Saturday, October 2, 2004
The Daily Battle Against Subjectivity 

Signs of The Times


Daily News and Commentary


The Signs Quick Guide

Note to New Readers



Message Board


SOTT Podcast logo
Signs of the Times Podcast
P3nt4gon Str!ke logo
P3nt4gon Str!ke by a QFS member

High Strangeness
Discover the Secret History of the World - and how to get out alive!


High Strangeness
The Truth about Hyperdimensional Beings and Alien Abductions


The Wave
New Expanded Wave Series Now in Print!


Support The Quantum Future Group and The Signs Team

How you can help keep Signs of The Times online...

The material presented in the linked articles does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors. Research on your own and if you can validate any of the articles, or if you discover deception and/or an obvious agenda, we will appreciate if you drop us a line! We often post such comments along with the article synopses for the benefit of other readers. As always, Caveat Lector!

(Bookmark whatsnew link! In case site is down, info will be there!)

Printer Friendly Version    Fixed link to latest Page

New! Article - The Blair Belief Project

New! P3nt4gon Str!ke Presentation by a QFS member

Picture of the Day

Nuages à St. Gely
©2004 Pierre-Paul Feyte

Where have all the Heroes Gone?

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate...Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Heroes and heroines are that rare caste of human being who, when faced with oppression or hardship, are unwilling to lie down and submit to the usually formidable forces pitted against them. Of course, heroes need not always be acting in a consciously altruistic way, but it is the spirit of resistance to tyranny and freedom of choice that moves them, or moves through them, that can shine as a light for all those with eyes to see it. One might have thought that the modern world, with all of its injustice and suffering, would provide ample breeding ground for a new breed of heroes and heroines of all types, yet we find that this is not the case.

Perhaps it is our modern, dumbed-down, unimaginative, mechanised civilisation, with its emphasis on career, money and personal gain, that has severely limited the possibilities for their emergence - or perhaps it is more true to say that the oppression has become so complete, so all encompassing, that even those of a heroic disposition are no match for it. Yet the twentieth century has, nevertheless, produced a few notable examples of those people who, finding themselves in a position of influence and with a choice to make, in their own way chose truth over lies, justice over injustice, and heroism over pusillanimity.

Readers will note that we have used the past tense in the preceding sentence, for, sadly in the modern world, heroism, particularly when it is on a grand and public scale, is not appreciated by those who thrive on a lifeless, apathetic population. As a result, the life expectancy of the average modern-day hero or heroine, who threaten to awaken the multitudes by their example, can be sharply curtailed. While we can be forgiven for seeing only the tragedy in such a scenario, and while we might lament the naivety of the heroes, their actions, and the process of containing their potentially "negative" effects - even when it involves the ultimate sacrifice - can sometimes expose the face of the anti-hero who, far too often, steals the show here on the BBM. For any readers of a heroic disposition, such knowledge is immeasurably valuable.

Let us take a look then at some of the modern-day heroes who, by their lives, have sought to inspire humanity to greater things, and by their deaths, inadvertently exposed the face of the anti-hero.

The Assassination Of John Lennon


The scene outside New York's spooky old Dakota apartment building on the evening of December 8, 1980, was as surreal as it was horrifying. John Lennon, probably the world's most famous rock star, lay semiconscious, hemorrhaging from four flat-tipped bullets blasted into his back. His wife Yoko Ono held his head in her arms and screamed.

A few yards away a pudgy young man stood eerily still, peering down into a paperback book. Moments earlier he had dropped into a military firing stance - legs spread for maximum balance, two hands gripping his .38 revolver to steady his aim - and blown away the very best Beatle. Now he leafed lazily through the pages of the one novel even the most chronically stoned and voided-out ninth grader will actually read, J. D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye.

The Dakota doorman shouted at the shooter, Mark David Chapman, "Do you know what you've done?"

"I just shot John Lennon," Chapman replied, accurately enough.

