ETERNAL VIGILANCE

New Bill in Congress Targets Teachers Who Dare to Question US Support for Israel
ADL Moves to Muzzle U.S. Schools

By Michael Collins Piper

The Israeli lobby has launched an all-out drive to ensure congressional passage of a bill, approved by the House and now before a Senate committee that would set up a federal tribunal to investigate and monitor criticism of Israel on American college campuses.

Ten months ago the New York-based Jewish Week newspaper claimed that the report by American Free Press that Republican members of the Senate were planning to crack down on college and university professors who were criticalof Israel was “a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst.” They were claiming that AFP lied.

However, on Sept. 17, 2003, the House Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the
International Studies in Higher Education Act, which was then passed by the full House on Oct. 21. The chief sponsor
of the legislation was Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from Michigan.

DANGEROUS LEGISLATION
Critics charge that the bill is dangerous—a direct affront to the First Amendment and the product of intrigue by a small clique of individuals and organizations which combines the forces of the powerful Israeli lobby in official Washington.

Leading the push for Senate approval of the bill are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, run by Abe Foxman, the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee.

Also lending its support is Empower America, the neoconservative front group established by William Kristol, editor and publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, which is said to be the “intellectual” journal that governs the train of foreign policy thinking in theBush administration.

One other group has lent its support: the U.S. India Political Action Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely with the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopolitically allied.

H.R. 3077 is bureaucratic in its tone, decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through legislative linguistics. It would set up a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring academic critics of Israel.

Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the House, and three by the secretary of education, two of whom are required to be from U.S. federal security agencies. The various appointees would be selected from what The Christian Science Monitor described on March 11 as “politicians, representatives of cultural and educational organizations, and private citizens.”

FEARS ECHOED
Gilbert Merk, vice provost for international affairs and development and director of the Center for International Studies at Duke University, has echoed the fears of many when he charged that this advisory board “could easily be hijacked by those who have a political axe to grind and become a vehicle for an inquisition.”

The primary individuals promoting this effort to control intellectual debate on the college campuses are prominent and outspoken supporters of Israel and harsh critics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. They are:
• Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University in Israel;
• Stanley Kurtz, a contributor of ex-CIA man William F. Buckley Jr.’s bitterly anti-Arab National Review Online and a research fellow at the staunchly pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and
• Daniel Pipes, founder of the pro-Israel Middle East Institute and its affiliate, Campus Watch, an ADL-style organization that keeps tabs on college professors and students who are—or are suspected of being—critics of Israel.

These three, along with the Israeli lobby, are claiming that they are fighting “anti-Americanism” as it is being taught on the college campuses.

Republicans in Congress have joined this chorus, preferring to allow their constituents to think that this is an “America First” measure.

Juan Cole of the History News Network responds to this extraordinary twist on reality saying that the claim of “anti-
Americanism” is intellectually dishonest.

“What they mean . . . if you pin them down is ambivalence about the Iraq war, or dislike of Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or recognition that the U.S. government has like al Qaeda or Saddam. None of these positions is ‘anti-American,’ and any attempt by a congressionally appointed body to tell university professors they cannot say these
things—or that if they say them they must hire someone else who will say the opposite—is a contravention of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The promoters are also suggesting that this legislation would, according to the American Jewish Committee, “enhance intellectual freedom on campus by enabling diverse viewpoints to be heard.” Of course, the legislation would do precisely the opposite, say critics.

Lisa Anderson of the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs said in response that “this plan . . . is not about diversity, or even about the truth.”

Ms. Anderson does not cite the role of the Israeli lobby,but instead targets conservative Republicans who are acting
as the Israeli lobby’s surrogates and says that this plan is “about the conviction of conservative political activists that
the American university community is insufficiently patriotic, or perhaps simply insufficiently conservative.”

What she should be saying is that these Republicans who are carrying water for Israel are concerned that universities
are “insufficiently pro-Israel.”

The Republican House members who originally joined Hoekstra in co-sponsoring this legislation should be named for the record. They are: John A. Boehner (Ohio), John R. Carter (Texas), Tom Cole (Oklahoma), James Greenwood (Penn.), Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.), Patrick J. Tiberi (Ohio) and Joe Wilson (South Carolina).

Americans will not be able to find out how their representatives voted on the bill. Hoekstra asked for a suspension of the House rules, which was approved, making it possible for the controversial measure to be passed an unrecorded “voice vote.” There is no record of how individual House members voted or if they even voted at all.

FIRST MEASURE
The measure passed by the House is the same type of proposed “ideological diversity” legislation that AFP detailed in its Oct. 20, 2003, issue. At the time, the measure was being kicked around for possible introduction in the Senate by two prominent Republicans, Rick Santorum (Penn.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.).

AFP’s initial report on the legislation garnered so much attention from American college and university professors and on the Internet, even so far as the Arab world, that the resulting negative publicity forced Santorum and Brownback to back off.

Many major American education organizations, including the teacher’s union, the National Education Association, have raised their concerns about this campaign to muzzle the free speech of teachers, professors and instructors. The American Civil Liberties Union has also protested this measure.

Critics say this is a new form of what has been known in the past as “McCarthyism,” and no matter what you may think about the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose name, rightly or wrongly, inspired that terminology, the truth is that this legislation is “McCarthyism” by virtue of the popular definition.

The only chance to destroy this legislation and stop it dead in its tracks is for enough grassroots citizens to rise up and demand that H.R. 3077 be put to rest.

And believe it or not, the one senator who may be able to stop it is Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy of Massachusetts.

A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence and the Lansky crime syndicate alongside the CIA in the assassination of JFK.


Tell Your Senators: ‘Trash H.R. 3077’

The Israeli lobby’s pet project, H.R. 3077, innocuously named “The International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003”—
and popularly known as “Title 6”—is now before the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

This committee is controlled by the Republican majority who are likely to support the bill, but the ranking minority member is powerful Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) who has been an outspoken critic of Daniel Pipes, one of the leading proponents of H.R. 3077.

Kennedy’s second wife is an Arab-American. Some people say that explains why he has become attuned to Arab-bashing of the type in which Pipes engages.

As such, Kennedy is being seen as a possible roadblock to final approval by the Senate committee of H.R. 3077.

