement of the last 20 years, starting with the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, followed by the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, and culminating in the early 2000s with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, seems a terrible failure today. Republicans have failed utterly to shrink the size of government; instead it is bigger and costlier than ever before. Federal spending spirals out of control, new Great Society social welfare programs have been created, and the national debt is rising by more than a half-trillion dollars per year. Whatever happened to the conservative vision supposedly sweeping the nation?... One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter. True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives- a name they gave themselves- are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President's closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative. Modern neoconservatives are not necessarily monolithic in their views, but they generally can be described as follows: -They agree with Trotsky's idea of a permanent revolution; -They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss; -They express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power; -They believe in a powerful federal government; -They believe the ends justify the means in politics- that hardball politics is a moral necessity; -They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive; -They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public; -They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends; -They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism; -They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals; -They scoff at the Founding Fathers' belief in neutrality in foreign affairs; -They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many; -They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party; -They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government; -They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds. Those who love liberty, oppose unjustified war, and resent big-brother government must identify the philosophy that is influencing policy today. If the neoconservatives are wrong- and I believe they are- we must demonstrate this to the American people, and offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity. It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Media Leviathan, U.S. Intelligence Form Secret Cabal
-Caveat Lector- http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_11_03/Media_Leviathan/media_leviathan.html Media Leviathan, U.S. Intelligence Form Secret Cabal A quiet gathering of the medias top elites to discuss mergers, with a keynote address by the head of the CIA, escaped mention in the mainstream press. Exclusive to American Free Press By M. Raphael Johnson Each year, at the posh ranch of investment banker Herbert Allen Jr., the worlds media elites meet to discuss strategy, possible mergers and editorial policy. It can only be called a media version of Bilderberg as government, corporate and media officials are meeting in secret, behind the usual wall of security. As always, for all of these meetings that actually matter, leftist protests are strangely nonexistent, even though it is summertime and colleges are largely empty. This year is a bit different, given that the key note speaker is none other than CIA Director George Tenet. Tenets attendance has been likened to the smoking gun that researchers have been looking for, proving the institutional link between finance, media, government and business. Like all meetings of this type, it is off limits to reporters, however ironic it might be for a media confab. The worlds media, whose bosses are attending the gathering, have not bothered to mention the CIA connection this year, likely the first time the worlds premier intelligence gathering service has been invited to this media gathering. One of the main issues this year is the buying up of French media giant Vivendi, currently run by Jean Bernard Levy (aka Jean Marie Fourtou, among other names), which controls Universal Studios, according to The New York Post. Making bids are Edgar Bronfman, Jr. and Sumner Redstone. Redstone also has made noises that he is interested in buying CNN. Bronfman and Barry Diller have held high executive posts in the French conglomerate in the past, but are now using their connections to buy up the majority of shares, though some media reports deny that Diller is interested. Some have speculated that the French corporation is merely another front for Bronfman and Zionist interests. Bronfman is the founder of the World Jewish Congress, an organization that also includes Vladimir Guzinsky who owns the media MOST corporation in Russia, with major shares being owned by a CIA-conduit, The Washington Post. CNN founder and billionaire Ted Turner, strangely, was not present, though it might be noted that in 2002, Turner, in an interview with the British Guardian newspaper, said Israel practices terrorism and the bombers are all they [the Palestinians] have. Major corporate sponsors included Starbucks coffee (with several others remaining secret) and the Wednesday arrival of Tom Hanks, Candace Bergen and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proves that this is not merely a secretive place to make deals, but is the very canvas where the American anti-culture is painted. Bloombergs presence is