It was a tragedy of Kerkegaardian pointlessness. There was only one apparent way to squeeze any sense from it; write it off as random violence by a "wacko."

"He walked past me and then I heard in my head, 'Do it, do it, do it,' over and over again, saying 'Do it, do it, do it,' like that," Chapman, preternaturally serene, recalled in a BBC documentary several years after going to prison. "I don't remember aiming. I must have done, but I don't remember drawing a bead or whatever you call it. And I just pulled the trigger steady five times."

Chapman described his feeling at the time of the shooting as "no emotion, no anger dead silence in the brain."

His unnatural tone sounded all-too-familiar. British lawyer/journalist Fenton Bresler took it as a tip-off. Chapman was a brainwashed hit man carrying out someone else's contract.

"Mark David Chapman," writes Bresler, "is in many ways as much the victim of those who wanted to kill John Lennon as Lennon himself."

Prosecutors, as a loss for motive, opted for the cliché: Chapman did it for the attention- the troublesome American preoccupation with grabbing that elusive fifteen minutes of propels many a daily-newspaper-journalist-cum-pop-sociologist into raptures of sanctimony. But Arthur O'Connor, the detective who spent more time with Chapman immediately following the murder than anyone else, saw it another way.

"It is definitely illogical to say that Mark Committed the murder to make himself famous. He did not want to talk to the press from the very start. It's possible Mark could have been used by somebody. I saw him the night of the murder. I studied him intensely. He looked as if he could have been programmed."

O'Connor was speaking to Bresler, and publicly for the first time. Bresler's book Who Killed John Lennon? Offers the most cogent argument that Lennon's murder was not the work of yet another "lone nut."

Conspiracy theories abounded after the Lennon assassination, many rather cruelly fingering Yoko as the mastermind. Another focused on Paul who, by this line of reasoning, blamed Yoko for engineering his arrest in Japan on reefer charges. The Lennon conspiracy turns up on radio talk shows with some frequency, where hosts fend off callers with the "Why bother to kill that guy?" defense.

Only Bresler's thesis, that Chapman was a mind-controlled assassin manipulated by some right-wing element possibly connected to the newly elected (and not even inaugurated) Reagan apparatus of reaction, transcends the confines of pure speculation, extending into the realm of actual investigation.

Even so, Bresler's book a little too often substitutes rhetorical questions ("What does that steady repetition of a voice saying 'Do it, do it, do it,' over and over again in Mark's head sound like to you?") for evidentiary argument. We can forgive him for that failing. Bresler tracked the case for eight years, conducted unprecedented interviews, and extracted a ream of previously unreleased government documents. But unlike researchers into the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, he did not have volumes of evidence gathered by any official investigation, even a flawed one, to fall back on. The New York police had their man, the case was closed the very night of the murder - and, anyway, what political reason could possibly exist for gunning down the composer of "I Am the Walrus"?

In building his case, Bresler established some key points that put the lie to any "Who would want to kill an aging rock star?" brush-off.

Richard Nixon, his administration and other right-wing politicians (including ultraconservative ancient Senator Strom Thurmond, who personally memoed Attorney Gerneral John Mitcell on the matter) were fixated on what they saw as the Lennon problem. To them, the politically outspoken singer-songwriter was an insidious subversive of the worst kind, the famous and beloved kind.

J. Edgar Hoover shared their concerns. One page of Lennon's FBI file bears the handwritten, block-lettered, under lined words, ALL EXTREMISTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS. The government went all-out to deny Lennon his longed-for permanent U.S. residency, and more than that, to deport him altogether (that was the subject of Thurmond's memo).

Lennon's FBI file - at nearly three hundred pages as chubby as Hoover himself - reveals that he was under "constant surveillance." Nor did the G-men keep a particularly low profile around the ex-Beatle, apparently attempting to harass him into silence or at least drive him nuts, similar to the tactic they had used on Martin Luther King, Jr., a few short but eventful years earlier.

