Chomsky Replies to Hitchens

By Noam Chomsky

Note: Christopher Hitchens wrote an essay in the Nation, and a subsequent comment on the Nation web site…and among those he attacked in his fulminations, was Noam Chomsky. Here, Chomsky replies...

I have been asked to respond to recent articles by Christopher Hitchens (webpage, Sept. 24; _Nation_, Oct. , and after refusing several times, will do so, though only partially, and reluctantly. The reason for the reluctance is that Hitchens cannot mean what he is saying. For that reason alone -- there are others that should be obvious -- this is no proper context for addressing serious issues relating to the Sept. 11 atrocities.

That Hitchens cannot mean what he writes is clear, in the first place, from his reference to the bombing of the Sudan. He must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime, and cannot intend what his words imply. This single atrocity destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies of a poor African country and the facilities for replenishing them, with an enormous human toll. Hitchens is outraged that I compared this atrocity to what I called "the wickedness and awesome cruelty" of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 (quoting Robert Fisk), adding that the actual toll in the Sudan case can only be surmised, because the US blocked any UN inquiry and few were interested enough to pursue the matter. That the toll is dreadful is hardly in doubt.

Hitchens is apparently referring to a response I wrote to several journalists on Sept. 15, composite because inquiries were coming too fast for individual response. This was apparently posted several times on the web, as were other much more detailed subsequent responses. Assuming so, in the brief message Hitchens may have seen, I did not elaborate, assuming -- correctly, judging by subsequent interchange -- that it was unnecessary: the recipients would understand why the comparison is quite appropriate. I also took for granted that they would understand a virtual truism: When we estimate the human toll of a crime, we count not only those who were literally murdered on the spot but those who died as a result, the course we adopt reflexively, and properly, when we consider the crimes of official enemies -- Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, to mention the most extreme cases. If we are even pretending to be serious, we apply the same standards to ourselves: in the case of the Sudan, we count the number who died as a direct consequence of the crime, not just those killed by cruise missiles. Again, a truism.

Since there is one person who does not appear to understand, I will add a few quotes from the mainstream press, to clarify.

A year after the attack, "without the lifesaving medicine [the destroyed facilities] produced, Sudan's death toll from the bombing has continued, quietly, to rise... Thus, tens of thousands of people -- many of them children -- have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases... [The factory] provided affordable medicine for humans and all the locally available veterinary medicine in Sudan. It produced 90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products... Sanctions against Sudan make it impossible to import adequate amounts of medicines required to cover the serious gap left by the plant's destruction.... he action taken by Washington on Aug. 20, 1998, continues to deprive the people of Sudan of needed medicine. Millions must wonder how the International Court of Justice in The Hague will celebrate this anniversary" (Jonathan Belke, _Boston Globe_, Aug. 22, 1999).

" he loss of this factory is a tragedy for the rural communities who need these medicines" (Tom Carnaffin, technical manager with "intimate knowledge" of the destroyed plant, Ed Vulliamy et al., London _Observer_, 23 Aug. 199 .

The plant "provided 50 percent of Sudan's medicines, and its destruction has left the country with no supplies of choloroquine, the standard treatment for malaria," but months later, the British Labour government refused requests "to resupply chloroquine in emergency relief until such time as the Sudanese can rebuild their pharmaceutical production" (Patrick Wintour, _Observer_, 20 Dec. 199 .

And much more.

Proportional to population, this is as if the bin Laden network, in a single attack on the US, caused "hundreds of thousands of people -- many of them children -- to suffer and die from easily treatable diseases," though the analogy is unfair because a rich country, not under sanctions and denied aid, can easily replenish its stocks and respond appropriately to such an atrocity -- which, I presume, would not have passed so lightly. To regard the comparison to Sept. 11 as outrageous is to express extraordinary racist contempt for African victims of a shocking crime, which, to make it worse, is one for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing the terrible facts to be sunk so deep in the memory hole that some, at least, seem unaware of them.

This only scratches the surface. The US bombing "appears to have shattered the slowly evolving move towards compromise between Sudan's warring sides" and terminated promising steps towards a peace agreement to end the civil war that had left 1.5 million dead since 1981, which might have also led to "peace in Uganda and the entire Nile Basin." The attack apparently "shattered...the expected benefits of a political shift at the heart of Sudan's Islamist government" towards a "pragmatic engagement with the outside world," along with efforts to address Sudan's domestic crises," to end support for terrorism, and to reduce the influence of radical Islamists (Mark Huband, _Financial Times_, Sept. 8, 199 .

In this respect, we may compare the crime in the Sudan to the assassination of Lumumba, which helped plunge the Congo into decades of slaughter, still continuing; or the overthrow of the democratic government of Guatemala in 1954, which led to 40 years of hideous atrocities; and all too many others like it.

One can scarcely try to estimate the colossal toll of the Sudan bombing, even apart from the probable tens of thousands of immediate Sudanese victims. The complete toll is attributable to the single act of terror -- at least, if we have the honesty to adopt the standards we properly apply to official enemies.

Evidently, Hitchens cannot mean what he said about this topic. We can therefore disregard it.

To take another example, Hitchens writes that "I referred to the "the whole business [of the 1999 war] as a bullying persecution of - the Serbs!" As he knows, this is sheer fabrication. The reasons for the war that I suggested were quoted from the highest level US official justifications for it, including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and the final summary presented to Congress by Secretary of Defense William Cohen. We can therefore also disregard what Hitchens has to say about this topic.

As a final illustration, consider Hitchens's fury over the "masochistic e-mail...circulating from the Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein quarter," who joined such radical rags as the _Wall Street Journal_ in what he calls "rationalizing" terror -- that is, considering the grievances expressed by people of the Middle East region, rich to poor, secular to Islamist, the course that would be followed by anyone who hopes to reduce the likelihood of further atrocities rather than simply to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar dynamics, leading to even greater catastrophes here and elsewhere. This is an outrage, Hitchens explains, because "I know already" about these concerns -- a comment that makes sense on precisely one assumption: that the communications were addressed solely to Hitchens. Without further comment, we can disregard his fulminations on these topics.

In one charge, Hitchens is correct. He writes that "The crime [in the Sudan] was directly and sordidly linked to the effort by a crooked President to avoid impeachment (a conclusion sedulously avoided by the Chomskys and Husseinis of the time)." It's true that I have sedulously avoided this speculation, and will continue to do so until some meaningful evidence is provided; and have also sedulously avoided the entire obsession with Clinton's sex life.

>From the rest, it may be possible to disentangle some intended line of argument, but I'm not going to make the effort, and fail to see why others should. Since Hitchens evidently does not take what he is writing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to await the return of the author to the important work that he has often done in the past.

In the background are issues worth addressing. But in some serious context, not this one.