important, for, as mayor of the most powerful city in the world, he brought in ex-CIA spy David Cohen to become his deputy commissioner of intelligence, creating a link between the CIA, Bloomberg and this media conference. What makes this year different is that the mergers, as mentioned by Redstone in a recent speech at the confab, is that the FCC has relaxed its acquisitions laws, as well as the presence of U.S. intelligence. Of course, Tenet would not have attended unless there is an extant link between the CIA, mass media and corporate America. Tenets presence is not mentioned in any CIA document or press release, nor is any newspaper reporting it except American Free Press. The only major mention of Tenets presence was a brief July 9 statement on Headline News, a CNN/Bronfman property found on most cable providers. The same is said for Starbucks and as yet unnamed other corporate sponsors of the event. Only in that brief report were they mentioned, dropping out of sight thereafter. In 1998, when CNN did a story on the United States using nerve gas on antiwar GIs during Vietnam, CIA operatives made them pull the story. CNN had turned the story over to several long-time clandestine operatives, including former head of operations Ted Price. Prices successor was David Cohen. On Nov. 11, 2001, The New York Times uncovered a ploy by the Bush administration to set up round the clock news bureaus to control the message of the day. Additionally, the same article reported that several dozen major Hollywood executives met with Karl Rove, President Bushs senior adviser, to find common ground on how the entertainment industry can contribute to the war effort, replicating in spirit if not in scope the partnership formed between filmmakers and war planners in the 1940s. Gen. Tommy Franks stated at a press conference on March 25, 2003, that the media is a weapon of war. For many who have never heard of Allens gatherings, the full institutional formation of intelligence, business,
[CTRL] India Asks U.S. To Extradite Former Union Carbide Chairman
-Caveat Lector- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-09.htm Published on Wednesday, July 9, 2003 by OneWorld.net India Asks U.S. To Extradite Former Union Carbide Chairman by the Environment News Service WASHINGTON - The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB) and survivors organizations have prompted the Indian government to serve a longstanding notice to the U.S. government to extradite former Union Carbide Chairman Warren Anderson. Anderson is wanted in the Bhopal Court for his primary role in the 1984 gas disaster in Bhopal that has claimed more than 20,000 lives to date. "This long awaited move is a major step foward in our struggle for justice," said Rashida Bee, president of the Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmachari Sangh (Bhopal Gas-Affected Women Stationery Workers Association). "We will ensure that this is not just a token gesture." Warren Anderson at his home in Bridgehampton, New York. (Daily Mirror Photo/Shannon Sweeney) Bee said her organization will continue to pressure the Indian government until Anderson and others responsible face trial in the ongoing criminal case, and ICJB says its network of U.S. supporters has already initiated moves to ensure that the U.S. government honors the extradition request. "After all the talk about justice, it is now time for the U.S. government to walk the walk and get Anderson to face criminal trial in Bhopal," said Krishnaveni Gundu, ICJB's coordinator in the United States. The request for Anderson's extradition has come after three years of intense pressure on the Indian government by survivors' organizations in Bhopal, their supporters worldwide and the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bhopal. During the early hours of December 3, 1984, methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a storage tank at a Union Carbide pesticide manufacturing facility in Bhopal. As it escaped, the gas moved across adjacent communities killing thousands of people and injuring many thousands more. According to the Indian government, some 3,800 people died, but others estimate that as many as 8,000 people were killed by the gas. Billed as the world's worst industrial disaster, the Bhopal tragedy injured 500,000 people. Survivors and their children are impoverished and continue to suffer drastic long term effects in the absence of economic rehabilitation measures and appropriate medical care. According to the latest official estimates, 380 gas affected people succumb to health effects each year, and more than 20,000 are exposed to the toxic wastes lying in and around the Union Carbide factory site in Bhopal. In 1992, the Bhopal court declared Warren Anderson a fugitive from justice, after he ignored a summons issued by the Bhopal court to appear in the criminal case. Anderson and Union Carbide stand accused of manslaughter, grievous assault, poisoning and killing of animals and other serious offenses. In February 2001, the Dow Chemical Company based in Midland, Michigan acquired Union Carbide as a 100 percent subsidiary. However, Dow has refused to accept Carbide's Bhopal liabilities. In 2002, documents unearthed in the process of a class action suit against Anderson and Union Carbide in New York revealed that not only did Union Carbide knowingly export untested and hazardous technology to Bhopal, but also that this decision was authorized personally by Anderson. "Criminal trial of corporate CEOs is not merely a necessary legal measure for justice in Bhopal," said Raj Sharma, the attorney representing the survivors in the class action suit. "It is an essential prerequisite for tackling the growing crisis of corporate crime." Copyright 2003 OneWorld.net Record Heat Hits Anchorage http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arson-salvage/message/43 * Do you Yahoo!? www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