In late 1972, when the "surveillance" was at its peak, Lennon told humorist Paul Krassner, "Listen, if anything happens to Yoko and me, it was not an accident."

The FBI and the CIA tracked Lennon at least from his "Free John Sinclair" concert in 1969 until 1976 - even though by then Lennon had won his immigration battle and dropped out of not only political activism but public life altogether into what turned out to be a five-year period of seclusion. His apartment was watched, he was followed, his phone was tapped.

Placing a person under "constant surveillance" and ordering that person executed are admittedly two different things. Nevertheless, Bresler's point is that the government did not consider John Lennon a harmless rock 'n' roller whose awkward entrance into the world of political activism often carried a high cringe factor (as in his Montreal "bed-in").

He was viewed as a dangerous radical who needed to be stopped.

And in a way that official paranoia might have been justified, because as embarrassing as Lennon and Ono's political publicity stunts occasionally became, John Lennon was always capable of seizing the spotlight and speaking directly to millions of young people who venerated him.

With unfettered access to the media, his power was immense, at least potentially so, and recognized by more experienced radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, who linked themselves to Lennon, clinging to close that they made the rock star uncomfortable.

Lennon was killed just four years after the intense FBI/CIA surveillance ceased. In those intermittent years, Jimmy Carter was president - a Democrat who kept the two gestapo-ish agencies more or less in check.

But in December 1980, when John Lennon's first album in half a decade was high on the charts, Carter was a lame duck chief executive, having lost his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan. Reagan's campaign was managed by career secret agent William Casey, who under President Reagan became the CIA's most freewheeling chief since Allen Dulles. The new far-right administration would reassemble the intelligence services and grant them a cheerful carte blanche.

The forces that tried desperately to neutralize Lennon for at least seven years lost power in 1976. Lennon's government dossier ends in that year. In 1980, as those forces were preparing to retake control of the government, "dangerous extremist" John Lennon emerged from retirement. Within a few months he was murdered.

A final note to the mystery of Mark David Chapman: As he was ready to go to trial and his diligent public defender was winding up six months spent assembling Chapman's defense, the accused killer suddenly decided to change his plea to guilty. His lawyer was perplexed and more than a little perturbed. But Chapman was determined. He said he was acting on instructions from a "small male voice" that spoke to him in his cell.

Chapman interpreted it as the voice of God.

Comment: If he had lived, we can only imagine what John Lennon would have done to face down Bush and his cronies, and it is precisely because of his potential to provide the world's population with another option that he was murdered.

All of the evidence points to the CIA (or some faction within that organisation) as being behind the murder of John Lennon. Why was he killed? Most likely because of his potential future influence in the global plans of US "power brokers", plans that are unfolding right now.

Interestingly there is one high profile US politician who figures prominently in not only Lennon's assassination, but also the assassination of JFK and Martin Luther King - George Herbert Walker Bush - the father of the current US president.

Click here to comment on this article

George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography

by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin


[...] According to George Bush's official biography, he was during 1963 a well-to-do businessman residing in Houston, the busy president of Zapata Offshore and the chairman of the Harris County Republican Organization, supporting Barry Goldwater as the GOP's likely 1964 presidential candidate, while at the same time actively preparing his own 1964 bid for the US Senate. But during that same period of time, Bush may have shared some common acquaintances with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Between October, 1962 and April, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian wife Marina were in frequent contact with a Russian emigré couple living in Dallas: these were George de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne.

During the Warren Commission investigation of the Kennedy assassination, de Mohrenschildt was interviewed at length about his contacts with Oswald.

When, in the spring of 1977, the discrediting of the Warren Commission report as a blatant coverup had made public pressure for a new investigation of the Kennedy assassination irresistible, the House Assassinations Committee planned to interview de Mohrenschildt once again. But in March, 1977, just before de Mohrenschildt was scheduled to be interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi of the House committee's staff, he was found dead in Palm Beach, Florida.