 

article posted October 4, 2001 (web only)

Reply to Hitchens's Rejoinder

Noam Chomsky

It is unfortunate that with such serious issues to attend to, Christopher Hitchens insists on wasting time on irrelevant and fanciful diatribes against assorted enemies, the latest being his "Rejoinder to Noam Chomsky." He begins by placing his question "before the house": "Can the attacks of September 11 be compared to an earlier outrage committed by Americans? And should they be so compared?" NB: His question. If he wants to consider that question, fine, but I didn't raise it or discuss it, nor will I now. Recall that his series of denunciations takes off from a single sentence in a composite response to journalists in which I said, accurately, that the toll of the "horrendous atrocities" of September 11 might be comparable to the toll of the destruction of half the pharmaceutical supplies of Sudan. The rest is the product of his imagination.

Hitchens fulminates about my failure to refer to his publications on the bombing of the plant--or, he might have added, to the many articles in the mainstream press that considered the validity of the justifications offered for the bombing. The reasons are straightforward, and were stated clearly and explicitly. I kept to prominent articles from credible sources in the mainstream press, which were therefore widely available; and to the topic with which I was concerned, namely, consequences.

Hitchens claims that I accused him of "propensity for racist contempt." I explicitly and unambiguously said the opposite.

Hitchens condemns the claim of "facile 'moral equivalence' between the two crimes." Fair enough, but since he fabricated the claim out of thin air, I feel no need to comment.

Hitchens is also outraged at my statement that we should condemn Milosevic for the crimes that are "plausibly attributed" to him. According to Hitchens, then, we must also charge him with those that are not plausibly attributed to him, and it is, furthermore, utterly outrageous to suggest otherwise. Of course, he does not mean what he is saying, once again. Having carried irrationality to new limits, he then seeks to evade the accurate argument that he quotes. Perhaps he does not like the way its conclusion applies to him. If so, that's his problem. The argument remains valid, and elementary, nonetheless.

I will not sink to Hitchens's level of referring to personal correspondence, which--it is now no surprise--he utterly distorts. The remainder has not even a remote connection to what I wrote, and I will therefore ignore it. And furthermore wish to waste no more time on these shameful meanderings.

(Hitchins)

Friendly Fire: Raising questions about 9/11 gets an Army sergeant demoted for “disloyalty.”

Fort Worth Weekly May 31, 2007 
STEPHEN C. WEBSTER

These days, Donald Buswell's job is not as exciting or dangerous as it once was. For the past few months, his working hours have been spent taking care of some 40-plus wounded soldiers at San Antonio's Fort Sam Houston medical center. The work is sometimes menial, even janitorial, but he doesn't mind. After all, Buswell has been where these men are — three years ago, he too was recovering from wounds received in a battle zone in Iraq.

“I truly consider this an honor,” Buswell told his dad not long ago.

Still, it's not exactly where Buswell expected to be after 20 years of well-respected service in the Army.

Since joining the Army in 1987, he had risen to the rank of sergeant first class, serving in both Gulf Wars, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Korea. He ended up with shrapnel scars and a Purple Heart and, back in the U.S. after his last tour in Iraq, a job as intelligence analyst at Fort Sam Houston.

He couldn't have foreseen that one e-mail could derail his career and put him on his way out of the Army. One e-mail, speculating about events that millions of people have questioned for the last six years, was all it took.

Sgt. Buswell wants to know: What really happened on 9/11? And he said so in his e-mail. In the few paragraphs of that August 2006 message — a reply not to someone outside the service, but to other soldiers — Buswell wrote that he thought the official report of what happened that day at the Pentagon, and in the Pennsylvania crash of United Airlines Flight 93, was full of errors and unanswered questions.

“Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”

For voicing those opinions in an e-mail to 38 people on the San Antonio Army base, Buswell was stripped of his security clearance, fired from his job, demoted, and ordered to undergo a mental health exam.

(He was also ordered not to speak with the press. Information for this story came from documents, conversations with Buswell's family members and friends, and sources within Fifth Army who asked not to be named.)

As if all that weren't enough, Fort Sam Houston's chief of staff penned a letter accusing Buswell of “making statements disloyal to the United States.”

His father, Winthrop Buswell, said that his son “is one of the most patriotic people I know.”

“Donald saw something that his conscience led him to dispute,” he said. “That's just the type of man he is.”

For his dissent, Donald has paid a heavy price.

Baghdad's early light danced across the surface of a man-made lake. For Buswell, that April 2004 morning was the perfect time for a run. Behind him, the soldiers of Baghdad's Camp Victory were, for the most part, not yet stirring. The path he took was a historic one: In the palace just a couple of hundred yards away, surrounded by the lake, Saddam Hussein was in custody, locked away in a former torture cell.

Five miles into the jog, Buswell paused to catch his breath, and something splashed in the water nearby with unusual force. He jumped back, surprised, and surveyed the area with care. Seeing no threat, he resumed his run, heading toward a couple of Iraqi men painting a small building.

Seconds later, Buswell heard a growing whistle and turned just in time to see a 122mm rocket barreling toward him. He dove out of the way, and the round hit several dozen yards behind him. Picking himself up off the ground, he saw another white trail forming over the water. He started running again, but had made it only a few steps when the force of another impact blew him to the ground. Shrapnel, rocks, and dirt rained down on him. Ahead, a fourth round hit the Iraqi painters, blowing off body parts and engulfing them in flames.

Horrified, Buswell ran toward the men and tried to extinguish the flames. The men were still alive, screaming in agony. Then, he heard the increasingly familiar whistle of another rocket and once again hit the dirt. The one that struck the nearby road was a dud, like the first that hit the water. Had it exploded, Buswell probably would have died. When he turned to look again at the two Iraqi men, he saw they were dead, their bodies charred and smoking.

“It was like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan,” his dad recalled him saying.

By this time, troops from the camp were running toward the scene. Only when the first of those soldiers arrived and screamed for a medic did Buswell realize he'd been hit. Sharp flakes of metal were embedded up and down his left leg and all over the right side of his back.

The relatively minor wounds Buswell suffered that day were his first in a battle zone, despite the fact that he'd served in southern Iraq during Desert Storm a decade before. In his first few years in the Army, Buswell had been a metalworker and had dealt with explosives. Since 1990, he had been an intelligence analyst.

Buswell's wounds were cleaned and bandaged within an hour of the rocket attack, and he rejoined his unit almost immediately. But 2004 had more — and more pleasant — developments in store for him.

Two months after the attack, he returned to the United States, to Fort Hood in Central Texas, and married his girlfriend Lori, officially becoming step-dad to her 11-year-old daughter Kaitlyn, who calls him “DD” (Daddy Donald) for short. In one of those strange quirks of war, Buswell had actually met Lori's ex-husband and Kaitlyn's dad — Darren Cunningham — while both were based at Camp Victory. The two became close friends. When Cunningham, a military police officer, was killed in a rocket attack in October 2004, just a month before his retirement, Buswell became even more of a father figure for Kaitlyn — and in some ways helped Cunningham's family deal with his death.