Other Democrats on the committee include:

Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.)
TEL (202) 224-4543
FAX (202) 224-2417
EMAIL senator@kennedy.senate.gov

Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.)
TEL (202) 224-2823
FAX (202) 224-1083

Tom Harkin (Iowa)
TEL (202) 224-3254
FAX (202) 224-9369
EMAIL tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov

Jeff Bingaman (New Mex.)
TEL (202) 224-5521
FAX (202) 224-2852
EMAIL senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Patty Murray (Wash.)
TEL (202) 224-2621
FAX (202) 224-0238
EMAIL senator_murray@murray.senate.gov

John F. Reed (Rhode Island)
TEL 202) 224-4642
FAX (202) 224-4680
EMAIL jack@reed.senate.gov

James M. Jeffords (Vermont, Independent)
TEL (202) 224-5141
FAX (202) 228-0776
EMAIL vermont@jeffords.senate.gov

GIVE ME LIBERTY!

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his now famous speech in which he said, “give me liberty or give me death.” In honor of Henry’s prescient words, delivered in Williamsburg, Va., AFP is reprinting an excerpt from this timeless oration.

By Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last 10 years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will provide a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation—the last arguments to which kings resort.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any form which our enemy can send against us. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take—but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

This excerpt is reprinted from American Free Press, Vol. IV, #12, March 22, 2004. To suscribe click here.

U.S. INJUSTICE
Another Defeat for True Justice
By Paul Craig Roberts

The Kafkaesque indictment, trial and conviction of Martha Stewart is a devastating blow both to the U.S. legal system and to belief in the American socio-economic system.

Today hapless defendants are convicted not only in the absence of criminal intent but also in the absence of statutory felonies.

Stewart was indicted for lying and obstructing justice. For these offenses to have any meaning, there must be a crime that she lied about and obstructed. The prosecutors presented no such crime. Stewart was indicted and convicted for lying and obstructing a crime when no crime happened.

Many Americans believe that Stewart committed “insider trading,” because that is the disinformation her prosecutors used their media pimps to disseminate. The prosecutors would have liked to have charged Stewart with insider trading, but could not. Stewart learned from her broker, not from a company insider, that a top executive was selling shares.

Since time immemorial, many people have sold shares for the same reason. Brokers call and report that a stock is being sold when the overall market is not. That is an indication that there is bad news in the market about that stock. It is a broker’s job to advise when to hold and when to fold.

Whenever a company announces good or bad news, SEC regulators and prosecutors look to see who sold or bought stock in the period immediately preceding the news. If they find company executives, or anyone whom they can connect to company executives, buying or selling prior to news, they bring a case of insider trading.

Insider trading is a creation of regulatory bureaucrats, not of statutory law. It is an undefined crime.
Bureaucrats easier to convict people of undefined crimes. Many legal scholars maintain that there is no rational reason for making insider trading into an offense.

Prosecutors knew that Stewart was friends with Im-Clone’s president and jumped to the conclusion that she was tipped off by him. When it became clear that Stewart had the information from her broker, the prosecutors were reluctant to let go of their celebrity target, whose demise would boost their careers. The prosecutors decided to make a crime out of a non-crime.

Stewart recognized that they were after her with an undefined crime. Like most people in such a situation, Stewart gave them a story that they would have a hard time twisting into insider trading.

This is the basis for her indictment for lying and obstructing justice.

The Stewart case reminds me of the Ben Lacy case during the 1990s. Lacy was an apple juice producer who made a few mistakes filling out environmental forms over the course of several years. Federal prosecutors chose to interpret the few mistakes as comprising a conspiracy to hide the pollution of a stream behind his plant. As the stream tested pristine, the prosecutors did not accuse him of polluting the stream.

If they had accused him of polluting, evidence of the lack of pollution would have collapsed their case. By accusing him of conspiracy, they were able to keep out of court evidence that the stream was not polluted.

Eventually, the prosecutors had to let go of Lacy, but only after they had ruined him financially.

The Stewart jurors should have realized that the case was bogus when the judge threw out the main charge—that she had committed fraud by declaring her innocence. A prosecutor who would bring such a ridiculous charge.

It appears the jury convicted Steward largely on the basis that she was white and successful. In their public statements, it is apparent that some of the jurors have the impression that Stewart is part of the corporate fraud that is believed to have caused widespread losses to shareholders who are “little people.”

By failing to recognize the political persecution in front of their noses, the Stewart jury demonstrated the extreme risks of a jury trial. The prosecutors only wanted a symbolic scalp and had offered Stewart a plea bargain deal—a probation
sentence in exchange for a plea that she made a false statement. Stewart, who has naively declared her belief in the integrity of the justice system, went to trial, instead.

Stewart’s conviction has made it even less likely that an innocent defendant will place trust in a jury. Already 95 percent of felony cases are settled with a coerced plea bargain, because judges and juries routinely fail in their function of protecting defendants from prosecutorial abuse. Time after time, innocent defendants are convicted on fabricated evidence, while exculpatory evidence is withheld. Based on the new DNA evidence, a large percentage of convicted
murderers and rapists have been found innocent.

Stewart’s conviction is a defeat for justice and the American way. Prosecutors have undermined the socio-economic
system by sending the Marxist message that Americans become successful and rich by evading the rules and engaging
in criminal behavior.

Some message for a conservative Republican administration to send.

©2003 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Nationally syndicated columnist, Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., a former editor at The Wall Street Journal, is the author of several books. He has been associated with the Hoover Institution, and the Institute for Political Economy and from 1981 to 1982 served as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy.

THE COMING IRAQ INTIFADA
And the Coming U.S. Withdrawal

Decentralized, Non-State War
by William S. Lind

An article in the Friday, March 29 Washington Post pointed to the long-expected opening of Phase III of America’s war with Iraq. Phase I was the jousting contest, the formal "war" between America’s and Iraq’s armies that ended with the fall of Baghdad. Phase II was the War of National Liberation waged by the Baath Party and fought guerilla-style. Phase III, which is likely to prove the decisive phase, is true Fourth Generation war, war waged by a wide variety of non-state Iraqi and other Islamic forces for objectives and motives that reach far beyond politics.

The Post article, "Iraq Attacks Blamed on Islamic Extremists," contains the following revealing paragraph:

In the intelligence operations room at the 1st Armored Division’s headquarters (in Baghdad), wall-mounted charts identifying and linking insurgents depict the changing battlefield. Last fall the organizational chart of Baathist fighters and leaders stretched for 10 feet, while charts listing known Islamic radicals took up a few pieces of paper. Now, the chart of Iraqi religious extremists dominates the room, while the poster depicting Baathist activity has shrunk to half of its previous size.

