Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
V: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Welcome Back The Spotlight 'O Terror
Green - Low: This setting is here just as a reference point. DHS will never use it because it would mean we didn’t need them anymore.
Blue - Guarded: This rarely used setting on the Stoplight ‘O Terror could indicate things like an undocumented worker within 3 square miles of the president.
Yellow - Elevated: This is the standard level of fear. Don’t expect to see anything lower than this as long as the Regressives are in office. Be scared, but not too scared to vote Republican.
Orange - High: Chertoff heard that someone in the CIA’s brother’s boss’ nephew’s sister-in-law heard about a plan to blow up Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne Indiana. It’s ok to pee your pants at this level.
Red - Severe: A terror attack was recently narrowly averted. We can’t release any details but just be thankful we saved your asses. Used frequently before midterm elections. See October Surprise. (Oh My God, Take Away My Freedoms and Protect Me From Them There Terrorists, Like Osama Hussein!!!)
Welcome to my Blog, enjoy your stay!
Congressman Ron Paul, MD - We've Been NeoConned
1984 radio broadcast:
Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.
Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn't invited.
We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.
The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.
Lew then called Mr. Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Scheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.
Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?
We couldn't get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Scheffler. Maybe you'll have better luck. Their contact information is below.
It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul's participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.
Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008
Contact Information
Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org
Web Site
Steve Scheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com
Web Site
Lew Rockwell.com June 20, 2007
Jacob G. Hornberger
In Star Wars, Episode 3, in response to the Senate's grant of sweeping powers to Chancellor Palpatine, Padme declares, “So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause.”
The same may be said about the Military Commissions Act (MCA) that was recently enacted by Congress – that this is how freedom ends, with or without the applause.
Despite the fact that the MCA has received just a modicum of publicity from the mainstream press, it is undoubtedly the most ominous and dangerous piece of legislation in our lifetime. By suspending habeas corpus for foreigners, by adopting the executive branch's “enemy combatant” designation for both Americans and foreigners, and by establishing military tribunals for foreigners, the law not only entails a fundamental reordering of our criminal justice system but also effectively places the U.S. military in control of the American people.
 |
Habeas corpus
Of all the rights and freedoms mentioned and enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the writ of habeas corpus is arguably the most important safeguard of individual freedom. Without the “Great Writ,” none of the other rights and liberties has much value.
To illustrate why this is so, let us assume that we live in a society in which everyone has the right of freedom of speech, including the right to criticize government programs. One day, someone criticizes some government policy. That day, a federal SWAT team conducts a no-knock raid and arrests the critic. The next day, several people protest the arrest, arguing that the prisoner has the right to criticize the government under principles of free speech. That afternoon, federal agents arrest and incarcerate some of the critics.
What could be done to get the prisoners released from incarceration? The answer is: Nothing, unless the society recognizes the writ of habeas corpus.
With habeas corpus, the prisoner files a petition with the judicial branch of government, asking a judge to order his custodian to appear before the judge to justify his incarceration of the prisoner. If the custodian refuses to comply, the judge issues an arrest warrant for him, which is enforced at the federal level by deputy marshals. Or let's assume that the custodian shows up and says, “Your honor, the reason we're holding him in custody is that he criticized the government.” In that case, the judge can order his immediate release, holding that criticizing the government is not a crime. Or if the judge incorrectly upholds the detention, the prisoner can file an immediate appeal to the appellate courts, which ordinarily give priority to habeas corpus proceedings.
Without habeas corpus, there is no way for a person who is being wrongfully detained to challenge his detention, even if the detention has gone on for years. In the absence of habeas corpus, he must continue to languish in prison until the authorities, out of the kindness of their hearts, decide to release him. That's in fact the way things work in communist China and communist Cuba, where everyone is guaranteed freedom of speech but has no way to secure his release from prison after exercising it.
Habeas corpus, a judicial remedy that stretches back centuries into English jurisprudence, is the linchpin of a free society. Emphasizing its importance, the Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang put it like this: “Personally, I think that one writ of habeas corpus is worth more than all the Confucian philosophy ever written.” That's why the Framers expressly included the protection of habeas corpus in the Constitution.
The Military Commissions Act cancels habeas corpus for foreigners accused of terrorism. In one fell swoop, the Congress, at the behest of President Bush, nullified centuries of habeas corpus protection.
It might be tempting for some Americans to say, “No big deal, because foreigners don't count.” But that is a grave error because history has shown that when citizens permit their government to deprive one class of people of critically important rights, it's only a matter of time before the government will do the same to other groups.
Ever since the inception of our nation, Americans have been able justly to take pride in the fact that their rules of criminal justice applied to everyone equally, across the board. Rich or poor, powerful or weak, everyone who was detained by the federal government on criminal charges has been entitled to the Great Writ, along with such important procedural rights as due process of law, right to counsel, trial by jury, and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Will the federal courts overturn the MCA's cancellation of habeas corpus for foreigners, given that under the Constitution Congress can suspend the writ only in times of invasion or rebellion? Ordinarily, the answer would be yes, because under our system of government neither the Congress nor the president has the authority to amend the Constitution by enacting a law that nullifies its provisions.
With the MCA, however, the Congress and the president pulled a neat little constitutional trick. The Constitution permits the Congress to determine what cases the federal courts will have jurisdiction to hear, and Congress used the MCA law to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases brought by foreigners.
Time will tell whether the courts uphold such obvious trickery. But if they do, Americans may well rue the day because if the feds can cancel habeas corpus for foreigners and deprive the courts of the power to do anything about it, they will be able to do the same thing to Americans, not only with respect to habeas corpus but also with respect to other rights and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Enemy combatants
Does the fact that habeas corpus was canceled only for foreigners mean that Americans are immunized from the arbitrary arrests, torture, and indefinite detentions to which foreigners will be subjected under the MCA? No, because slipped into the law was the president's and the Pentagon's post–9/11 concept of “enemy combatants” in the war on terrorism. That concept applies not only to foreigners but also to Americans.