[CTRL] Kinsey/IASR and Paidika, Friedmans, Bush not credible, lies about the war
-Caveat Lector- scroll for articles from mparent Kinsey's Kooky, Kinky Shrinks By Judith Reisman 7/14/03 "International Academy of Sex Research (IASR) will gather, also emceed by Kinsey Institute director Dr. John Bancroft. Joining Bancroft on the podium will be Theo Sandfort, the IASR president and Scientific Program Committee chairman. Sandfort's qualifications include having been a well-known member of the editorial board of Paidika, the Journal of Paedophila. Sandfort shares this dubious editorial honor with Kinsey Institute conference keynoter Verne Bullough, as well as Bill Andriette, the editor of The NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) Bulletin. The journal editors wrote in 1987, "The starting point of Paidika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles." http://rense.com/general39/kins.htm >From Newsday - Teacher Guilty of Sex Crimes In plea bargain, admits sodomizing boys in Great Neck home By Alvin E. Bessent Staff Writer Originally published March 26, 1988 "Friedman, 56, in a barely audible voice, admitted sodomizing, sexually touching and forcing the boys, all under age 11, to look at sexually ex-plicit videotapes and magazines for his own sexual gratification. Friedman also admitted ramming one young boy's head into a wall while other students watched. He answered with the single word, "Yes," when asked by Boklan if he then threatened to do the same to the other boys if they told anyone about the sexual abuse." http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/ny-friedman032688,0,1165720.story?coll=bal-features-headlines >From Newsday - Teen Gets 6-18 Years For Child Sex Abuse By Alvin E. Bessent Staff Writer Originally published January 25, 1989 "In his bid for lenience, defense attorney Peter Panaro said Arnold Friedman began entering his son's bedroom when Jesse was 9 years old, fondling him while reading bedtime stories"The real culprit here is Arnold Friedman. The man is a monster," Panaro said. The defendant's mother, Elaine Friedman, buried her face in her hands and wept quietly as Boklan recounted a psychiatrist's report of her son's joy when his father's unwanted sexual attention was shifted to children in the classBut Jesse Friedman most often physically brutalized the boys in his father's classes, and invited friends to participate in orgies of child sexual abuse, Boklan pointed out. "The fact that you were a victim does not absolve you from responsibility," Boklan saidThe Friedmans and a neighbor, Ross Goldstein, who was arrested in June, were charged in a series of indictments with more than 400 counts of various forms of sexual abuse involving 7to 11-year-olds who were students in Arnold Friedman's computer classes. Jesse Friedman was accused in more than 200 of those counts." http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/ny-friedman012589,0,248214.story?coll=bal-features-headlines A Film's Fallout Years after a notorious LI sex abuse case, debate rages By Víctor Manuel Ramos 7/2/03 ""They hurt me and the others very much," the boy told Nassau police detectives who took his statement in 1987, "so much that I cried and I called for my mommy and so did the others ... " By the time the police and the prosecutors were done, they had more than a dozen boys who were ready to recount similar details of abuse at the Friedman home on Picadilly Road "I've gotten angrier about it, about how misleading it is," said Abbey Boklan, the now-retired Nassau County Court judge who heard the Friedmans' pleas. "By editing out most of the proof against certainly Jesse and even Arnold to a lesser extent, [Jarecki] may have created a brilliant piece of theater, but it's not a truthful and accurate documentary." "In 1989, Jesse Friedman told Newsday of his father's abuse. He even detailed what he had done to the children on national television, when he told talk show host Geraldo Rivera that he too had been his father's victim." ""What did I do to the children?" Jesse Friedman said in the televised interview. "I fondled them. Umm, I was forced to, to pose in hundreds of photos for my father in all sorts of sexual positions with the kids and the kids likewise with myself ... " Today, Jesse Friedman, a Spanish Harlem resident, says he lied when he confessed his guilt and his father's abuse, because he was trying to manipulate the media to gain the public's sympathy." http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lifman293355703jul02,0,1486672.story?coll=ny-linews-utility >From Newsday - Teen Faces 37 New Sex Charges By Alvin E. Bessent Staff Writer Originally published June 24, 1988 "A Great Neck teenager already charged with molesting young male students at his father's private computer school was rearrested yesterday on 37 new counts of sodomy and other forms of sexual abuse, Nassau police saidPolice said they expect to arrest as many as four acquaintances of Jesse Friedman in the burgeoning case."