For the next two years, Buswell worked at his intelligence post at Fort Hood, then was transferred to a similar job in San Antonio. But as he worked, he studied and read about what had happened on 9/11 — and came to the conclusions that would get him in so much trouble.

The terrorist attacks of 2001 had a profound effect on Buswell.

Before the much-disputed presidential election of 2000, Buswell shared with his father a view that very few held at the time. He was convinced that if George W. Bush won, he would take the country to war with Iraq to finish his father's work. He believed the younger Bush would be too beholden to oil interests — and feared what that would mean for America's foreign policy.

When the planes hit the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, Buswell later told his father, he figured that war with Iraq was coming, even if the country had nothing to do with the attacks. Being a loyal soldier, he kept his views private for a long while.

“He didn't want to rock the boat,” Buswell's father said. “Like all of us, he was somewhat in shock after what happened on 9/11.” And, as he told his father, his job was to serve. He was proud to do it, no matter who was directing policy.

By the time he was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Buswell had developed strong opinions about what had happened. He had come to believe that the World Trade Center attacks were aided by persons on the inside and that the planes that crashed into the towers were just one component of a larger, more complex attack. The career soldier had effectively become a member of what's known as the “9/11 truth movement,” which has continued to grow in spite of news media coverage that has generally refused to take the questions seriously. The movement includes many factions, espousing theories from the somewhat plausible to the really out-there folks who talk about space weapons bringing down the New York towers. The doubters include people like Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who recently agreed to distribute Loose Change Final Cut, a 9/11 conspiracy movie, and actors Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell, whose 9/11 dissents have been well-publicized.

In light of his new job, Buswell wanted to make sure his superiors knew of his views. He went to Chief Warrant Officer Mario Torres, a legal advisor to his division at Fort Sam Houston. Buswell told Torres he would not be willing to write reports or give speeches that required him to say things he didn't believe regarding 9/11.

He shared with Torres his belief that the facts contradicted large parts of the official story of what had happened that day, calling the attacks an “inside job” — one of the central beliefs of many truth movement members. Torres didn't see a problem: Buswell would not be working on anything related to 9/11, he said, and compared the sergeant's views versus the official story to liking beer over wine. His concerns dismissed, Buswell went to work.

It was only a few weeks later, on Aug. 2, when Buswell received the e-mail that knocked his career off its tracks. The unsolicited message was sent to him and 38 others by someone who gave his name as Larry Anderson. No such person could be located at the San Antonio fort, and Buswell's superiors declined to comment or to talk about the sender of the original e-mail.

The e-mail's subject line read: “F4 vs. Concrete Wall.” The message referred to “loony liberal reasoning” that there must have been a conspiracy involved in the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon because there allegedly wasn't enough airplane debris left behind for the building to have been hit by an airliner. Anderson referred to a film clip showing, he said, an Air Force engineering test in which an F4 Phantom fighter jet crashed at 500 mph into a heavily reinforced concrete wall surrounding a nuclear reactor site. The jet “turned to vapor,” Anderson claimed, thereby explaining the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

Later that day, Buswell committed the same infraction as Anderson: From his Army computer, he sent a mass reply to all the folks who got the initial message. Buswell's crime was clicking the “Reply All” button — a mistake he still regrets.

The comparison between the F4 and a 757 hitting the Pentagon, he wrote, “serves only to muddy the issue,” because the fighter jet hitting a concrete barrier hardened to nuclear containment standards is very different from a plane hitting the Pentagon. The real issue, Buswell said, was that the official story on what happened that day “is filled with errors.

“We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings,” he wrote. “ e didn't see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville, PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes' don't have [the] tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones!

“The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn't. Shanksville, PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn't.”

He went on to express doubt that “some Arabs in caves with cell phones” had been responsible for the tragedies of that day.

“I mean, how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 9/11?” Buswell asked. “They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn't. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple: The Military Industrial Complex.” The idea of a 9/11 conspiracy, he added, is neither “Liberal Lunacy ... nor is it Conservative Kookiness.”

“People, fellow citizens we've been had!” he wrote. “We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all the options of that day ... Even the most incredulous theories must be examined.”

Not an opinion one might have expected from a career soldier — but then, expressing opinions, especially those of dissent, is the American way. The e-mail exchange hadn't seemed particularly important to Buswell, he later told his family. He found out differently the next morning.

His key wouldn't open the door to his office.

That was the first clue Buswell had that something was wrong. In short order, he was informed that a “15-6 investigation” had been opened regarding his use of the military e-mail network. It's the same designation given the investigation into the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Over the next few days, Buswell was informed of the removal of his security clearance, subjected to intense scrutiny and intimidation, and alienated from other members of his intelligence division when he was relegated to secretarial work while the investigation went on. He was fired from his job and demoted to platoon sergeant.

In a letter appointing Major Edwin Escobar to lead the investigation, Col. Luke S. Green, chief of staff of the Fifth Army, wrote, “SFC Buswell failed to obey a general order or regulation when he used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States [emphasis added] with the intent of engendering disloyalty or disaffection for the United States in a manner that brought discredit upon the United States Army.”

Green added that Buswell “allegedly asserts that he has information that proves a conspiracy on the part of the US military industrial complex to attack targets within the United States (e.g., The Pentagon), opinions which he asserts publicly and over Government email systems.”

However, no other documents related to the investigation mention Buswell's opinions or question his loyalty. Officially, he was charged only with violating an Army policy regarding use of the military's e-mail network. Winthrop Buswell said his son has acknowledged the infraction, but also noted it was the first time he'd ever heard of the rule being enforced.

Green, at the behest of Lt. General, Robert T. Clark, deputy commanding general of the Fifth Army, ordered that Buswell undergo a mental health exam. However, the physician in charge of the medical center's mental health division declined to administer the test, saying that Buswell's actions did not warrant it.

Buswell fought back. He contacted U.S. Rep. Charles A. Gonzales of San Antonio to register a complaint. Gonzales subsequently requested information from the Army about the investigation, but according to his aides, no other action has been taken. The request was given a congressional inquiry case number and promptly put aside.

In another sense though, Buswell has given up — at least on the idea of continuing his Army career. He filed retirement papers, set to take effect April 1, 2008.

“Donald expressed to me his disappointment in the Army after all that has happened,” said his father. “I raised my son to love America. He still gets chills when he sees the flag flying and hears our national anthem. He's committed his life to serving our country, only to get tossed aside like this. It brings me great sadness.”

When his son gets out, he said, he plans to become an advocate for the 9/11 truth movement.