His death was quickly ruled a suicide. One of the last people to see him alive was Edward Jay Epstein, who was also interviewing de Mohrenschildt about the Kennedy assassination for an upcoming book. Epstein is one of the writers on the Kennedy assassination who enjoyed excellent relations with the late James Angleton of the CIA. If de Mohrenschildt were alive today, he might be able to enlighten us about his relations with George Bush, and perhaps afford us some insight into Bush's activities during this epoch.

Jeanne de Mohrenschildt rejected the finding of suicide in her husband's death. "He was eliminated before he got to that committee," the widow told a journalist in 1978, "because someone did not want him to get to it." She also maintained that George de Mohrenschildt had been surreptitiously injected with mind-altering drugs.

After de Mohrenschildt's death, his personal address book was located, and it contained this entry: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." There is of course the problem of dating this reference. George Bush had moved his office and home from Midland to Houston in 1959, when Zapata Offshore was constituted, so perhaps this reference goes back to some time before 1959. There is also the number: "4-6355." There are, of course, numerous other entries, including one W.F. Buckley of the Buckley brothers of New York City, William S. Paley of CBS, plus many oil men, stock brokers, and the like. [...]

It is established that between October, 1962 and late April, 1963, de Mohrenschildt was a very important figure in the life of Oswald and his Russian wife. Despite Oswald's lack of social graces, de Mohrenschildt introduced him into Dallas society, took him to parties, assisted him in finding employment, and much more.

It was through de Mohrenschildt that Oswald met a certain Volkmar Schmidt, a young German geologist who had studied with Professor Wilhelm Kuetemeyer, an expert in psychosomatic medicine and religious philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, who compiled a detailed psychological profile of Oswald.

Jeanne and George helped Marina move her belongings during one of her many estrangements from Oswald. According to some accounts, de Mohrenschildt's influence on Oswald was so great during this period that he could virtually dictate important decisions to the young ex-marine simply by making suggestions. Oswald was in awe of de Mohrenschildt, according to some. [...]

According to Mark Lane, "there is evidence that de Mohrenschildt served as a CIA control officer who directed Oswald's actions."

Much of the extensive published literature on de Mohrenschildt converges on the idea that he was a baby sitter, handler, case officer, or control agent for Oswald on behalf of some intelligence agency.

De Mohrenschildt's pedigree evokes haunting parallels to the typical figures of the PERMINDEX networks of Georges Mandel, Ferenc Nagy, Max Hagerman, Max Seligman, Carlo d'Amelio, Lewis Mortimer Bloomfield, and Clay Shaw, to which public attention was called during the investigations of New Orleans district attorney James Garrison.

It is therefore highly interesting that George Bush's name turned up in the personal address book of George de Mohrenschildt.

The Warren Commission went to absurd lengths to cover up the fact that George de Mohrenschildt was a denizen of the world of the intelligence agencies. This included ignoring the well-developed paper trial on de Mohrenschildt as Nazi and communist sympathizer, and later as a US asset abroad. The Warren Commission concluded:

The Commission's investigation has developed no signs of subversive or disloyal conduct on the part of either of the de Mohrenschildts. Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witnesses contacted by the Commission has provided any information linking the de Mohrenschildts to subversive or extremist organizations. Nor has there been any evidence linking them in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy.

On the day of the Kennedy assassination, FBI records show George Bush as reporting a right-wing member of the Houston Young Republicans for making threatening comments about President Kennedy. According to FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act,

On November 22, 1963 Mr. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, 5525 Briar, Houston, Texas, telephonically advised that he wanted to relate some hearsay that he had heard in recent weeks, date and source unknown. He advised that one JAMES PARROTT had been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in politics in the Houston area.

According to related FBI documentation, "a check with Secret Service at Houston, Texas revealed that agency had a report that PARROTT stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him."

Here Bush is described as "a reputable businessman." FBI agents were sent to interrogate Parrott's mother, and later James Milton Parrott himself.