What does it mean to be designated an “enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism? Just ask Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was designated an enemy combatant. The Pentagon took Padilla into custody some three years ago and for two years held him incommunicado in a navy dungeon. Even worse, the Pentagon employed the psychological techniques of torture against him that the North Korean communists had employed against American GIs during the Korean War. Padilla was locked up in solitary confinement and denied any contact with the outside world, with the apparent aim of driving him out of his mind as a result of what psychiatrists call “sensory deprivation.” According to Padilla's lawyers and psychiatrist, the mental torture has been successful, leaving Padilla with a disturbed state of mind that prevents him from assisting with his own defense.
The Pentagon takes the position that ever since 9/11, the U.S. military has wielded the power to treat any American just as it has treated Jose Padilla.
Padilla, through his lawyer, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention by the military. When the case was about to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the government switched gears and announced suddenly that they were indicting him for the criminal offense of terrorism and transferring him to federal court jurisdiction.
The clever legal move deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear Padilla's case (because the issue of military detention had become moot) but, equally important, it left intact the federal court of appeals decision upholding the government's “enemy combatant” concept.
Why is that important? For the simple reason that it has given the U.S. military omnipotent control over the American citizenry. With the president's use of the “enemy combatant” designation, which has now been formally enacted into law by the MCA, the U.S. military now wields the power to send troops across America and take Americans into custody and punish them through torture and deny them due process of law, trial by jury, and other procedural rights whose roots stretch back centuries in American and British law.
Don't Americans accused of terrorism, though, still have the right of habeas corpus? Yes, but all that habeas corpus does is require the government to show that it is justified in holding the prisoner. If there is no legal justification – such as holding someone because he criticized the government – the judge will order his release. But if the Supreme Court upholds the “enemy combatant” concept, as the federal court of appeals did, then all that the government has to do at the habeas corpus hearing is show some evidence that the accused had indeed been designated an “enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism. Once the government does that, the judge will dismiss the petition for habeas corpus relief and leave the prisoner at the indefinite mercy of his custodians.
What about the validity of the “enemy combatant” concept? It is political and legal chicanery that effectively gives the U.S. military standby control over the American people. All that the military has to do is fill out a form with a person's name on it – or with lots of people's names on it – and have the commander in chief (whether Bush, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else who happens to be president) sign it. At that point, military units can sweep into neighborhoods and effect the arrests and incarcerations of American citizens.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, that's not what America is supposed to be all about. That's what the Soviet Union was, and China, North Korea, and Cuba are all about. Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. That's why it's defined as a crime in the federal statute books. That's why it's prosecuted as a crime, both here and in Europe. That's in fact why federal prosecutors have prosecuted such terrorists as Zacarias Moussaoui (one of the 9/11 terrorists), Ramzi Yousef (one of the 1993 WTC terrorists), Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City terrorist), and many others accused of terrorism. After all, let's not forget that Jose Padilla himself is now being prosecuted for terrorism in federal district court rather than being held as an “enemy combatant.”
Targeting the unpopular
The beauty is how U.S. officials have accomplished this standby hijacking of America's criminal justice system. They have targeted foreigners or unsavory Americans such as Padilla to get their doctrines established, knowing that most Americans would never come to their defense and knowing that most Americans would never suspect that a government victory in those cases might well end up applying to ordinary Americans as well.
So, under the current state of the law, thanks to Congress, the president, and the MCA, Americans can be incarcerated and tortured by the military for the rest of their lives. No due process and no jury trials. In fact, arguably foreigners accused of terrorism have it “better” under the MCA because they do get a trial – trial by military tribunal – while American “enemy combatants” get no trial at all. The reason I put the word “better” in quotation marks is that military tribunals, unlike jury trials in federal court, will be nothing but kangaroo proceedings where the outcome (guilt and death) will not be in doubt and where the proceeding is actually just a show trial for the benefit of the American people.
There are, of course, those who say, “We don't need to be concerned. Our government officials love us and will employ these powers only against foreigners.” The big problem with that way of thinking is that once the roundups begin amidst a big crisis environment, where everyone is stricken with fear, it will be too late to complain. Just ask German Jews or, for that matter, Americans of Japanese descent.
The time to protest is now. The time to fight for the Constitution and Bill of Rights is now. The time to restore habeas corpus is now. The time to repeal the MCA is now. The time to rein in the federal government is now.
Judge Scalia cites Jack Bauer as example in discussion over torture
Globe & Mail June 20, 2007
COLIN FREEZE
OTTAWA -- Justice Antonin Scalia is one of the most powerful judges on the planet.
The job of the veteran U.S. Supreme Court judge is to ensure that the superpower lives up to its Constitution. But in his free time, he is a fan of 24, the popular TV drama where the maverick federal agent Jack Bauer routinely tortures terrorists to save American lives. This much was made clear at a legal conference in Ottawa this week.
Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.
 |
The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so."So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."
What happened next was like watching the National Security Judges International All-Star Team set into a high-minded version of a conversation that has raged across countless bars and dinner tables, ever since 24 began broadcasting six seasons ago.
Jack Bauer, played by Canadian Kiefer Sutherland, gets meaner as he lurches from crisis to crisis, acting under few legal constraints. "You are going to tell me what I want to know, it's just a matter of how much you want it to hurt," is one of his catchphrases. Every episode poses an implicit question to its viewers: Does the end justify the means if national security is at stake? On 24, the answer is, invariably, yes.
But sometimes this message proves a little too persuasive. Last November, a U.S. Army brigadier-general, Patrick Finnegan, of West Point, went to California to meet with the show's producers. He asked if the writers would consider reining in Agent Bauer. "The kids see it, and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about 24?" he told The New Yorker in February.
He argued that "they should do a show where torture backfires." It's not just the military that's watching 24. It turns out that the judges who struggle to square the Guantanamo Bay prison camp experiment with the British Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 are watching the show, too. It was Mr. Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada who inadvertently started the debate, with his derogatory drive-by slight against Jack Bauer, the one that so provoked Judge Scalia.