For the last 10 months, Buswell has spent his days tending to the needs of wounded Iraq War veterans at the San Antonio medical center.

“The service has mostly been good to Donald,” said the elder Buswell, a painter and retired locomotive engineer from Loudon, N.H. “He wouldn't have made a career out of it if it wasn't. But after all the controversy and the investigation, the thing that surprises me most is how he reacted to being fired. When they assigned him to the medical center, he told me, ‘Dad, I truly consider this to be an honor. To be given such an important task as some kind of retaliation against me is confusing, but it is truly my honor to help these men and women right now.'”

On the other hand, the elder Buswell said, his son's empathy toward the soldiers now in his care isn't surprising.

“He provides great solace to the soldiers,” Winthrop said. “He is a good listener and knows what they're going through, having been in Iraq and suffering injuries there as well. They truly appreciate him.”

Family members say that's par for the course for Buswell, a guy who delivered a Father's Day present to Darren Cunningham from his daughter back in 2004 and even consulted Darren about raising his friend's daughter, from whom Cunningham had years earlier become estranged.

“I don't know what I've done in my life to deserve such a blessing, but having Donny around has helped me and my family deal with losing Darren,” said Glenn Cunningham, Darren's older brother. “I really admire and respect Donny for that, and because of how principled he is. Some people don't have the sense of honor that Donny has. And, you know, Donny ... He says things sometimes that get him into trouble, but he says them because he feels it's the right thing to do. And I really, deeply respect that.”

To this day, Winthrop Buswell said, his son still cannot believe the military would come down on him so hard for sharing a view widely held across the United States.

“Donald really did nothing wrong,” his father said. “He responded to an e-mail. How many of us in civilian life respond to e-mail forwards from co-workers or friends? Is that really a crime? ... He is convinced, as I am also, that the 9/11 attacks are not what they seem. We love this country. I even voted for Bush in 2000. Sadly, I must say that I do regret it.”

He shares many of his son's doubts and questions about what happened six years ago.

“When you look back at that day — that terrible, terrible day — it seems almost like another lifetime ago,” he said. “Donald believes bombs were planted in the towers and that the investigation exhibited a number of very questionable characteristics. Like, how could fire melt the steel core of the towers? Or, why did the 9/11 Commission not talk about World Trade Center 7? That [building] fell around 5 p.m., but we don't know why. And if it is true what we've heard recently, that a physics professor at [Brigham Young University] found elements of steel-cutting agents in the melted steel from the towers, why is that met with cries of insanity? There is a possibility that what really happened was much more than what we were told.”

Not everyone close to the Buswells shares those views. Glenn Cunningham, who has become close friends with Buswell, much like his brother Darren, does not put much stock in conspiracy theories.

“I'm not one for conspiracies, but from what Donny is saying, it really does sound kinda questionable,” he said. “But I haven't looked at it. I'm not in any movement ... And I just can't imagine what people expect to come out of it. Of course I want to know the truth. Truth is always important, and if they're lying to cover something up, we should find out. But then what?”

Winthrop Buswell isn't strident when he talks about 9/11. He just raises questions and encourage others to do the same — and that's all his son has done, he said.

“I pray Donald does not get in further trouble for standing up and speaking with his conscience,” he said. “I wish we were not all swept up in it. But here we are. So what will we do?

“Donald told me once, ‘Dad, I hate feeling the way I do. I just hate it. And if I'm wrong, gosh, I'll just apologize to no end. But I can't deny where the facts have led, and I can't tell you how disappointed I am. The evidence just seems so prominent, and the question must be asked.'”

“Sadly, I agree with my son,” concluded Buswell. “I want the truth. Nothing less. We should all want that.”

Stephen C. Webster is a freelance journalist in North Texas. A version of this story appeared originally in the Lone Star Iconoclast, published in Crawford, Texas.

FOX News Uses Al Qaeda Tape To Whip Up Fear And Hatred Of American Muslims

Newshounds May 31, 2007 

Rather than analyze the seriousness of the threat or the effectiveness of the US war on terror, FOX News used a recently-released video tape from an American Al Qaeda member to foment hatred toward Muslims, particularly American Muslims. With video.

On last night's (5/30/07) Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity, in his scripted introduction to the discussion about the tape made by Adam Yehiye Gadahn, read, “(Gadahn's) involvement with Al Qaeda may no longer come as a surprise to many Americans. Remember, a poll released last week revealed that 25% of young Muslims in America say that they would condone suicide bombings in defense of religion.”

In his zeal to attack American Muslims, Hannity neglected to mention that the figure (actually 26%, not the 25% Hannity erroneously reported) represents a combination of those who say suicide bombings are EVER justified (i.e. the 15% who say it's often/sometimes justified and the 11% who say it's rarely justified) ( p. 60 ). Even more significantly, he and the FOX News producers overlooked the fact that only 8% of all Muslims say that such attacks are ever justified against civilian targets (implying that most of the suicide-bombing supporters do so with regard to military targets, only) ( p. 59 ), that 78% of all US Muslims said it's never justified ( p. 59 ), as well as the much more positive overall conclusion that the Pew Center reached, as stated in the subtitle of its report: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.

As the not-so-liberal Christian Science Monitor stated in its recent editorial on the study, the responses from young Muslims indicate an attitude, not a measure of behavior. Furthermore, the editorial said, “America needs its Muslims not just for the richness they bring, but also as allies in reporting and discouraging violent Islam. The survey found that 76 percent of U.S. Muslims are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world - more than Muslims in many European and majority-Muslim countries. The last thing non-Muslims should do is stir up anti-Muslim sentiment and fear by parading one statistic on youths' attitude.”

But FOX News threw caution to the wind when it came to cultivating any potential allies in the war on terror and bet nearly all its chips on fueling more hatred and prejudice. Why else choose a guest like Brigitte Gabriel for the discussion? Gabriel is author of the book “Because They Hate.” It should probably be renamed, “Because I Hate.” Because Gabriel's sole goal in life seems to be to make as many slurs against Muslims in as short a time as possible, usually at a high decibel.

Hannity, who surely knows what to expect from Gabriel, started out by asking if “the 25% number” is realistic.

“That is very realistic,” Gabriel said, apparently unaware that it was inaccurate. Then, she went on to contradict herself by implying that the number is actually unrealistic because it's too low. “The scary thing is, Sean, those are the ones who had the guts to come straight out and say it to our face.” Gabriel completely ignored the parts of the study that indicated more moderate attitudes.

She went on to claim that the top mosques in America are hotbeds of anti-American hatred. “What they are teaching in those mosques will absolutely shock you. They are teaching to overthrow democracy, to establish Islamic governments. They are teaching hatred. And that is simply unacceptable.” Next, she predictably attacked Muslim-American organizations such as CAIR for not “taming this radical teaching.”