Parrott had been discharged from the US Air Force for psychiatric reasons in 1959. Parrott had an alibi for the time of the Dallas shootings; he had been in the company of another Republican activist. According to press accounts, Parrott was a member of the right-wing faction of the Houston GOP which was oriented towards the John Birch Society and which opposed Bush's chairmanship.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, Bush's press office in August, 1988 first said that Bush had not made any such call, and challenged the authenticity of the FBI documents. Several days later Bush's spokesman said that the candidate "does not recall" placing the call.

One day later after he reported Parrott to the FBI, Bush received a highly sensitive, high-level briefing from the Bureau:

Date: November 29, 1963
To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963 advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in US policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the US but to all Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that those individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

William T. Forsyth, since deceased, was an official of the FBI's Washington headquarters; during the time he was attached to the Bureau's subversive control section, he ran the investigation of Rev. Martin Luther King. Was he also a part of the FBI's harassment of Dr. King? The efforts of journalists to locate Captain Edwards have not been successful.

This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA."

When pressed for confirmation or denial, Bush's spokesman Stephen Hart commented: "Must be another George Bush."

Within a short time the CIA itself would peddle the same damage control line. On July 19, 1988 in the wake of wide public attention to the report published in The Nation, CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso departed from the normal CIA policy of refusing to confirm or deny reports that any person is or was a CIA employee. CIA spokeswoman Basso told the Associated press that the CIA believed that "the record should be clarified." She said that the FBI document "apparently" referred to a George William Bush who had worked in 1963 on the night shift at CIA headquarters, and that "would have been the appropriate place to have received such an FBI report." According to her account, the George William Bush in question had left the CIA to join the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1964.

For the CIA to volunteer the name of one of its former employees to the press was a shocking violation of traditional methods, which are supposedly designed to keep such names a closely guarded secret. This revelation may have constituted a violation of federal law. But no exertions were too great when it came to damage control for George Bush.

George William Bush had indeed worked for the CIA, the DIA, and the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Public Welfare before joining the Social Security Administration, in whose Arlington, Virginia office he was employed as a claims representative in 1988. George William Bush told The Nation that while at the CIA he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" who worked with documents and photos and never received interagency briefings. He had never met Forsyth of the FBI or Captain Edwards of the DIA. "So it wasn't me," said George William Bush.

Later, George William Bush formalized his denial in a sworn statement to a federal court in Washington, DC. The affidavit acknowledges that while working at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February 1964, George William Bush was the junior person on a three to four man watch shift which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. But, as George William Bush goes on to say,

I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA. I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI.

Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum.

So we are left with the strong suspicion that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" referred to by the FBI is our own George Herbert Walker Bush, who, in addition to his possible contact with Lee Harvey Oswald's controller, may thus also join the ranks of the Kennedy assassination cover-up.

It makes perfect sense for George Bush to be called in on a matter involving the Cuban community in Miami, since that is a place where George has traditionally had a constituency. George inherited it from his father, Prescott Bush of Jupiter Island, and later passed it on to his own son, Jeb.

It will be seen that at the beginning of Bush's tenure at the CIA, the Congressional committees were on the offensive against the intelligence agencies. By the time that Bush departed Langley, the tables were turned, and it was the Congress which was the focus of scandals, including Koreagate. Soon thereafter, the Congress would undergo the assault of Abscam.

Preparation for what was to become the Halloween massacre began in the Ford White House during the summer of 1975. The Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan preserves a memo from Donald Rumsfeld to Ford dated July 10, 1975, which deals with an array of possible choices for CIA Director. Rumsfeld had polled a number of White House and administration officials and asked them to express preferences among "outsiders to the CIA."