The article goes on to quote a U.S. intelligence officer as adding, "There is no single organization that’s behind all this. It’s far more decentralized than that."

Welcome to Phase III. The remaining Baathists will of course continue their War of National Liberation, and Fourth Generation elements have been active from the outset. But the situation map in the 1st Armored Division’s headquarters reveals the "tipping point": Fourth Generation war is now the dominant form of war against the Americans in Iraq.

What are the implications of Phase III for America’s attempts to create a stable, democratic Iraq? It is safe to say that they are not favorable. First, it means that the task of recreating a real, functioning Iraqi state – not just a "government" of Quislings living under American protection in the Green Zone – has gotten more difficult. Fourth Generation war represents a quantum move away from the state compared to Phase II, where the Baathists were fighting to recreate a state under their domination. The fractioning process will continue and accelerate, creating more and more resistance groups, each with its own agenda. The defeat of one means nothing in terms of the defeat of others. There is no center to strike at, no hinge that collapses the enemy as a whole, and no way to operationalize the conflict. We are forced into a war of attrition against an enemy who outnumbers us and is far better able to take casualties and still continue the fight.

We will also find that we have no enemy we can talk to and nothing to talk about. Since we – but not our enemies – seek closure, that is a great disadvantage. Ending a war, unless it is a war of pure annihilation, means talking to the enemy and reaching some kind of mutually acceptable settlement. When the enemy is not one but a large and growing number of independent elements, talking is pointless because any agreement only ends the war with a single faction. When the enemy’s motivation is not politics but religion, there is also nothing to talk about, unless it is our conversion to Islam. Putting these two together, the result is war without end – or, realistically, an American withdrawal that will also be an American defeat.

Finally, the way the war is fought will gradually change its character. Fourth Generation forces, like the Baath, will fight a guerilla war. But religious motivation will gradually introduce new elements. We have already seen one: suicide bombers. We will start to see others: women and children taking active roles, riots where the crowds force "coalition" forces to fire on the people and create massacres, treachery by Iraqis who we think are "friends" (we are already seeing that among the Iraqi police), and finally an Iraqi intifada, where everyone just piles on. That could happen as early as this summer, at the rate things seem to be going. If it does, American forces will have little choice but to get out of Iraq as best they can.

Nor is it just in Iraq that American troops are now facing Fourth Generation war. They have their hands full of it in Afghanistan, in Pakistan (by proxy), in Haiti, and in Kosovo. So long as America continues on the strategic offensive, intervening all over the world, the list will grow. In each case, the root problem will be the same: the disintegration of the local state. And in each case, the attempt to recreate a state by sending in American armed forces will fail.

As Clausewitz said, "But it is asking too much when a state’s integrity must be maintained entirely by others."

William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation

Editor's Note: It's interesting that the word "Intifada" is used in this article. I remember Kissinger on the tube rumbling that we probably shouldn't hang around in Iraq once Hussein had been dumped lest we risk our own Intifada. He used that exact word. Even though it's sort of obvious in the context of the middle east, I heard no one else say it that way.

Remember also that Kissinger still has the ear of Bush the Elder, and Kissinger is on the inside of the oligarchic cirlcles. Who do you think is behind keeping Sharon in line? It sure isn't Boy George.

If the US really wants to rule the mess in Iraq, it will eventually become like Saddam - and there is no easy way to handle these clowns. Anyone who tries to take charge without being absolutely ruthless is a fool. That is why Saddam was able to stay in power.

Also here is a choice excerpt from George H.W. Bush's memiors, A World Transformed, from this website: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp

In 1998, former President George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor during the Bush administration, collaborated on the book A World Transformed, a political history covering significant world events which occurred during the first three years of Bush's presidency (1989-1991): the collapse of the Soviet empire, the unification of Germany, Tiananmen Square, and the Gulf War.

In Chapter 19, which discusses the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War (also known as "Desert Storm," the military operation to liberate Kuwait from occupation by invading Iraqi forces), they wrote:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

Iraq One Year Later
The Neocon Invasion
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The Iraq war began about one year ago with the swift and decisive overthrow of Baghdad and the Hussein regime. We are only beginning to understand, however, the true scope of our ongoing occupation of a nation rife with civil, ethnic, and tribal conflict. July stands as the deadline for our provisional government to relinquish control to an emerging Iraqi government, but we are kidding ourselves about just how long American forces will need to remain involved.

More than 580 Americans have died in Iraq; roughly 10,000 have been wounded. American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. We must not be afraid to face these facts and understand the terrible cost of war.

Were these sacrifices worth it? To answer that question, we have to look at the justifications given for our invasion of Iraq.

One justification was that Saddam Hussein ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions. Whether this was true or not was none of our concern. America should never act at the behest of the UN or help enforce its illegitimate edicts. America should never commit troops to any UN action. We should not even be a member of the UN, but rather should ignore it completely. Membership in the UN is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty. It was nonsensical for conservatives suddenly to cite Iraq’s purported lack of cooperation with the UN as justification for war.

The second justification for invading Iraq was that Mr. Hussein posed a threat to the United States. This was not true. Hussein had only a small army, and virtually no navy or air force. He had no long-range weapons and no ability to strike the US 6,000 miles away. He was not working with bin Laden or al Qaeda terrorists. He was a despicable tyrant at home, but the liberation of Iraq from his clutches was given as a new justification only after the American public had absorbed overwhelming evidence that he posed no threat to us.

Is America better off as a result of our war in Iraq? The young men and women who were hurt or killed certainly are no better off. Their families are no better off. Taxpayers are no better off. Whether we are safer from terrorism here at home is an open question. We all hope and pray nothing happens. But even our own intelligence forces cautioned that an invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq could breed resentment among sympathetic Muslims and serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. As commentator Lew Rockwell states, “It is not caving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.”

Are the Iraqis better off? Saddam is gone, along with his murderous cohorts, and that certainly presents a positive opportunity for the Iraqi people. But we cannot be sure that the Hussein regime will be replaced by something better. Iraq is still very unstable and divided between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd factions. Civil war could ensue upon the departure of American troops.