In his day job, the Canadian judge wrestles with the implications of torture. Last winter, for example, Judge Mosley ordered an Osama bin Laden associate freed from seven years prison and into strict house arrest in Toronto.
Judge Mosley told the panel that rights-respecting governments can't take part in torture or encourage it in any way. "The agents of the state, and the agents of the Canadian state, under the Criminal Code, are very much subject to severe criminal sanction if they would engage in torture," he said.
But the U.S. Supreme Court judge choked on that position, saying it would be folly for laws to dictate that counterterrorism agents must wear kid gloves all the time. While Judge Scalia argued that doomsday scenarios may well lead to the reconsideration of rights, in his legal decisions he has also said that catastrophic attacks and intelligence imperatives do not automatically give the U.S. president a blank cheque - the people have to decide. "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this court," he dissented in a 2004 decision. The judicial majority ruled that a presidential order meant that an American "enemy combatant" wasn't entitled to challenge the conditions of his detention, which happened to be aboard a naval brig.
As they discussed torture in Ottawa, the judicial panelists from outside the United States argued that any implicit or explicit sanction of torture is a slippery slope.
Some said that legal systems might do well to enforce anti-torture laws, even if it meant prosecuting rogue agents. "What if the guy is not the guy who's going to blow up Los Angeles? But some kind of innocent?" asked Lord Carlile of Berriew, a Welshman who acts as the independent reviewer of Britain's terrorism laws.
Torture can lead to false confessions, he said. "How do you protect that person's civil rights from the risk of very serious wrongful conviction?" But Lord Carlile, a barrister by training, added that he was also concerned with Jack Bauer's rights. "I'm sure I could get him off," he said.
One panelist deadpanned that saving Los Angeles from a nuke would likely be a mitigating factor during any sentencing of Jack Bauer.
When the panel opened to questions and commentary from the floor, a senior Canadian government lawyer said: "Maybe saving L.A. is an easy question. How many people are we going to torture to save L.A.?" asked Stanley Cohen, a senior counsel for the Justice Department, who specializes in human rights law. "How much certainty do we get to have that we have the right person in front of us?" Then Lorne Waldman, the lawyer for the famously wronged engineer Maher Arar, emerged from the crowd to say that very little of the conversation sounded hypothetical to him.
Mr. Arar was among a series of Canadian Arabs who emerged from lengthy ordeals in Syrian jails to complain of torture. Their common complaint is that Syrian torture - including beatings with electric cables - flowed from a wrongly premised Canadian investigation after 9/11.
A host of security agents, Mr. Waldman argued, acted with utmost urgency against innocents, after wrongly fearing a bomb plot was afoot.
Generally, the jurists in the room agreed that coerced confessions carry little weight, given that they might be false and almost never accepted into evidence. But the U.S. Supreme Court judge stressed that he was not speaking about putting together pristine prosecutions, but rather, about allowing agents the freedom to thwart immediate attacks.
"I don't care about holding people. I really don't," Judge Scalia said.
Even if a real terrorist who suffered mistreatment is released because of complaints of abuse, Judge Scalia said, the interruption to the terrorist's plot would have ensured "in Los Angeles everyone is safe." During a break from the panel, Judge Scalia specifically mentioned the segment in Season 2 when Jack Bauer finally figures out how to break the die-hard terrorist intent on nuking L.A. The real genius, the judge said, is that this is primarily done with mental leverage. "There's a great scene where he told a guy that he was going to have his family killed," Judge Scalia said. "They had it on closed circuit television - and it was all staged. ... They really didn't kill the family."
Gospel according to Jack
"Tell me where the bomb is or I will kill your son."
"I don't want to bypass the Constitution, but these are extraordinary circumstances."
"I need to use every advantage I've got."
"If we want to procure any information from this suspect, we're going to have to do it behind closed doors."
"I'm talking about doing what's necessary to stop this warhead from being used against us."
"When I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish that you felt this good again."
"You don't have any more useful information, do you?"
Sources: New Yorker, IMDB
Atlanta City Council Nixes Free Speech Zone Ordinance
The Atlanta Progressive News June 21, 2007
Jonathan Springston
The Atlanta City Council voted unanimously Monday to file an ordinance creating free speech zones, essentially killing the legislation, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
The vote came after the Community Development/Human Resources (CDHR) Committee voted unanimously June 12, 2007, to recommend to the City Council to file the legislation.
CDHR Chairman Jim Maddox, who first introduced the legislation on behalf of the Mayor's Office, briefed the City Council Monday on the ordinance and the discussion members had June 12, 2007.
"I believe the intent [of the ordinance] was good but it did not sit well with citizens," Maddox said Monday.
|
|
Maddox then moved to file the ordinance and the City Council voted 14 to 0 to do so.
Mayor Shirley Franklin's Chief of Staff Greg Pridgeon had come to the June 12, 2007, CDHR Meeting to request on behalf of the Mayor's Office that the CDHR Committee and the City Council file the ordinance.
"We are here today to say to this audience and this Committee that we may have been premature in the ordinance that we set forward," Pridgeon at the CDHR Meeting.
Several citizens briefly spoke before the vote Monday to remind and urge the City Council to file the ordinance for good during a public comment segment.
Activists and concerned citizens first received word of the ordinance when the City Council was prepared to approve it June 4, 2007.
Citizen outrage and concern among certain City Council Members forced the Full Council to send the ordinance back to the CDHR Committee for reconsideration.
Atlanta Progressive News has followed this ordinance in depth. For more of our coverage, see:
Committee Vote Likely Dooms Free Speech Zone Ordinance- Jonathan Springston, Senior Staff Writer
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0176.html
Mayor, City Attorney Seek Delay in Free Speech Zone Ordinance- Matthew Cardinale, News Editor
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0172.html
Atlanta Council Wants Free Speech Zones to Restrict Public Protests- Jonathan Springston and Matthew Cardinale
NY Post June 21, 2007
ANGELA MONTEFINISE and SUSAN EDELMAN 
About 5,000 active and retired FDNY employees are receiving medical treatment for injuries and illnesses connected to the World Trade Center attacks, according to a Fire Department document.