The other guest, Kenneth Ballen, of Terror Free Tomorrow, acknowledged that Al Qaeda is a serious threat but he pointed out that another study, by the University of Maryland, indicated that three times the number of Americans, not American Muslims, supported suicide bombings.

With melodramatic flair, Hannity insisted that Ballen focus on the 25% number. “What does that mean to the security of this country?”

Ballen did an excellent job of pointing out that it means very little but, unfortunately, he missed an opportunity to discuss the larger picture, which was that Hannity and FOX News were conveniently focusing on one, insignificant statistic rather than discussing the larger, far more important factors involved in the security of our country.

The ghastly Gabrielle, who has what my mother used to call “a stupid face,” continued her non-stop screeching. “This is what Islam teaches: You have got to convert the world to Islam… As far as the Muslims are concerned, this is the instruction from Allah, to control the world. This is the problem we're facing.”

During his shorter share of the discussion, Alan Colmes quickly revealed Gabrielle's simplistic partisanship. First, he asked her if she believed what a terrorist says. “So when the enemy says we want the United States to stay in Iraq, stay in the Middle East so we can kill more of you, do you agree with that?”

Gabrielle insisted that when “he” (I wasn't sure if she meant Gadahn or Bin Laden) said he wanted the US to stay, he was being sarcastic, as evidenced (according to her) by the nuances of the Arabic language. (Funny how that has not been reported elsewhere .)

Colmes then noted Gabrielle's revolting comments on Your World last fall: “The Democrats are the allies of the Islamists who wish our destruction.”

“I don't believe that,” Gabrielle squealed. “This is what the jihadists are saying on THEIR website…. I am translating to you what THEY are saying.”

In fact, the quote Colmes read, which is nearly identical to the one Melanie recorded in her post about Gabrielle's appearance, indicates that Gabrielle was offering her own opinion. Otherwise, she surely would have said something like, “The Islamists who wish our destruction SEE the Democrats as their allies.” But, unfortunately, Colmes did not confront her further and went back to Ballen.

Ballen said, “We have to put this in context... Islam is not the enemy. Muslims are not the enemy.”

Hannity, not content with getting a disproportionate share of time already, interrupted. “Nobody said that,” he said peevishly.

Ballen continued by saying that every scientific study indicates Muslims want peace “as much as Americans do. To the extent that we demonize Muslims, and make them the enemy, we are playing into Al Qaeda's hands.” Referring to Gabrielle, Ballen said, “With your hate-filled speech about Islam, you're playing into Al Qaeda's hands.”

“She's talking about radical Islam here,” Hannity interrupted again with that falsehood. “This is very specific... She said those that buy into radical Islam." While Hannity spoke, Gabrielle caterwauled incomprehensibly. “There's a distinct difference there.”

Maybe so, but Gabrielle didn't make it.

 

The GOP would be wise to listen to Ron Paul's message

Seattle Times May 30, 2007
Bruce Ramsey

Two-thirds of Americans can now see that starting a war in Iraq was a mistake. The majority of Republicans still do not see it. Eventually they will, but it's hard to go against their own president unless one of their own makes them do it.

That may be the usefulness of Rep. Ron Paul. There is no way this libertarian medical doctor from Texas is going to win the Republican nomination. His strict noninterventionist policy is too radical a change for Republicans. But on foreign policy the Republican Party could use a dose of criticism that gets to the root of things, and that is what Paul has to offer.

Paul says his party will lose the presidency in 2008 if they are still supporting the war, and he is probably right. He does not waste time arguing about surges or timetables. He says America ought to get out, and that America ought to adopt a general policy of staying out of other countries' wars.

Paul rejects President Bush's gum-drop idea that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They hate us because of what our government has done in their part of the world. In the May 15 debate, Paul said America was attacked on 9/11 "because we were over there."

At the debate, Rudy Giuliani disingenuously declared that he had never heard such a statement, as if it were ridiculous on its face. After the debate, Paul went on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" show, and Sean Hannity barked at him: Did he think America was to blame for 9/11?

No, Paul said, though really he was saying something like that. When your government acts as an imperial power, the natives bite back. They are responsible for what they do, but theirs is not the only responsibility.

When a Saudi zealot kills Americans, you can blame the deaths on the Saudi because he did it, or on the U.S. government for stationing soldiers in the Saudi's homeland, which aggravated him. Paul's point is that if you don't aggravate folks, you don't get bit.

In the debate, he said, "The conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy."

It hasn't recently, but it did have a faction like that until the Cold War. There was a revival of it in the 1990s, particularly in opposition to Bill Clinton's undeclared war on Serbia.

Then came 9/11. In October 2002, only six Republicans in Congress — including Ron Paul — voted against starting a war with Iraq.

It is fairly clear now that America will leave Iraq, and not in triumph. It will be tempting for the Republicans to blame the result on the Democrats, because that would mean that the Republicans were "right" in some theoretical way. But they were not right. They did not understand Iraq, or the history of imperialism or much of anything beyond knocking over Saddam Hussein.

In foreign affairs, the Republicans are our nationalist party, and there is a role for that. But they need to question the idea of a "global war on terror." The 9/11 attacks were acts of desperation by 19 men with box cutters. What these men did looked and felt like acts of war, but really it was an audacious crime, planned and executed by a political gang financed with private money.

Fighting such gangs is the job of cops, security workers, customs agents, G-men, diplomats and alert citizens. It is an important task, but we are not at war. America hasn't been attacked in nearly six years.

Republicans need to settle on a foreign policy that asserts American interests in a realistic and humane way. Whether they go as far as the noninterventionism of Ron Paul is another question, but they have to jettison the Bush policy of preemptive war. That the leading Republican contenders refuse to question that policy is a sign that they have not learned and, 17 months from now, will not win.

 

Meet Bush's World Bank Nominee - PNAC Member, Bilderberg Attendee, CFR Member, Trilateral Commission Member, NAFTA Architect and Enron Advisor

Infowars.net May 31, 2007
Steve Watson

President Bush's reaction to the loss of close ally, ultra globalist and PNAC war hawk Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank has been to nominate one of his best friends, closest allies and ultra globalist PNAC war hawks, Robert Zoellick for the position.

Zoellick is the Crème de la Crème of Washington's elite. His wikipedia entry reveals him to be a globalist all rounder who has worked his way into the upper echelons of every shadowy body and organisation of thinkers and power-brokers you can think of.

Like Wolfowitz, Zoellick is a member of the hawkish neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) who pushed hard to invoke the notion that evil foreign enemies who hated America should be preemptively dealt with.

Zoellick and PNAC famously wrote a letter to former President Clinton asking him to go to war with Iraq in 1998, and later in 2000 predicted a "catastrophic and catalyzing New Pearl Harbor like event" would help shape U.S. military interventionism in the middle east and allow for global domination for the next century.