Even if we assume that anything will be an improvement over the Hussein regime, the fundamental question remains: Why should young Americans be hurt or killed to liberate foreign nations? I have never heard a convincing answer to this question. If we sacrifice 500 lives to liberate Iraq, should we sacrifice five million American lives to liberate the people of North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, China, Cuba, and countless African nations? Should we invade every country that has an oppressive government? Are nation-building and empire part of our national credo? Those who answer yes to these questions should have the integrity to admit that our founders urged the opposite approach, namely a foreign policy rooted in staying out of the affairs of other nations.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

The Hitler Test
by Butler Shaffer

In previous years, and on the first day of class, I have given my new students a ballot, indicating that "it is time to elect the leader of a great nation," and offering them two candidates, A and B.

Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling."

Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."

The students are asked to vote, anonymously, for either of these two candidates. I employ this exercise only every other year, at most, so that students will not have been told to expect it. Over the years, the voting results have given candidate B about 75% of the vote, while candidate A gets the remaining 25%. After completing the exercise and tabulating the results, I inform the students that candidate A is a composite of the American "founding fathers" (e.g., Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.). Candidate B, on the other hand, is Adolf Hitler, whose advocacy for the programs named can be found in such works as Robert Proctor’s The Nazi War on Cancer.

In one of my classes a few years ago, we were discussing the Schechter case, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down the cornerstone legislation of the "New Deal," the National Industrial Recovery Act. I was explaining to the students how this legislation had transformed American commerce and industry into a system of business created but government-enforced cartels. I also pointed out to them how popular fascist/socialist programs were throughout much of the world at that time. There was Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, and Roosevelt in the United States.

I then informed my class how Winston Churchill had, in 1938, praised Hitler, as had such luminaries as Ghandi, Gertrude Stein (who nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize), and Henry Ford (who was pleased to work with the German leader). One of my students could take it no more. "How can you say that so many people could support such an evil man as Adolf Hitler?," she pleaded. "You tell me," I responded, "just two weeks ago 78% of you in this class voted for him!" Some twenty seconds of pure silence settled into the classroom before we moved on to the next case.

A couple days ago, I decided to introduce a new group of students to this exercise. After they voted – again, anonymously – I tabulated their votes and discovered that, once again, Hitler had prevailed, but by a much narrower margin than in earlier years. In my two classes, Hitler won by a 45-41 combined total of votes (nor did he require the Supreme Court to validate his victory). His support, in other words, had fallen from previous averages of 75% to about 52.3%.

One of my students wrote on his/her ballot "leaving ballot blank, or writing in a socialist candidate if one exist." At the following class meeting, I read this notation aloud and told the class that a "socialist candidate" did exist: candidate B, in the person of Adolf Hitler. The word "Nazi" was derived from the formal name of Hitler’s party: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That so many of Hitler’s policies have become the essence of modern "political correctness," as well as "mainstream" Republocratic platforms, is a sad reflection on just how far the American culture has deteriorated in recent decades.

Still, there may be some basis for optimism in this latest response from these students, who had never had a class with me before. When close to half of these young people were more comfortable siding with the kind of men whose thinking was reflected in the Declaration of Independence, there may be healthy signs that support for the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Ridge form of fascist state is starting to wane.

Additional evidence of a diminishing enthusiasm for leviathan can be seen in the resolutions passed by over one hundred city/town councils – plus one state legislature – stating their opposition to, or even refusal to abide by, the Patriot Act! The lobotomized voices that insist upon passive submission to authority, may find themselves screeching to a rapidly depleting audience. They, and their statist overlords, may be able to count on the continuing complicity of a round-heeled Congress, but many thoughtful men and women may be peeling the "love it or leave it" bumper-stickers off their minds and cars.

Having had a brief taste of the brown-shirted culture of the present administration, perhaps enough Americans are rediscovering the significance of their own history. As the media lapdogs continue to recite their scripts and slobber on cue, it may prove to be the case that the "spirit of ’76," with its love of liberty and distrust of governments, is still sufficiently engrained in the fabric of our society.

Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.

Oath Coordinator Resigns: Corruption In Courts Is Too Entrenched

Calls For A Federal Investigation

Chestertown, New York- The coordinator for the New York State Oath of Office Project June Maxam, tearfully confided yesterday (March 18) that she has resigned from her investigations into the explosive judicial scandal rocking New York courts.

“Something happened to me yesterday, it's like a piece was taken out of me, it's physical, it's like I had a stroke or shock, I am in just a state of total disbelief not only that the court totally disregarded the truth but obviously wasn't interested in the truth.”

Maxam is responsible for uncovering nearly 82 percent of judges across New York who are violating the state Constitution and New York State law for failing to file their oath and or undertaking as mandated. “The situation in our courts extends beyond those in non-compliance and right smack into corruption so wide-spread there must be a federal investigation.” Maxam continued.

“When you have solid proof of falsified transcripts and a judge and a DA who refuses to act upon it …allows this, New York has a major problem.” Maxam was appealing a four year-old harassment conviction before Glens Falls City Court Judge Tarentino.

After a two-year delay in violation of three court orders, whe court stenographer Jayme Harvey finally produced the transcripts needed for the appeal, Maxam found that they had been falsified and could prove it by an unedited tape recording of the proceedings in question.

But Tarantino refused to listen to the tape, refused to compare the actual transcript with the falsified transcripts and allowed the falsfied transcripts to serve as the official record.

“Tarentino isn’t even in office, nor is the special prosecutor, Gary Hobbs and Hobbs even filed a false statement with the Warren County District Attorney's office claiming he had filed an oath when the county clerk has certified he did not" Maxam lamented.

“The issue here isn’t about me. Everyday I get calls from all over New York from people so extorted by our courts begging me to help expose the corruption. What they fail to understand is my investigative journalism has cost me the ability to regularly publish my paper, my advertisers were threatened with being burned out and now its gone on to the level of harassing my 86 year-old father, all in an effort to stop me from exposing the corruption. If that’s not illegal what is? That is a total abuse and corruption of the judicial system.”

Maxam says that even lawyers are too afraid of the current system to act, “Judges in New York are allowed to violate our laws and lawyers are too fearful to speak-up…our Attorney General could care less that judges wield power that overextends their authority. Where is Chief Justice Judith Kaye? Does it matter to her that her fellow justices are violating not just public officers law, but trashing both our state and federal Constitutions…apparently not.”

Ms. Maxam’s activism to force compliance by officials has as she stated, “Put me in personal danger and I face four years in jail after having already been illegally incarcerated four times because officials willfully ignore the Bill of Rights.” When asked if she believed giving up her crusade would alleviate her legal problems, Maxam emphatically stated. “Oh, for certain. I’m a threat to their power base. They must shut me up because I have exposed them for what they are … imposters and gangsters in black robes.”