"That is an absolutely staggering number, and it's a number that speaks volumes," said Andrew Carboy, a lawyer who represents more than 200 firefighters in a negligence suit against the city. "That's half of what the force was on 9/11."
The FDNY had about 11,000 members on Sept. 11, 2001.
About 3,000 firefighters and EMS workers are receiving counseling for emotional problems. Another 1,500 are suffering respiratory ailments.
| FDNY's 9/11 Toll Shocker NY Post June 21, 2007 About 5,000 active and retired FDNY employees are receiving medical treatment for injuries and illnesses connected to the World Trade Center attacks, according to a Fire Department document. "That is an absolutely staggering number, and it's a number that speaks volumes," said Andrew Carboy, a lawyer who represents more than 200 firefighters in a negligence suit against the city. "That's half of what the force was on 9/11." The FDNY had about 11,000 members on Sept. 11, 2001. About 3,000 firefighters and EMS workers are receiving counseling for emotional problems. Another 1,500 are suffering respiratory ailments.
There are also between 600 and 1,000 FDNY members - most of whom retired after 9/11 - currently receiving prescription medication for a variety of illnesses, from asthma and gastrointestinal disease to depression and anxiety. The shocking numbers were revealed in a June 8 FDNY "request for proposals," launched in search of a vendor to manage the department's prescription-drug program for five years. The department announced in February that it will use millions of dollars in federal funds to help subsidize medication for workers suffering from 9/11-related injuries, allowing them to obtain free prescription drugs. Although all 5,000 workers suffering from ailments - who were all screened by the FDNY - are eligible for the program, many are using workers' compensation or other forms of insurance to obtain medication. There are 207 drugs approved in the program, including antidepressants Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil; anti-anxiety medication Xanax; narcotic painkiller OxyContin; and antipsychotics Haldol and Zyprexa, which are used to combat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. "When 5,000 members of the FDNY qualify for these kinds of medications, it's clear this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon," said Stephen Cassidy, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association. "People tend to forget, or maybe it's just human nature, to put that event behind you," he said. "But firefighters, many of whom lost many, many friends that day, besides the physical injuries, still suffer severe emotional pain." |
There are also between 600 and 1,000 FDNY members - most of whom retired after 9/11 - currently receiving prescription medication for a variety of illnesses, from asthma and gastrointestinal disease to depression and anxiety.
The shocking numbers were revealed in a June 8 FDNY "request for proposals," launched in search of a vendor to manage the department's prescription-drug program for five years.
The department announced in February that it will use millions of dollars in federal funds to help subsidize medication for workers suffering from 9/11-related injuries, allowing them to obtain free prescription drugs.
Although all 5,000 workers suffering from ailments - who were all screened by the FDNY - are eligible for the program, many are using workers' compensation or other forms of insurance to obtain medication.
There are 207 drugs approved in the program, including antidepressants Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil; anti-anxiety medication Xanax; narcotic painkiller OxyContin; and antipsychotics Haldol and Zyprexa, which are used to combat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
"When 5,000 members of the FDNY qualify for these kinds of medications, it's clear this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon," said Stephen Cassidy, president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association.
"People tend to forget, or maybe it's just human nature, to put that event behind you," he said. "But firefighters, many of whom lost many, many friends that day, besides the physical injuries, still suffer severe emotional pain."
FBI Knowingly Allowed Bin Laden To Personally Charter Flight After 9/11
Newly released documents prove agency let Osama's family go at his request without even questioning them
Prison Planet June 21, 2007
Steve Watson
The FBI were aware that Osama Bin Laden may have chartered one of the flights that took Bin Laden family members out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks, yet allowed the planes to depart without even questioning them, new Agency documents reveal.
While all other air traffic had been grounded for days by the authorities they knowingly allowed the immediate family of their prime suspect behind the attacks to get into planes and fly out at Bin Laden's own request.
The previously confidential documents (PDF link) have been obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and ongoing litigation.
The documents state:
ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.
Traffic control reports show that the plane made four stops to pick up passengers and was then allowed to depart the United States for Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01.
The documents reveal that the FBI did not consider a single Saudi national nor any of the Bin Laden family worthy of investigative value.
Furthermore, Judicial Watch's examination of the documents has revealed that they contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which show the FBI's investigation of the Saudi flights to be woefully inadequate and almost non existent.
For example, in one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”) while a second FBI document claims only to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.
“Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it's not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Clearly these documents prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of these Saudi flights. We'll never know how many investigative leads were lost due to the FBI's lack of diligence.”
U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, leading to these incredible findings.
It was revealed that the FBI had previously redacted Osama Bin Laden's name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.”
Note the previously blacked out "Osama Bin Laden" - privacy interests? get real.
The documents provide clear proof that the FBI was protecting the Bin Laden while the rest of the world was being told that he had masterminded the biggest terror attack in history. The FBI then attempted to cover up this fact.
An FBI spokesman said the information in the documents is inaccurate.
"There is no new information here. Osama bin Laden did not charter a flight out of the US," FBI special agent Richard Kolko said.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Kolko then cited the 9/11 Commission Report which determined that the FBI did conduct a thorough enough investigation, despite the fact that its own documents contradict each other on basic facts such as how many people were on a plane. Remember also that the same 9/11 Commission report failed to even mention the collapse of building 7, a 47 story skyscraper that wasn't hit by anything on 9/11 and in which many people lost their lives according to witnesses.
Perhaps the FBI allowed Bin Laden to charter the flight and take all his family members out of the USA because they know he is not a suspect. The FBI's most wanted page for Osama bin Laden still does not include an apportion of blame for 9/11 and there has still been no formal indictment of Bin Laden almost six years after 9/11.
The protection of Bin Laden by federal authorities has been ongoing since BEFORE 9/11 when agents were told to 'back off the Bin Laden family' in order to protect business interests that the Bush family had with the Bin Ladens and other Saudi nationals.
The FBI asserts that no one on the planes that left had any terrorist links. yet documents (specifically FBI document 199I WF213589) found back in November 2001 prove this to be a falsehood.