Zoellick is also a member of the unelected policy makers and rampant globalization advocate groups the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. He is also a regular at the powerful global policy defining Bilderberg Group meetings, having attended in 1991, 2003 and 2006 and currently attending the 2007 Bilderberg meeting which begins today in Istanbul, Turkey.

Zoellick has served under Bush Sr as White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President and also worked under Bush family lawyer and big oil playboy James Baker during his tenure as Secretary of State.

While serving in the Bush Sr. administration, Zoellick was also instrumental in sealing the NAFTA accord with Mexico, serving as a special assistant to Bush in his relations with President Salinas of Mexico who had serious reservations on the deal but was eventually strong armed into acceptance by constant pressure from Zoellick.

He was also instrumental in promoting the Central American Free Trade Agreement as U.S. Trade Representative between 2001 and 2005 and has consistently pushed the "free trade" agenda (i.e., legalized robbery and looting and the monopolization of the global economy).

Zoellick also played a key role in the U.S.-W.T.O. dispute against the European Union over genetically modified foods . The move sought to force genetically modified crops and food on the EU, which would not otherwise accept them, or be slow to do so.

Zoellick also has key ties with the corporate elite having serving as an executive at Goldman Sachs and also as a paid consultant on the Enron advisory board , owning Enron shares worth between $15,000 and $50,000, which he sold before the energy giant went bankrupt. Zoellick also served on the boards of such corporations as Alliance Capital, Jones Intercable, Said Holdings, and the Precursor Group.

Currently Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick is expected to be ratified by the Bank's board as the new President later this month after the formal nomination puppet theatre show procedure ends.

That's that little problem over at the World Bank solved for the globalists then.

FBI Linking Al-Qaeda Funds, Insider Trading Amongst Global Finance Elites and a Soured Texas Asset Buyout as Pakistani Prime Minister Under Investigation

JonesReport June 2, 2007
Aaron Dykes

As we reported yesterday , an FBI investigation led to charges for two high level Pakistani financiers on multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud. The FBI has announced it is now investigating further links to Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz , as well as Salman Shah , the Prime Minister's financial advisor, Ali Raza , the president of the National Bank of Pakistan and a significant list of other Pakistani financial heads.

The Times of India reported that FBI investigators believe the criminal operation may also be tied to allegations of money-laundering operations for Al Qaeda.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, also former Chairman of Citigroup	Pakistani Financial Advisor Salman Shah, also governor of World Bank of Pakistan	Ali Raza, president of the National Bank of Pakistan

The alleged insider trading took place on knowledge of the TxU buyout , a largest-ever $45 billion leverage deal brokered by Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) and Goldman Sachs, two key firms inside the Bilderberg group, who dominate the investment banking world, and are shown to be very closely linked .

Credit Suisse First Boston, who served as advisors on the TxU buyout and are also represented annually at Bilderberg, are named in the FBI insider trading case that has so far charged Hafiz Naseem, a Credit Suisse FB investment banker , with criminal counts of conspiracy and fraud.

Is there a link between elite Pakistani bankers who brokered the TxU leveraged buyout with Bilderberg firms KKR, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse and the alleged Pakistani role in a laundering scheme for Al-Qaeda?

Civil charges have been filed against Ajaz Rahim , the head of investment banking at Faysal Bank in Pakistan, on conspiracy and 25 counts of securities fraud.

The high levels of investigation are interesting-- given the close relationship with Western banking, as well as the pivotal role Pakistan plays in the intelligence community and the so-called War on Terror . Pakistan is well known for harboring Al Qaeda, though the government does not officially support the terrorist group.

It was from Pakistan that former ISI chief General Mahmud Ahmad wired $100,000 to supposed lead-hijacker Mohammad Atta , a known CIA-asset, to fund the 9/11 attacks. Of course, the ISI is largely an extension of the CIA and other western intelligence agencies, and works as base of operations for intelligence in the Middle East.

Fmr. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski with Osama bin Laden, circa 1979.

Just north of Pakistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski funded, armed and created the Taliban-- headed by bin Laden-- to offset expected aggression by Soviet forces into Afghanistan in 1979 while Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter-- proving directly the U.S. link to bin Laden.

"I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive...We weren't passive," Brzezinski told CNN during a 1997 interview.

Brzezinski, of course, helped David Rockefeller found the Trilateral Commission, and is also involved in the Council on Foreign Relations, both of which bleed over into the Bilderberg group, all of which serve an agenda working towards world government.

When Osama bin Laden and his Taliban became a red herring in the War on Terror, they simply moved south to Pakistan, leaving American forces to seize control of Afghanistan (as well as its land, oil, Caspian trade route, and opium crop) while fighting a non-existent enemy. Despite the fact that the phony War on Terror is supposedly fought globally, neither American, Pakistani or U.N. troops have gone after the Taliban forces residing in Pakistan. The reason for this is not Pakistan's duplicity, but that the terrorist group was simply a pretense to control Afghanistan, as its governing forces were perhaps not as accessible as Rick Perry has been in selling out Texas.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has also been accessible to the globalists-- he is basically a controlled asset, after all. While he is currently under investigation in the related cases of insider trading over Texas asset deals and Al Qaeda money laundering operations, he was Citigroup's Chairman-- a New York-based investment group operating in the top echelon of the financial world. Aziz spent approximately 30 years with the company.

Citigroup, obviously well established in the banking web, has several Bilderberg ties, including notorious former chair Walter Bigelow Wriston (who transformed Citigroup into one of the biggest conglomerates in the world and also wrote a book called The Twilight of Sovereignty [1992]). Former Citigroup Chairman and CEO John S. Reed was a Bilderberg member as well and also Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. A number of other top Citigroup executives are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, including CEO Charles Prince , former president & CEO Richard A. Freytag and Vice Chairman William R. Rhodes.

Citigroup grew out of the National City Bank of New York, which was built up by William Rockefeller , brother of John D. Rockefeller. William's grandson James Stillman Rockefeller also headed the bank and worked closely with Walter B. Wriston.

Dr. Salman Shah, financial advisor to the Prime Minister in Pakistan with Paul Wolfowitz in 2005. He also serves as the governor of the World Bank for Pakistan.

Prime Minister Aziz also publicized his relationship with the Carlyle Group and plans for Pakistani investment while attending the 2007 Davos meeting. According to this report:

On the second day of Davos, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told the group that the United States' very own Carlyle Group, which "manages $46.9 billion worldwide," is planning to invest several billion dollars in the Middle East.

Aziz's attachments to Western banking go too deep for him to have any real separation from it; on the contrary, it surely those ties launched him into to the top of the Pakistani government.