The findings of Maxam’s investigation was hand delivered to Attorney General Spitzer who as of this date has not commented nor apparently acted to reform our justice system.

Update on Dave Baugh

If you have been following Dave's story, you know he has been unlawfully incarcerated in Washington County, Missouri since January 9, 2004. Subsequently, his home of 20 years was foreclosed on by the banksters after series of long drawn-out court cases, not coincidentally shortly after his recent arrest. Smells fishy if you ask me, like maybe the whole thing was a set-up. -- Editor.

Dave Baugh's Website

Audio link update

The following was posted by Jeff Thomas to his blog at Studio C.

Dave has been transferred from Washington County, Missouri to the Fulton Diagnostic Center, in Fulton, Missouri. He's not sure what they are planning to do with him, but thinks that something is amiss by the way that they are pushing him thru. Dave says the whole thing is a bit "bizarre" and that, neither "the judge nor the prosecutor followed the law, they did whatever they wanted to do. There was no procedure, no Constitution, no due process, the whole thing was rigged."

Posted information regarding Dave G. Baugh's unlawful incarceration. Dave has been charged, prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned criminally for civil infractions. Show your support to Dave by writing him: Dave Baugh #1098495, H.U. 1-D, Room 287, PO Box 7, Moberly, Missouri 65270. Questions or comments for the webmaster can be sent to jthomas@learfield.com. (Financial support can be sent to Dave thru www.jpay.com, or call toll-free 1-(800) 574-JPAY. Note: his inmate number is #1098495

See more about Dave Baugh's story and comments: Dave Baugh's Website

Blowback: U.S.- and Israeli-Style
By Ivan Eland
March 9, 2004

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040309Eland.html

Israel recently launched its deadliest attack against the Palestinians in more than a year. In a muscular raid against two Palestinian refugee camps in the Gaza strip, the Israelis used heavy armor and helicopter gun ships allegedly to attempt to seize weapons and arrest Palestinian attackers, which had fired mortars at nearby Jewish settlements but had injured no settlers. The Israeli incursion killed 14 Palestinians, including three unarmed youths, and injured 83 people, including 40 under the age of 18. But the Israelis made no arrests for the mortar attacks and seized no weapons. Israel and its imitator, the United States, have both launched an aggressive “war on terrorism” that is liable to undermine their long-term security.

Amnesty International has cited numerous incidents of Israeli use of excessive force in populated Palestinian areas, including a 2,000 pound bomb dropped by an F-16 on a densely populated neighborhood in Gaza City to kill a Hamas activist. The July 22, 2002, aerial onslaught killed seven other adults and nine children, injured 70 others and destroyed six neighboring homes. Palestinians are regularly condemned by the American government and media for suicide bombings of Israeli civilians in Israel and Israeli settlers in Palestinian areas. But if we define “terrorism” as the intentional harming of innocents for political gain, the routine Israeli use of excessive force should also fall into that category.

The Israelis know that the use of heavy firepower in populated areas to target a few activists will kill or injure substantial numbers of innocents. The Israelis are especially culpable when other more “surgical” methods are available—for example, the use of raids by special forces to apprehend Palestinian activists. Even targeted assassinations of militants—a questionable tactic—would kill fewer civilians than the blunt method Israel is using. Thus, Israel’s policy seems to be only a slightly more subtle retaliation for the Palestinian killing of innocents. Instead of blatantly targeting civilians, a military target is found in a densely populated area and then excessive force is applied.

Amnesty International has also criticized the Israeli military for destroying vast tracts of cultivated land, water and electricity infrastructure and thousands of Palestinian homes. The organization also notes that the Israelis have quarantined entire Palestinian towns and cities for long periods of time, employed Palestinians as human shields during military operations, targeted medical personnel and blocked medical assistance, used torture on Palestinian detainees, seized Palestinian land to expand infrastructure for Jewish settlements and failed to protect Palestinians under attack from Jewish settlers. To mollify influential domestic pressure groups in the United States, those unacceptable Israeli tactics are routinely ignored by President Bush, the Congress and the American media.

The sad part is that such aggressive Israeli behavior—and the American subsidies of military and economic aid that encourage and underwrite it—actually worsens the Jewish nation’s long-term security outlook. Even worse, such excessive Israeli responses to security problems are now being imitated by the U.S. government. The Bush administration invaded Iraq—a nation that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks—and is consciously adopting tough Israeli-style tactics in its occupation.

Israel and the United States are both superpowers—regionally and worldwide, respectively—that have recently seen reduced threats to their existence from other nation states. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and has seen Iraq vanquished, Libya reformed and Syria severely debilitated by the demise of its Soviet benefactor. And the end of the Cold War has drastically reduced the chance of a massive nuclear attack on America. So the main remaining threat to both countries is now terrorism, which they are only inflaming by their excessive responses to it.

Thus, the two countries are falling right into the trap of their adversaries: militant Palestinian groups in the case of Israel and al Qaeda in the case of the United States. For example, after the recent Israeli attack on the refugee camps, a leader of the Palestinian Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades noted that it would act as a magnet for recruiting anti-Israeli suicide bombers. Furthermore, according to data from Tel Aviv University, anti-Semitic violence worldwide spikes during periods of Israeli and U.S. military offensives. Similarly, excessive and unrelated U.S. military interventions, especially in the Islamic nation of Iraq, have acted as a recruiting poster for the Islamic jihadism responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Anti-Israeli and anti-U.S. terrorism will not go away until the root causes of both are removed. Israel—if nothing else, to end violence that is debilitating its economy—should make the concessions needed to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians. For its part, the United States should terminate its one-sided support for Israel and become neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. America should also end profligate meddling in other nations' business around the world—especially in the Middle East—the primary cause of anti-U.S. terrorism. With their main nation-state adversaries defanged, both Israel and the United States now have the luxury of being able to take the bold steps needed to increase their security even further.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the book, Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.

Might As Well Get To Know It
by Charley Reese
April 9, 2003

Now that our president has embedded us in the Middle East for an indefinite future, you might as well start trying to educate yourself about the area and its conflicts. As one can say about so many problems in this world, it all began with the British Empire.

When you look at a map of the Middle East, you are looking at a map drawn by two Europeans by the names of Sykes and Picot. This map represents the betrayal of the Arabs and the Kurds. Before this map was drawn, the area had been part of the Ottoman Empire. (That's Turkey, for those of you who hate history and geography.)