The FBI was on the trail of bin Laden family members living in the US before September 11. A document showed that special agents from the Washington field office were investigating Abdullah, a close relative of Osama, because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation, it said.
The Times of India reported at the time:
The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating out of the FBI's Washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks.
The Bin Laden family are business people, they are not as many would have it hardcore fundamentalist muslim extremists that live in caves in Afghanistan. Here is young Osama lounging around a pink Cadillac with his siblings looking very fashionable in the 1970s.
In the 1980s George W Bush made millions on the back of a company financed by Osama Bin Laden's elder brother , Salem. In addition both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the Bin Ladens in The Carlyle Group which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors.
On the very morning of 9/11 George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother , Shafig Bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Carlyle Group business. The Bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after 9/11.
FBI Special agent Robert Wright broke down when testifying that he had been gagged and could not reveal the true extent of what he knew about the Bush-Bin Laden connection and 9/11. His lawyer stepped up and said live on C-Span that "The Bush Family vacations with the Bin Ladens".
The ties run deep and all lead to money , huge amounts of money. This is how the Bushes do business, this is how they have always done business, they own the best enemies money can buy and the latest revelations underscore the fact that an independent and thorough investigation into 9/11 and the Bush Administration's role in it is absolutely imperative.
| July - September 2006, No. 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cover Story  By Patricia MacLean
5.0-COMMUNISM AS INFILTRATOR5.1-Educational System: Power to the Party
It has been stated that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 09, 1989. The Cold War may indeed have ended, but it was not because the system of Communism had gasped its last breath. Instead, the foul breath of Communism that had been directed unceasingly at the West for decades had finally warmed the West to Communist ideas and, thus, it became safe for the East to obliterate the physical barriers that had been rendered obsolete as the more important ideological barriers to Communism, in the West, had been broken down to a sufficient degree. Much of this has been accomplished through the duplicity of the Western intelligentsia, as testified by Malcolm Muggeridge, many years earlier, “. . . as a young journalist in Moscow in the early thirties, I observed the truly extraordinary antics there of visiting intelligentsia from Western Europe and the United States. Almost all of them displayed a credulity about the regime, and about what they heard from its professional apologists, that would have shaken an African witch doctor. Notable examples were Bernard Shaw, the Webbs, André Gide, Lincoln Steffens, Julian Huxley, Henri Barbusse, and Harold Laski. The performance of visiting clergymen was particularly striking; there was nothing, it seemed, they liked better than being shown round the anti-God museums, and, though mostly ardent pacifists at home, they heard with delight the roar of Soviet war planes overhead and the rattle of Soviet tanks across the Red Square. I had been brought up to regard these western intelligentsia as the chosen elite, the Samurai of our time, and there they were adulating to an extravagant degree the most ruthless and comprehensive dictatorship the world has yet seen. What was I to make of it?”52 What is to be made of it is that yet another barrier to the advancement toward a World-State had been obliterated through the seduction of Western intellectuals who were so instrumental in forming young minds. Upon their return to the West, they worked to lead astray young adults who had not had the advantage of a proper formation that would have allowed them to dispute the errors that they imbibed, instead, to the detriment of Western civilization. In turn, these young adults became unthinking mouth-pieces of the revolution, joining the chorus decrying the works of Dead White Men used in many of their classes and chanted the sophomoric tune: Western civ has got to go … Their progeny, the campus thought police, prowl the corridors of modern academia ensuring that all tow the lines of Political Correctness and mediocrity. Arnold J. Toynbee, in his book, Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Time, confirmed the existence of an internationalist policy within the Western educational system, intent on proselytizing to convert the masses to the idea of a world citizenry: “A small minority can move mountains if it has a lever . . . the homogeneity of the contemporary intelligentsia is remarkable . . . The current policy of the intelligentsia is the same everywhere, and this policy is arriving everywhere at the same result . . . these units are going to be uniform enough to serve as cells for the construction of a world-wide world-state . . .”53 This seduction is not limited to the higher echelons of our educational systems, rather the coveted standardization starts early, reinforced through the stream of elementary public education, as noted by Toynbee: “. . . the present day Westernizing intelligentsia wields one potent cultural weapon ... Compulsory universal primary education, administered by the public authorities and financed out of public funds, is a modern Western institution which has no precedents. In the West it has proved to be a very powerful transformative force already during the short time that has passed since its inauguration there. It influences children at their most impressionable age, and it reaches, not just a minority, but the masses.”54 In the East, as reported in the Toronto Star in 2005, it has proved to be a very powerful transformative force, too: “They confuse Stalin with Hitler, echo their parents’ nostalgia for a supposedly ‘golden age’ and think the worst part of the Communist era was not being able to travel freely. Fifteen years after communism collapsed across eastern Europe, some people worry about the generation born since then growing up largely ignorant of the hardships, repression and lack of basic rights and freedoms when the Marxists ran things. . . . Even older teens, born before the regime fell, appear clueless about communism. . . . Older people lament the lack of knowledge. In those days, they lived planned, predetermined lives. And while the system did offer jobs and apartments for all, they say, it had no room for individualism, personal growth or religious beliefs. . . .They hear little about it at school, and many of their parents aren’t eager to discuss the Communist years in detail. While history textbooks in schools spell out the Communist era accurately and clearly, teachers say they have little time to cover the material. ‘It’s dealt with very briefly. . . We never go too deeply into these themes,’ says Anna Gregorova, a history teacher at a primary school in Levice in southern Slovakia.”55