The Prime Minister's financial advisor, Salman Shah , who is also under investigation, serves as the Governor of the World Bank for Pakistan , which he spoke to in 2004 , 2005 , 2006 (PDF links). He was educated in the United States and taught for many years at a number of Western institutions. He has also spoken at Credit Suisse First Boston conferences , the Bilderberg firm which advised the TxU merger. Haseem, who has been criminally charged in the case, worked for Credit Suisse FB.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister, Moin Qureshi, was Vice President at the World Bank prior to becoming PM and obtained permanent residence in the United States after his term where he established the Emerging Markets Company.

Investigations probing top positions in Pakistani finance and government have implications for the world finance community at large, particularly as the investigations relate to trading on the TxU buyout-- which was nothing more than the leveraging of Texas assets by Bilderberg brokers, particularly Henry R. Kravis, founding partner of KKR who led the TxU deal. Kravis also holds the previous record for largest buyout-- the leveraging of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company at approximately $26 billion in 1988-- a price that came after a bidding war, which was dramatized in the film Barbarians at the Gate .

Texas has been realigned to shift control to globalist development throughout the region, particularly in regards to new infrastructure such as the Trans-Texas Corridor and energy conglomerates, namely TxU, all of which Texas Governor Rick Perry has personally facilitated, nursed, defended and championed.

In this view, it is fitting that Perry was invited to the 2007 Bilderberg meeting , which Presidential candidate Ron Paul noted was "sure a sign that he's very much involved in the international conspiracy."

Perry sits in a pivotal access point for political manipulation in a state undergoing massive manipulation. Though the Texas governorship is theoretically weak as set up by the Texas constitution, Perry has been all-too-ready to mandate accommodation for globalist investment and to veto any attempts to block such giveaways and defend traditional nation-state based sovereignty. Furthermore, he has proved quite willing to hand over access and assets to global finance-- without prodding by international institutions like the IMF to leverage control, as has been done throughout the third world.

At this point, it is not clear if investigations of inside trading will implicate any of the players in Texas or the Western banking network, but the TxU deal certainly links them with top Pakistani officials currently under investigation, and charges for Nafiz Haseem and Ajaz Rahim.

 

Rick Perry's Bilderberg Visit Violation Of Logan Act?
Texas Governor's visit to ultra secret elitist group could be criminal, press secretary refuses to comment

Prison Planet May 31, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Texas Governor Rick Perry is amongst the attendees at this year's secretive Bilderberg Group meeting in Istanbul Turkey, but his visit could be a violation of the Logan Act, a 1799 law that criminalizes unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

"Gov. Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul, Turkey, today to speak at the super-secret Bilderberg Conference, a meeting of about 130 international leaders in business, media and politics," reports the Dallas Morning News.

"Robert Black, the governor's press secretary, said the governor was invited to attend and speak about state-federal relations. Mr. Black dismissed the conspiracy theories."

"He's looking forward to learning the secret handshake," Mr. Black joked."

Sophomoric joking aside, Perry's attendance at a behind closed doors, and armed guards, meeting, in which the content of what is discussed will remain totally secret is a potential violation of the Logan Act .

The Logan Act states, "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The Logan Act also bars public officials from meeting with private citizens to make policy, a crime for which the Clinton White House was fined $300,000 for, according to Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker.

Rick Perry seems to have attempted to get ahead of accusations that he was violating the act in making the visit by claiming the trip was paid for out of campaign contributions and not by taxpayers, but this is inconsequential.

Perry's press secretary declined to give a statement when we called and denied any knowledge of the Logan Act, yet seemed to be fully aware of it in claiming Bilderberg was a private meeting. Since the Logan Act also bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign officials, Perry is still violating the law.

The fact that Bilderberg has a proven track record of creating consensus for policy that is enacted shortly down the line also betrays the group as wholly undemocratic and criminal in its secrecy, further violating the Logan Act.

The BBC uncovered documents form a former Bilderberg member dating back to the early 50's betraying the fact that the European Union and the single Euro currency were both brainchild's of the Bilderberg Group.

At the 2005 Bilderberg meeting in Munich Germany, leaked talking points obtained from the speeches given at the conference indicated that Bilderberg expected oil prices to surge over the next 12 months, which is exactly what happened.

Bilderberg has a proven history of acting in a kingmaker capacity. Both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair attended before becoming President and Prime Minister and the mainstream media reported that Bilderberg selected John Edwards as Kerry's running mate in 2004. Hillary Clinton was rumored to have attended last year's conference.

Ron Paul: Perry's Bilderberg Attendance Proof Governor Part Of "International Conspiracy"
Agrees that Perry should be investigated for potentially violating the Logan Act

Prison Planet June 1, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has added his voice to those who believe Texas Governor Rick Perry should be investigated for a criminal violation of the Logan Act after he jetted off to meet with foreign elites yesterday at the Bilderberg Group conference in Istanbul.

Perry's trip to Turkey is a clear violation of the Logan Act which states that "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Since Perry has not received authorization from Congress, the U.S. government or the American people to meet with Bilderberg luminaries, where policy that impacts the world is secretly discussed in a wholly undemocratic fashion, his visit represents a criminal act.

Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul agreed that Perry should be investigated for a potential violation of the Logan Act.

"This information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and getting involved - I'm just impressed that that's in the ordinary media - I think that's encouraging too," said the Congressman.

Paul said that Perry's attendance was "A sign that he's involved in the international conspiracy."

Perry's press secretary declined to give a statement when we called and denied any knowledge of the Logan Act, yet seemed to be fully aware of it in claiming Bilderberg was a private meeting. Since the Logan Act also bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign officials, Perry is still violating the law.

TELL CONGRESS SENATE BILL 1348 MUST NOT PASS WITH FAXDC.COM

President Bush will sign the blanket amnesty bill and delight all the
illegal aliens depending on him! The sellout of Washington it at an all time
high! McCain is keeping the Amnesty bill alive with the G.O.P. while
political operatives begin to apply pressure on the few Senators and
Congressmen holdouts that won't sign the traitorous
illegal alien takeover of our government.

The so called "immigration overhaul" is nothing less than an "immigration
train wreck" resulting in a disastrous immigration coupe! With tens of
millions of illegal aliens champing at the bit to finish their conquest of
America fat cat bureaucrats are being cold and calculated with their demands
for legalizing 21st century slave trade.

Washington wants cheap flesh to satisfy their lust for voting slaves.

The battle has begun! Whose side are you on!

Either you are going to be silent or you will let your voice be heard!
Decide now, tomorrow will be too late. Tens of millions of foreign nationals
(illegal aliens) will be given amnesty to do as they please in America and
on your tax dime!

THE AMNESTY-ORGY IS IN FULL SWING AND

THE TAX PAYER IS GOING TO GET SCREWED!