The British, with their usual perfidy, had promised everything to everybody. Help us overthrow the Turks, they said to the Arabs, and you can have an independent Arab nation afterward. Help us overthrow the Turks, they said to the Kurds, and you will get an independent Kurdistan. And for some reason historians still argue about, they also promised European Zionists that they (the Brits) would establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They betrayed them, too, because what they did was establish the Palestine mandate — or, in plain language, British occupation of Palestine.

Britain and France divided the Middle East between themselves, and this basic fact set off the conflicts we are still dealing with. The problem with establishing a Jewish state was that Arabs already occupied the area chosen. While they initially had no quarrel with Jews who wanted to immigrate to Palestine (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with religion and never has), as soon as they figured out that European Jews were not coming to be Palestinians but to take their land away from them, the Arabs revolted. The British crushed this.

It wasn't too long, however, before Jews became impatient with British occupation and so, to drive out the British, did what Palestinians are doing today — used terror. Two of the premier Jewish terrorists — Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun, and Yitzhak Shamir, who led the Stern Gang — would later become prime ministers of Israel. It is the political parties these terrorists started that rule Israel today. Begin is famous for blowing up the King David Hotel, Shamir for reputedly ordering the assassination of Swedish diplomat Count Folke Bernadotte, who had been sent on a peace mission by the United Nations. Both of their groups joined forces to commit one of the most infamous massacres in history at the little village of Deir Yassin, where more than 200 men, women and children were slaughtered. Much of modern terrorist methods were pioneered by Begin. You should read his book "The Revolt."

Sometime in 1947, the British had had enough of Palestine and announced they were going to end the mandate the following year and dump the problem in the lap of the United Nations. The Zionists fiercely lobbied both Harry Truman and Joe Stalin. The deal was to get a vote to partition Palestine. The Jews would immediately proclaim the state of Israel, and, as preplanned, the United States and the Soviet Union would instantly recognize it. This was the first instance of the United States using a combination of threats and bribery to round up votes at the United Nations.

Jews and Palestinians were already fighting, and in the course of that fighting, the better-organized Zionists decided to expand beyond the boundaries set by the partition resolution and to do a little ethnic cleansing, since Arabs still outnumbered Jewish residents 2-1. Despite some volunteers coming in from other Arab countries, the Zionists had accomplished both goals by the cease-fire in 1948. In a 1967 war, the Zionists took the rest of Palestine, and Palestinians, who stubbornly insist on self-determination (once, but no longer, an American value), are fighting them the best way they can.

With the United States loading the Israelis down with both modern arms and billions of dollars, however, the Palestinians are having a hard time. This issue has made the United States hated in the region and the king of hypocrites because we have vetoed 35 U.N. resolutions to prevent the international community from giving any justice or help to the Palestinians.

Now, our president has included Palestinian organizations that are not international terrorists (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah) on our list of enemies. Originally, they were just aiming their attacks at Israel, but I suppose this might change since George Bush has become the puppet of the Israeli government.

Hang on to your hats, folks. You're in for a violent next 50 years or so.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

Mossad Duped America, UK Into Launching Iraq Attack

By Richard H. Curtiss

It’s no secret that much of the news reported in Israel’s Hebrew-language media never reaches the mainstream
American press, for the simple reason that items unfavorable to Israel generally are not translated. And, because very few Israelis break this self-imposed censorship, items from the Hebrew press that do appear may be much more newsworthy than their anemic English translations indicate.

It was a bit stunning, therefore, to read an article in Strategic Assessment, the quarterly bulletin issued by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. The report, titled “The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?” was written by Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the Israeli army reserves, and said what no one seems to.

Shockingly, it told the full truth about the American and British intelligence “sources” making the case for war.

In fact, according to Brom, these sources were utterly compromised by Israeli intelligence, which made the case for starting the war and kept it going as long as necessary. The retired general described Israel as a “full partner” in U.S.
and British intelligence failures that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in the lead up to the U.S.-led invasion.

Israeli intelligence sources and political leaders provided “an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities,” raising “the possibility that the intelligence had been manipulated,” wrote Brom, former deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army.

Brom said his remarks were directed at Israel’s military intelligence, air force intelligence and the Mossad intelligence
agency. Similar allegations have surfaced from U.S. and British sources following months of futile efforts to uncover evidence of Iraq’s prewar weapons programs.

In a Dec. 5 article, Washington Post correspondent Molly Moore quoted from the report: “In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel has remained in the shadows. . . . A critical question to be answered is whether governmental bodies falsely manipulated the intelligence information in order to gain support for their decision to go to war in Iraq, while the real reasons for this decision were
obfuscated or concealed.”

Articles by Laura King of The Los Angeles Times, Peter Enav of Salon.com.News, and the Associated Press also appeared on the report.

Brig. Gen. Brom’s criticism of the Israeli intelligence community—which many Americans believe to be one of, if not the world’s best—was unusual. Like many retired intelligence officers, Brom, who retired after a 25-year career, most likely continued to be privy to a great deal of sensitive government information.

According to Brom, Israeli intelligence “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed.”

Attributing the poor intelligence to a lack of professionalism and poor supervision, Brom wrote, “Even if Iraq had any Scud missiles left, I can’t understand how Israeli intelligence officers came to believe they threatened Israel, particularly
when they hadn’t been used in more than 10 years. It’s a clear example of how inability to think clearly is undermining the Israeli intelligence community.”

Brom also cited bitter memories of the 1973-74 Middle East war, “when Israeli intelligence failed to anticipate an attack by Egypt and Syria, and the country suffered thousands of casualties.”

As Brom observed in his report, “Israeli intelligence agencies have tended to overstate the threat the country faces ever since 1973.”

Wrote The Post’s Moore: “[T]he study did not cite specific exchanges of intelligence. Israeli officials frequently told foreign journalists before the war that Israel and the United States were sharing information, particularly regarding Iraqi missiles and non-conventional weapons that could possibly be used against Israel. The report accused intelligence agencies of being blinded by a one-dimensional perception of Saddam Hussein.”

Moore continued, “At the heart of this perception lay the colorful portrait of an embodiment of evil, a man possessed by a compulsion to develop weapons of mass destruction in order to strike Israel and others, regardless of additional considerations.