Archbishop Fulton Sheen noted the sad consequence of Catholic tepidity: “When the Church is holy, dissension is from the outside; when the Church is unholy, dissension is from within.”56 Such a terrible state provides opportunity for the enemies of the Church to make strides in their attempt to destroy the Church. This is a reality and it has lead to the infiltration of the Church by her enemies as noted in The Black Book of Communism: “To reduce the influence of the churches on society, bring them under the bureaucratic control of the state, and transform them into instruments of policy, the Communists combined repression, attempts at corruption, and even infiltration of the church hierarchy. The opening of the archives, in Czechoslovakia for instance, has revealed that numerous priests and even a few bishops actively collaborated with the secret police.”57 Father Vladimir Kozina, in his booklet, Communism As I Know It, provided another example: “As late as September of 1965, Father Arrupe, Jesuit General in Rome, told the Council Fathers at the Vatican that a ‘Communist fifth column’ exists within the clergy and that it is steadily working in favor of atheism . . . It has succeeded in insidiously influencing the minds of believers, including even religious and priests, with its hidden poison.”58 The rancid fruits of this infiltration could be seen by some at the end of the Second Vatican Council. The attempted usurpation of the authority of God, now entrenched in the Church with the close of Vatican II, was apparent, at least, to one member of the secular media. That is, even though many ‘practicing’ Catholics appeared to be blind to the ensuing rift within their own Church and, in some cases, even cheered the “modernization” of the Church. The observations appeared as follows:
“Coming at a time when so many human faiths, loyalties and grips on truth are unmoored or slipping, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council which ended last week must be called the most impressive religious event this century has yet seen. The largest church in Christendom has had the courage to conduct a critical self-examination in public for four years and, as a result, has profoundly altered its own view of itself, its view of the world and the world’s view of the Catholic Church. The more than 2,300 bishops who left Rome for home are not only four years older but the bearers, most of them, of a different kind of apostolate from that to which they were consecrated. Their church is more Catholic and less Roman, less monarchic and more constitutional, less doctrinaire and more dialogic, less monolithic and more mosaic, less static and more mobile, less preoccupied with the City of God and more in love with the City of Man ... It was Karl Rahner, no maverick but perhaps the most influential of the new Catholic theologians, who wrote: ‘Christians must simply recognize that planning for the future and future utopias in this world is not only legitimate from the Christian point of view, but that this is the destiny God’s providence intends for men.’ In his new maturity, man has become ‘the active, creative draftsman and planner of himself, his environment and also of the distant future.’ These thoughts were not strange to Pope John (XXIII), who said, ‘The Church applauds man’s growing mastery over the forces of nature and rejoices in all present and future progress.’ Thus the Catholic Church has made its bid, in direct rivalry with Marxism, to guide mankind toward a better secular future in this world. And its new emphasis is on ‘mankind’ and ‘world’ not on an exclusive ‘people of God’.”59 It has been stated repeatedly throughout Marxist - Socialist -Communist literature that the ultimate goal is to achieve world domination. Leftist ideologies, a Roman Communism so-to-speak, dressed in a cassock, spreading its political poison using the Catholic Church as a facade, an organization that is established worldwide, and experienced in propagating a doctrine, easily could serve and has served as the proverbial Archimedean lever needed to move the world to the left. It appears that many of the Churchmen, or Marxists in cassocks, used the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council to chip away at the mortar of the Church, thus enabling the smoke of Satan to funnel furiously into the Sanctuary, “. . . the declarations and even the debates (during the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council) were markedly shy of the usual Catholic denunciations of atheistic Communism … Church journals are full of articles on ‘the Marxist-Christian encounter’ … European Communists and left-wing Catholics have collaborated to promote this dialogue and have discovered similarities … There were plenty of compromises at Vatican II and there will be plenty more as Pope Paul attempts to steer Peter’s bark into the mainstream of human events after all these centuries in the bay. The new openness of the Church, its ‘development’ of familiar doctrines, will be particularly hard on ‘folk Catholics’, simple peasants and other conservatives who rely on the Church for certainty above all else.”60 Archbishop Lefebvre was stone-walled by Vatican officials when he attempted to bring a petition, containing the signatures of 454 Bishops . . . asking the Council to examine Communism and condemn it . . .
“On October 21, 1964, discussion focused on the part of the schema on the Church in the World – Schema XIII – which dealt with atheism. The word ‘communism’ was still carefully avoided. In the face of this silence . . . A letter asking the Council to examine Communism and condemn it was signed by twenty-five bishops and distributed . . . It stated that the Council’s silence on Communism would be a disavowal of the recent Popes. To the letter was joined a petition for the condemnation of Communism . . . In the end the signatures totaled 454. Archbishop Lefebvre submitted the petition . . . at the Council Secretariat on November 9 when there was sufficient time for it to be considered. He was given a receipt acknowledging that the document had been received. The result? On November 13 the new version of the schema made no reference to the wishes of the petition. Communism was still not named ... Cardinal Tisserant ordered an inquiry that revealed ... that the petition had unfortunately been ‘lost’ in a drawer. In fact Msgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary for the relevant commission, received the petition but had not passed it on to the commission.”61 In a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre at Long Island, New York on November 05, 1983, His Excellency reiterated the following betrayal of the Church to Communism, during Vatican II: “And the Communists were promised, Communism will not be condemned at the Council, and it wasn’t condemned at the Council. I myself carried 450 signatures to the Secretariat of the Council in order to have Communism condemned. I did it myself! Four hundred and fifty signatures of bishops were put away in a drawer and they were buried in silence ... 450 bishops were ignored. The drawer was closed, we were told, no, no, we have no knowledge of that there will be no condemnation of Communism. And they replaced the anti Communist bishops: Cardinal Mindszenty by Cardinal Lekai, Cardinal Beran in Czechoslovakia by Cardinal Tomasec. The same happened in Lithuania, and in Czechoslovakia, all the bishops became ... collaborators of the Communist regime.” 62
6.0-THE SOLUTION: PRAYER AND PENANCEPope Pius XI, in his encyclical on Atheistic Communism, gave the following recommendation: “. . . the evil which today torments humanity can be conquered only by a world-wide holy crusade of prayer and penance.”63 The solution seems straightforward, but what is the cause of the contagious nature and dismal resilience of Communism? Hamish Fraser (1913-1986), a once Communist secret agent, who, after becoming disenchanted with Communism during the reign of Stalin, sought a life change and decided to enroll in a college in Glasgow, Scotland, “... where he entered for a religious prize, thinking it would be rather fun to be the first atheist to win it. He did win it, but religion won him. After being instructed, eventually, by a Jesuit, he joined the Roman Catholic Church in 1948.”64 He offers the following explanation for the dismal resilience of Communism: “Even though the faith of the Communists is the basis of the foulest tyranny ever to trample the earth, it is nevertheless most obviously that which men seek above all other things: it is a faith ... When Catholics begin to live their Faith as dynamically as Communists live theirs, the Church will become effectively and inescapably visible to modern man, (until then) the god of Moscow will continue to be for