Our beloved nation is being hi-jacked by pirate alien gang's hell bent on
breaking our laws and displacing the American citizen with undeserving law
breakers!  The Minutemen, Patriots and Red Blooded Americans will not stand
for this we will fight back!

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND SAY NO TO BLANKET ILLEGAL ALIEN AMNESTY.

You can make the difference! WE, THE PEOPLE can force our voice into the
ears of the politically impotent.  Send all the members of Senate that's 100
members and all the members of Congress that's 435 members a boiling hot
message NOW! Send a LOUD AND CLEAR MESSAGE to all the Congressmen and
Senators to vote "NO" to the Kennedy-McCain Amnesty!
Remember:

It is now time to shout a loud a boiling hot message to our hired hands in
D.C.!

It must be done today! The Minutemen need your help. America needs your
help.

Do your civic duty now from the comfort of your home or office. Fax and
Email today, tomorrow will be too late and America will be lost!

To review the fax message: http://www.faxdc.com

To Fax Blast Capitol Hill: http://www.faxdc.com/Order.htm

America needs action NOW!

###

Incumbent Florida mayor makes the switch to the Constitution Party!

Tom Kovach
June 1, 2007


Two of my WND columns about Fred Thompson have struck some nerves. On the one hand, the information is unassailable. On the other hand, the information is unpopular. Nobody wants to admit that they've been hoodwinked. That seems especially true for Republicans — particularly those that don't actually pay attention to political details. (That would include a lot more high-profile people than one might realize.)

Three popular talk-radio hosts in Nashville have "hitched their wagon" to Fred Thompson — even though he is not yet a candidate for president. The report that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations has caused some back-pedaling by at least one of those hosts. For two weeks, he distanced himself from Thompson, saying on-air that "if the reports about Thompson are true, then I couldn't vote for him." In recent days, however, the shift is in the other direction, with the host asking, "What's so bad about NAFTA?" It seems that Thompson has the talkers twisting to cover for him.

In the early 1960s, globalist Nelson Rockefeller praised the European Common Market as an example of incrementalism that would eventually lead to a European government. It took thirty more years for the European Union to come out of the closet. NAFTA is modeled after the European Common Market, and has been around for a dozen years. Democratic President Bill Clinton (CFR member) heavily promoted NAFTA in 1993-1994, and Republican Senator Fred Thompson (CFR member) voted to expand NAFTA in 1998. NAFTA has paved the way for open borders on the North American continent, just as the Common Marked did on the European continent. Incrementalism is to globalism as leather is to shoemaking.

But, some folks still cling to the myth that "Uncle Fred" is just a good-ole-boy that got suckered in by those fast-talking Yankee lobbyists. To believe that, one must ignore the fact that Thompson was a Washington lobbyist for almost 20 years before his Senate run. One of his clients was General Electric. They purchased the NBC television network. You know, the network that airs the series Law and Order ... starring Fred Thompson. That series was sued by The Minutemen regarding a smear episode. You know, the episode that did not cause Thompson to quit the series.

NBC is affiliated with Newsweek, which did a softball piece called 'Keeping It Between Friends' . It downplayed any rivalry between Thompson and fellow Republican Senator John McCain (CFR-member), who has already announced his run for the White House. In the Senate, Thompson had voted to support McCain's "campaign finance reform" package. (You know, the laws that muzzle grassroots conservatives, passed by "conservative" Republicans.) The Newsweek piece included a quote from the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Richard Land (CFR member), who favors Thompson. You know, the same Dr. Richard Land that led the Justice Sunday rallies. You know, the rallies that convinced conservative Christians to support "conservative" Republican President George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. You know, they guy that became Chief Justice on his first day on the court. You know, the guy that represented the Playboy empire when he was in private law practice. Yeah, that religious conservative.

Fred Thompson participated in a panel discussion with another CFR member, Democrat George Mitchell. He got his start in Federal politics when appointed by President Jimmy Carter (CFR member). Leon Panetta, who was White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, hosted the discussion. While giving the facade of rivalry between the Democratic and Republican Parties, Thompson and Mitchell were in jovial agreement on globalist topics. Mitchell is chairman of the second-largest law firm in the world, DLA Piper. You know, the firm that recently put a full-service, "multicultural" office in Dubai. You know, the port city in a country that tried to buy American port operations with oil money. Mitchell's law firm has a " strategic alliance" with a consulting group owned by former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen (CFR member), which did PR work on behalf of DP World, the Dubai company that tried to buy the ports.

Of course, it's a total coincidence that Cohen (a self-described "moderate" Republican, who headed DoD under Democrat Bill Clinton) is working with Mitchell (former Democratic Majority Leader of the US Senate), and that all are members of the same globalist organization as Fred Thompson. It's a total coincidence that DP World bought a British company, which operates American ports, and is now building the London Gateway petroleum port. It's a total coincidence that globalist politicians in Great Britain turned a blind eye as Muslim extremists grew in numbers and power to the point that their country's capital is nicknamed Londonistan. It's a total coincidence that globalist politicians in America have turned a blind eye as Muslim extremists grow in numbers and power to the point that a terrorist group can establish a 'town' called Islamberg, and defy the government for 20 years . It's a total coincidence that globalist politicians like President George W. Bush (Skull and Bones Society member) and former US Senator Bill Frist (CFR member) can work to weaken our American borders without being impeached, because both houses of Congress are so full of CFR members and other global Socialists.

Yep, total coincidence, just like Fred Thompson's marriage to Jeri Kehn , who was a media consultant with George Mitchell's law firm of Verner Liipfert at that time. Coincidentally, that firm — which historically had strong ties to the Democratic Party — merged with the Piper Rudnick firm the same year that Kehn married Thompson. That begs the question, "What did Jeri know, and when did she know it?" Considering that she was a former consultant to the Republican National Committee, one must wonder how she was able to be a spokesman for a Democrat-led law firm. Of course, that firm did also hire former Republican US Senator Bob Dole. Normally, this writer considers family members "off limits" in politics. But, Jeri Kehn Thompson is a seasoned attorney, and has been described as a 'key player' in her husband's presidential machinations. We all know what happened the last time that the attorney wife of a CFR member was a "key player" in her husband's presidential campaign.

Voters need to look at the facts, and not be hoodwinked by a country-boy image, or the fictional roles that an actor portrays, or the hidden support of an 'un-named' Christian leader . (Was it CFR member Richard Land?) The fact is that Fred Thompson's globalist pedigree is unquestionable. The fact is that, no matter how much we may like "Uncle Fred," he is the wrong man for the White House. (Except, of course, in the movies.) The fact is that, even if we agree with our favorite talk-radio hosts on 99 percent of topics, we can't follow them down the twisting trail into Thompson's globalist quicksand.

---

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. He recently published his first book. He is also an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal, and a former talk-radio host. He is available to speak to your group. To learn more, visit: www.TomKovach.us