“’When Israeli intelligence became aware that certain items had been transferred by the head of the regime from Iraq to Syria,’” Moore quoted the report as saying, “‘Israeli
intelligence immediately portrayed it—including in leaks to the media—as if Iraq was moving banned weapons out of Iraq in order to conceal them.’”

Brom criticized Israeli intelligence for failing to include the more probable scenario that Saddam Hussein and his aides were moving cash or family members out of the country
in the face of an impending attack.

“The study noted,” Moore wrote, “that Israeli and U.S. governments have disagreed over the past decade on the weight of various threats in the Middle East.” The report
said Israel has generally claimed that Iran poses a more serious threat than Iraq, because the latter was contained and under control.”

Moore further quoted the Brom report as saying that: “Once the Bush administration decided to take action against Iraq, it was more difficult for Israel to maintain its
position that dealing with Iraq was not the highest priority, especially when it was obvious that the war would serve Israel’s interests.”

One thing is certain. Israel’s competing intelligence service soon will begin—if they haven’t already—to write scenarios explaining why it will be necessary to bomb Iranian
weapons technology, and a whole new virtual weapons industry will materialize.

Richard H. Curtiss is an executive editor with the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

BUSH PLANS BIO ATTACK ON AMERICA
GET READY FOR A PRE ELECTION ATTACK
by voxfux
11/17/03

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bush_plans.htm

Absolutely positively, in the months leading up to the next presidential election, a clandestine military/intelligence operations group linked to George Bush Sr. will execute a strategic pre-election terrorist attack in America designed to kill Americans and send this country into martial law. This strategic pre-election attack will be perpetrated by the same group of clandestine military/industrial/intelligence terrorists, linked to Bush Sr., who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. The preparatory memes are surfacing everywhere. Bush Sr. and the military/industrial/intelligence cartel he fronts for, knows that America has had enough of this retarded jerk son of his, he knows that America has had enough with the Bushes and their type, and their murderous war profiteering looting rampage, and so in order to survive, this cartel will execute a strategic pre-election attack on Americans and as usual, make it look like Islamists did it. Then of course their allies (scum) in the media will once again trumpet this idiot son of his as a hero who has once again "come into his own" as he bravely visits the contamination zone live on the CIA controlled disinformation network, CNN.

It is a near certainty that Bush Sr.'s private fanatical ultra right wing intelligence operations group has, since the mid 1970's, maintained stocks of biological and chemical agents from strains that this group would have originally acquired when Bush was Director of Central Intelligence. Bush was ousted as CIA Chief by Admiral Stansfield Turner acting on President Jimmy Carter's orders. He knew it was coming. Bush was canned along with 1000 fellow CIA agents. Lots of deadly strains of biological and chemical agents went missing from the sloppily guarded government labs during this period. CIA had a lot of the stuff laying around CIA labs - against Nixon's 1972 presidential order banning the CIA from maintaining such lethal stocks.

Considering the psychological profile of Bush (Sr.) and his loyal (desperate) operators and considering the historical background of Bush (Sr.) it is a near certainty he would have assured the acquisition and control of these terrorizing bio-agents to use at some unspecified future date in order to consolidate his quickly building criminal empire.

He would not have let the opportunity slip through his criminal fingers to acquire such killing power, because if you know anything about these elitist yuppie establishment sociopaths know that for them, they believe that their "power" ultimately comes from their ability to stealthily kill anyone who could seriously stand between their will to power and the truth. But this 1970's stock of deadly bio-agents may not be necessary, for now with total control of all phases of the military and intelligence command in complete concordance with the plan to take over America, it will be like taking candy from a baby. And with the scum at CNN and FOX broadcasting day and night how eager and willing EVERY AMERICAN is to give up their basic civil and human rights to the new military command there will be no sizable resistance. And with a population whose brains have been so completely numbed by years of television, "programming," many will, "believe," it's a great idea to cede their rights over to military rule, so long as they are guaranteed the illusion that their precious fat bodies will be spared the fate that will befall their neighbors - the other guy.


In the months leading up to the 2004 elections, the Bush crime group will privately witness actual polling data showing WIDE-SCALE DISSATISFACTION with Bush. The numbers will be dismal indeed. (And this is coming from polls that Bush themselves largely control.) As usual, the official published poll results, however, will be completely fraudulent, the complete opposite of reality, and the reported poll results will show wide-scale SUPPORT for Bush or at least a 50/50 split. But in the back rooms of the polling machinery and in any independent polls, the actual truth about how little support there really is in America for this human scum named George W. Bush will be impossible to hide (something like a 90% disapproval.)

So once again the CIA / Zionist controlled media will portray the horrendous 90% dissatisfaction of Bush as 49% dissatisfaction - with 51% percent of the nation still firmly behind the president, That's how it is done folks! It's the, "DIVIDED NATION," technique. But there is no division, there is only deception. There is only the illusion of division. AMERICANS ARE FINISHED WITH THIS PIECE OF SHIT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. But if you watch the news (especially CNN and Fox) you will see mythical reports about how EVENLY DIVIDED this country is. It's a fraud. That's how it's done, people. There is no support for Bush. The urban populations in America are constantly being fed this illusion that there is this HUGE base of support, somewhere in the middle of this country. But do you know something - there is not even enough people living in this mythical hillbilly belt to comprise these fraudulent numbers that we are tricked into believing exist. There simply are not enough so-called ignorant redneck hillbillies left in this so called "Heartland" to even comprise a small percentage of support - but certainly not this mythical 50% of the US population. No way - no how! And furthermore if you know anything about reality you will know that the people in the Heartland of America are getting *** by the policies of the Bush criminal cartel just as hard as the people in the urban population centers. Sure, one can find a few highly visible and vocal retarded idiots anywhere, who support this scum in the White House but they are in the minority. But you will not be informed of this fact. Thanks to an American media completely controlled by the CIA / Zionist partnership of disinformation.


So now, the grim reality is that as a rule: if you take the exact opposite of whatever the media is presenting to you regarding events of the day, that by drawing this diametric inverse scenario, you will arrive closer to the essential truth of the matter than if you were to take their story for face value. It is pretty much a safe game of opposites these days, especially in the area of right and wrong, or moral or value judgments. And certainly regarding poll data on Bush - It's a complete and total fraud.


For, all such critical components required to maintain a normally functioning decent society have come under attack by the corporatists. The pigs of the New World Order believe that only through the obliteration of the human mind and through spectacular displays of terror can they maintain their grip on power, their fingers around our necks - and they will do anything to keep their fingers dug tightly into our necks - We should eviscerate them. All of them.