the multitude the only god on the horizon ... Let us not therefore lament the folly of our contemporaries. The remedy is in our own hands.”65 The resilience of this evil, then, is the tepidity of Catholics. The solution, then, is to pray the Rosary – a remedy that is in our own hands! The Rosary, throughout its history, has allowed Catholics to obtain the graces for some rather un-folksy results in the defeat of the enemies of the Church, including Communism, as was the case in Austria, for instance, where a Rosary Crusade was embarked upon by hundreds of thousands of citizens: “And in fact, in May 1955, there was a miracle. Contrary to all previsions, Molotov suddenly granted independence to Austria. After ten years of fights and struggles without issue, the Red menace disappeared as if by the stroke of a magic wand. The last Russian soldier left Austria on October 26, 1955, the month of the Rosary. Thereafter, that date became a national holiday in Austria.”66 In fact, the origin of the Rosary is found in a time much like our own where there was a great deal of religious upheaval. Our Lady gave it to St. Dominic as an instrument of prayer to gain graces to combat the enemies of the Church: “. . . when the Albigensian heresy was devastating the country of Toulouse, St. Dominic earnestly besought the help of Our Lady and was instructed by her ... to preach the Rosary among the people as an antidote to heresy and sin.”67 From May to October 1917, at Fatima, Portugal, Our Lady repeatedly asked the praying of the Rosary and personal sacrifices, in order to save souls, as they are falling down to Hell as flies. And, on July 13, of the same year, she announced: “I come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart ... If they listen to my requests, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she (Russia) will scatter her errors through the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church.”68 These words of our Lady were not idle threats to innocent children; they were dire warnings to a guilty world. Ultimately, the fate of the world is a foregone conclusion; that is, our Lord will triumph through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as our Lady foretold at Fatima: “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and it will be converted and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.”69 Is the world at peace? No. Then we must continue to pray that the Holy Father will consecrate Russia, that is, before we are engulfed by a global tyranny – atheistic Communism, a New World of Global Disorder.
7.0-CONCLUSION: THE REVOLUTION IN FULL SWING!We humbly tried, in this article, to demonstrate that, far from being dead, Communism remains an active political force in this world. It is a political force that endeavors to create and to control a New World Order. To provide our reader with a view of what we have lost, we first explained what was a Catholic State: A State that, recognizes God as the Supreme Ruler, was doing its best to create for the people the conditions that would help them accomplish their religious duties (Chapter 1). Afterwards, we started our demonstration proper, by talking about the nature of Communism, showing how it falsely pretends to establish a perfect society, and how it is radically opposed to Religion, persecuting fiercely the Catholic Church (Chapter 2). Then we dealt with Communism under the aspect of an active force in our world, as it has succeeded to scatter its errors, while it seemed to disappear under a wave of Glasnost and Perestroika (Chapter 3). But we went further … We explained how Communism uses both the Rule of Law, and the false dream of the “Worker’s Paradise” to actually gain control of the whole world (Chapter 4). We also explained the method used to achieve such a world domination: It is the infiltration of the educational systems of the target countries, and also that of the greatest religious organization, namely, the Catholic Church (Chapter 5). After having exposed such a terrible picture of what the world is really facing today, we provided our readers with the solution: To become fervent and knowledgeable Catholics, and to pray the Rosary, having as main intention of prayer the Consecration of Russia by the Pope, as requested by Our Lady (Chapter 6). Indeed, we must understand that human means, although we must use them, cannot avert from us the perils we are facing. Things have gone too far. It is time to wake up, to see clearly Satan’s Grand Scheme, and to faithfully have recourse to Mary, who alone can crush the head of the Serpent.
Our Lady of the Rosary, Pray for us!
REFERENCES:52. Malcolm Muggeridge, Operation Death-Wish, Orthodoxy: The American Spectator, Anniversary Anthology, 1987, p. 406 53. Arnold J. Toynbee, Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Time, Oxford University Press, 1966, p. 155 54. Arnold J. Toynbee, Change and Habit: The Challenge of Our Time, Oxford University Press, 1966, p. 156 55. Andrea Dudikova, Youth draw a blank on past repression: History ignored in Eastern Europe, Toronto Star, January 29, 2005, p. L4 56. Gregory Joseph Ladd, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: A Man for all Media, Ignatius Press, 2001, p. 126 57. Stéphane Courtois et al, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1999, p. 409 58. Father Vladimir Kozina, Communism As I Know It, C & W Press, 5th Edition, 1985, p. 18 59. John K. Jessup, New Currents Swirling Around Peter’s Rock, Life, December 17, 1965, pp. 27 - 76 60. John K. Jessup, New Currents Swirling Around Peter’s Rock, Life, December 17, 1965, p. 76 61. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, Angelus Press, 2004, pp 300 - 301 62. Archbishop Lefebvre, The Archbishop Speaks, November 05, 1983, http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm 63. Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Atheistic Communism, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, St. Paul Editions, p. 39 64. Hamish Fraser, Fatal Star, The Neumann Press, 1987, taken from the dust-jacket 65. Hamish Fraser, Fatal Star, The Neumann Press, 1987, pp. 45-46 66. Fr. Marie-Dominic, O.P., Great Historical Victories of the Rosary, The Angelus, December 2004, Volume XXVII, Number 12, http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_December/Victories_of_The_Rosary.htm 67. Herbert Thurston, The Rosary, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, Robert Appleton Company, 1912, p. 184 68. William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fátima, Image Books, 1954, pp. 81-82 69. William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fátima, Image Books, 1954, p. 82
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
by Thomas J. Herron
As is its habit, from the years before the downsizing mania hit its succession of owners, Philadelphia’s newspaper of record has a big spread on the candidates for the major offices on the weekend before the general election. In 2006 The Philadelphia Inquirer continued the tradition even as they transitioned from the Knight-Ridder chain to local ownership and a continuing firing of editorial staff. So as a public service, to help the voters get to know the major candidates for Pennsylvania’s governor and senator as well as the senate candidates across the Delaware River in New Jersey, the Inquirer asked them a whole series of questions to help people get to know the candidates, not just as proponents of issues but as human beings. This means that the Democrats and Republicans at the top of the ticket in New Jersey and Pennsylvania have to answer deep questions such as “what kind of music do you like?” For the record Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum likes country and his challenger, Bob Casey Jr., likes Top 40 while across the Delaware both Tom Kean, Jr. and Bob Menendez both like rock & roll. Senator Menendez added that, since he was from Hoboken, he loves the music of their most famous native son, Old Blue Eyes himself. Be that as it may, that for me wasn’t the most revealing question.