The Bush cartel's biggest task right now is to broker enough back-room coercion or payoffs to their non-CIA controlled, allies in the media to keep their fraud alive - to suppress the truth about what is really happening - that they are indeed hated by nearly everyone and that they have fucked the whole world up. (Media megaliths such as CNN do not require such efforts because they are totally and completely under NWO/Zionist control.)


The New World Order cartel's number one effort is to make sure you never find out the truth. That is the most important operational task of the Bush criminal empire - to suppress the information about how UNPOPULAR Bush really is. This is what the pig Karl Rove is all about. This sleazy scumbag occupies considerable economic resources of this criminal industrial cartel in order to manufacture this illusion of support for Bush. But it is just an illusion.


But with a supine media eager to serve the power elite fronted by the Bush group - creating this illusion of popularity might not be such a difficult task. As long as the Bush group can fill the pockets of key executives in these media empires they will keep his illusions alive, and think nothing about the the loss of revenue that their own corporations are suffering. The New World Order is about the interests of the few over the well-being of the many. And buying corporate managers is as easy as buying world leaders only much cheaper. If the price is right - you can buy anyone, least of all some corporate schmuck. Corporate loyalty is non existent so you can easily buy the editorial or management executives in any corporation to see things your way - it is every man for himself - When the Bush team pays off key Senior Editors, these editors (scum) will be quite happy to trumpet Bushes lies even at the expense of the entire US economy which will eventually bring their own companies' economies' into the ground as well. But this doesn't matter because like I said, It's every man for himself. Bushes disinformation team headed by the porcine Karl Rove know exactly which key executives to pay off, and those key executives know the protocol. Come election time the press will be chock full stories glorifying and deifying this Bush filth. With the kind of economic juice that bush has just extracted from the US Treasury ($87 bill) to buttress his illegal and murderous regime (defense industry kickbacks and energy industry support) the Bush crime cartel can simply buy off nearly every Sr. Editor of nearly every Major news organization in America, and coerce and intimidate the rest. But if you know about the nature of this human scum in the media you will know that there will be little resistance. This human filth called journalists is cut largely from the same mold as these Bush types - Climbers, all. Each one thirsting to make it up to the next rung of the ladder. They have proven time and time again to be eager accomplices in the big lie.


Anyone who resists Bushes crusade on a national level - like Senator Paul Wellstone did - risks being, "accidented." Know this about these Bush reptiles - They are sociopathic little yuppie jerks who quite obviously don't have too much experience being human. They are so bloodthirsty because they are so immoral and just as dumb as can be and can't provide any real answers to real problems...


But it is likely that even with this total media clampdown firmly in place, they will still be unable to hide the HUGE dissatisfaction with Bush - And so there is only one option left for the Bush criminal cartel, one last sure fire methodology - TERRORISM.


A BIO TERROR ATTACK ON AN AMERICAN CITY - KILLING THOUSANDS


The plans are being finalized right now. The pre attack preparatory memes are surfacing as I write this. General Tommy Franks just let a little more cat out of the bag by saying that if the US suffers another devastating attack that the constitution of the United States of America would likely be scrapped in favor of MARTIAL LAW. So get ready folks because it looks like this is indeed the plan.


In the past I had written that it would be the dreaded "Dirty Bomb" scenario. However I believe now that it is going to be a biological attack. You see, since the whole fraudulent Iraq war quagmire has come up with ZERO biological weaponry, a staged biological attack would be the perfect pre-election linkage. Then they wheel Bush out in front of the CIA lie news organizations to swagger and gloat, "SEE EVERYBODY, I WAS ALWAYS WARNING YOU ABOUT SADDAM'S BIO WEAPONS AND LOOK, HE JUST DROPPED ONE ON NEW YORK CITY, WAIT A SECOND, WHAT'S THIS, THE CIA JUST REPORTED THAT THE ANTHRAX APPEARS TO BE FROM A STRAIN MADE IN IRAQ, GUESS I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG, RE-ELECT ME AND I WILL PROTECT YOU ALL - BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, I AM THE CANDIDATE BEST SUITED TO DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF." You get the picture.


It's called the "Link bomb" It links the impending bio attack with vindication of Bushes failed indistrio/pseudo-religious debacle. And we have witnessed that its not too difficult a task to pull off the most implausible of hoaxes on the American people. The critical capacity of many Americans is so completely obliterated that in the short term this will be a winning strategy. Literally all of the major media are in on the game. Literally across the board the pigs of the American establishment are in on the hoax. America will descend into total darkness and the American population, beaten and wasted by the mind toilet of lies that is American capitalism, will not rise up. And the wolves and pigs of the New World Order will continue to feed on the carcasses of the American population until there is nothing left. Or until some brave outside force takes action to stop this madness. Don't expect the American population to rise up - they will not. Their own television induced slovenliness and lethargy will guarantee Bush a free ride and the sheep rape that is coming. The "Patriot" act which is designed to quell any real acts of patriotism, will take care of the rest. All true patriots know what should happen to Bush and his type. George Washington spelled out, quite explicitly what should be the fate that awaits all tyrants. And the television will guarantee the suppression of any revolutionary possibilities. Unless EVERY SINGLE TELEVISION TRANSMITTER IS DESTROYED there will be no revolution. Like sheep the American population they will continue to watch TV and continue to take the **** - And they will get everything they deserve. I never did like sheep anyways, so good riddens to them.


So here's the prediction: Within three months of the next Presidential election (August-November 2004) the clandestine intelligence terrorist team, linked to former CIA Chief and President George W. Bush Sr. will absolutely positively stage a terror attack in America, killing hundreds, possibly thousands of Americans. I believe the most logical location for these attacks will once again be New York City. By making it appear that, once again, islamic terrorists have killed scores of Jews, Bush tightens his support from the major media (completely beholding to Zionist interests certainly over any discernible US interests) and also he can gloat about the "Vindication" of his "Saddam bio weapons" obsession. He kills two birds with one stone. And by choosing New York he also attacks a region firmly opposed to his policies.


So Hunker down people. The worst is yet to come. Until some brave individual or group or foreign country or coalition of foreign countries or group of rouge industrialists with intelligence connections, moves to stop the madness coming from this group of terrorists fronted By George W. Bush - the United States of America will be left in ruins - an empire collapsed.


Know your enemy
Fight the big lie
Receive all of your news from alternative Internet sources.


voxfux