The Inquirer also asked all the candidates what magazines they read, which was a little more informative. Pennsylvania Governor Rendell said he gets so many briefings he has no time for magazines, while Tommy Kean reads The Economist, and both Bobs, Menendez and Casey, like Time and Newsweek. But for me the most revealing piece of information was of a mind formed in the Catholic version of the neocon ideology and that it belongs to Mr. Santorum, who stated that he read First Things, Crisis, The Weekly Standard, and National Review. For someone who had been writing in these pages that there was a neoconservative movement and that there were noted Catholics, like Senator Santorum, who were members of it, here was proof positive that a leading Republican Catholic leader in the Senate had his mind formed from neocon sources. However, I have given up trying to convince a whole group of young Catholic bloggers who speak in words that echo Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in his attempt at putting the bureaucratic language of the Pentagon into the form of haiku, spoke of “unknown unknowns.” The Secretary was actually much more poetic saying,
“As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.”
In context I believe Mr. Rumsfeld was speaking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Be that as it may, for many of the Catholic bloggers hold that anyone like the writers in Culture Wars who speak of a neocon penetration of conservative Catholicism are just blowing smoke and that no such movement exists, as we can’t define what is known and unknown about it. Speaking of Secretary Rumsfeld at the moment the Inquirer were asking the candidates questions about their reading habits and music tastes President Bush was stating that Donald Rumsfeld would hold his job as Defense Secretary until the end of his term in 2009; which pulled the rug out of the campaign of the Republican senate candidate in New Jersey, Tom Kean, Jr., who called for Rumsfeld’s replacement over the failures of the Iraqi campaign. President Bush “stayed the course” on Mr. Rumsfeld until the day after the mid-term election when he chose to “cut and run” to another Defense Secretary, when it was too late to help Republican candidates like Tom Kean, Jr., who had, as a group, gone down to defeat.
But the defeat of Pennsylvania’s own Senator Rick Santorum by the state Auditor General, Robert Casey, Jr. was more massive than the others. It was also more shocking, because Santorum was the third most powerful Republican in the U.S. Senate. It also involved the defeat of one of the most stalwart defenders of President George W. Bush, American military intervention in the Middle East, free market economics, and all the other themes that have come to exemplify what is known as the contemporary American conservative movement. In the defeat of Rick Santorum for a third term in the U.S. Senate, the voters of Pennsylvania were saying that they disagreed with the political philosophy that their senator gleaned from National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal. Since exit polls indicated that the majority of Pennsylvania’s Catholic voters voted for Casey over Santorum, it might be inferred that this group of voters rejected the marriage of orthodox Catholicism and the neocon ideology that Rick Santorum found in the pages of First Things and Crisis. Nothing in this article should be inferred to indicate that Robert Casey, Jr. is the same consistent prolife champion that his late father was, who was Pennsylvania’s governor from 1987-95. Mr. Casey, being a contemporary Democrat has also proved himself beholden to the teachers’ unions, which are a major factor in that party and publicly opposed aid to religious schools, like the ones he attended and sends his children to. However, Mr. Casey and his Democratic handlers, who gave him room to announce that he opposed abortion, turned the election into a referendum on Senator Santorum’s support for the president and the Iraq war, and this was enough in November, 2006 to cause a 59-41 percent blow-out for the Democratic candidate.
The demise of the American conservative ideology has been announced at regular intervals ever since at least 1964, when true believer Barry Goldwater carried only six states in that year’s presidential election. It was expected again after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace a decade later, and again after Bill Clinton’s first victory in 1992. More recently much discussion in both the print and electronic media has been undertaken analyzing the 2004 presidential election when George W. Bush surprised many by winning reelection. Analysis continued a year later when right-wing icon William F. Buckley, Jr. celebrated his 80th birthday at a White House ceremony that also marked the 50th anniversary of the magazine he founded, National Review. The confusion is always pronounced because of the assumption that the Republicans are a conservative party and that a defeat for them in an election is a defeat for the movement.
On the margins there are always discussions about how conservative Republicans like Nixon, the Bushes and their core advisors really are, and whether Leon Trotsky or Robert Taft would be more comfortable with George W. Bush’s second inaugural address when he spoke of freedom and democracy being a “fire in the minds of men” for which the United States had the responsibility to stoke everywhere in the world. Of course, Comrade Trotsky being from Russia, would immediately recognize the quote as coming from Dostoevsky, which is more than can be said for George W. Bush. If indeed the contemporary American conservative movement that was founded in the early ‘50s by Bill Buckley and Russell Kirk has in fact died, the autopsy would show that it suffered from head wounds. Contemporary American conservatism died because it ran out of ideas and started taking stuff from the intellectual descendants of Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky and telling the world that they reflected American values.
But perhaps Senator Santorum was being too modest in his pre-election interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer. Senator Santorum wasn’t just a subscriber to First Things and Crisis, he was a monthly columnist for the latter, contributing his perspective from deep inside the Beltway in From the Hill. In it Rick Santorum would give his readers his take on what a prolife member of the “family values” party was observing as the major issues of the day.