Among the officials polled by Cheney was Henry Kissinger, who suggested C. Douglas Dillon, Howard Baker, Galvin, and Robert Roosa. Dick Cheney of the White House staff proposed Robert Bork, followed by Bush and Lee Iacocca. Nelson Rockefeller was also for C. Douglas Dillon, followed by Howard Baker, Conner, and James R. Schlesinger. Rumsfeld himself listed Bork, Dillon, Iacoca, Stanley Resor, and Walter Wriston, but not Bush. The only officials putting Bush on their "possible" lists other than Cheney were Jack O. Marsh, a White House counselor to Ford, and David Packard. When it came time for Rumsfeld to sum up the aggregate number of times each person was mentioned, minus one point for each time a person had been recommended against, the list was as follows:

Robert Bork [rejected in 1987 for the Supreme Court] White McGee Foster [John S. Foster of PFIAB, formerly of the Department of Defense] Dillon Resor Roosa Hauge

It will be seen that Bush was not among the leading candidates, perhaps because his networks were convinced that he was going to make another attempt for the vice-presidency and that therefore the Commerce Department or some similar post would be more suitable. The summary profile of Bush sent to Ford by Rumsfeld found that Bush had "experience in government and diplomacy" and was "generally familiar with components of the intelligence community and their missions" while having management experience." Under "Cons" Rumsfeld noted: "RNC post lends undesirable political cast."

As we have seen, the CIA post was finally offered by Ford to Edward Bennett Williams, perhaps with an eye on building a bipartisan bridge towards a powerful faction of the intelligence community. But Williams did not want the job. Bush, originally slated for the Department of Commerce, was given the CIA appointment.

Comment: Notice any familiar names? Cheney and Rumsfeld? Part of the decision-making team for installing Bush at the CIA...

It seems that George Herbert Walker Bush was a CIA operative in 1963 at the time of the assassination of a sitting president of the United States. Not only that, but he was friends with the handler of the "patsy" assassin. There was a paper trail leading to his name as popping up ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION - reporting a "plot to assassinate the president. Bush said that he had heard of this plot "in recent weeks." It's clear from the evidence that the CIA not only knew about, but was complicit in the assassination of JFK, which suggests that G.H.W. Bush also knew. He was not merely part of the cover-up, he was part of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. His call, just like the attack on the Pentagon on 9-11, was a "signature." We think we would call that hubris.

Note also that Bush was appointed head of the CIA by Ford, the guy who altered the Warren Report. And what did Bush Sr. do while he was Director? From "The Taking Of America, 1-2-3" by Richard E. Sprague:

"On April 27, 1976 "The New York Times" published a story on the Senate Intelligence Committee revelation that the CIA would be keeping twenty-five journalist agents within the news media.

The Committee disclosed that George Bush planned to keep these people in the media positions that they had occupied for a long time.

The significant point about the story was a statement by a Committee staff member that many of the individuals were in executive positions at American news organizations. Bush had directed that the CIA stop hiring correspondents "accredited" by American publications and other news organizations. The "Times" recognized that the pivotal word in Bush's directive was "accredited." "Executives who do not work as correspondents are apparently not covered by Mr. Bush's directive, nor are freelance writers who are not affiliated with a specific employer." The article also said that in most cases the media organization was not aware of the individual's CIA connection.

This was yet the best confirmation that the CIA had its Secret Team members planted at the top of the media. Only one executive is required at the top of a media organization to control it when needed. Since the CIA had twenty-five executives planted, that figure is more than enough to control the fifteen media organizations mentioned in this chapter."

Control the minds and you control the people. Control the media and you can control the minds.

Indeed, it seems that the current US president will have a difficult time following in his father's footsteps. Bush senior had an insatiable appetite for control and was prepared to do whatever it took to ensure that his personal vision became a reality. Whether it was pesky British singers, civil rights activists, or Presidents, no one was beyond his grasp.

Click here to comment on this article

Hinckley, Bush, Reagan Assassination, World Vision And The Assassin

Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into in Presidency on January 20, 1981. On his sixty-ninth day in office, March 30, 1981, Reagan was nearly killed by an assassin. The person named as the assassin was John Hinkley. His family ties were to oil. Through that oil connection, Neil Bush - Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush's son, who worked in oil [later to steal hundreds of millions through Silverdo in the Saving and Loan crisis] -- knew Scott Hinkley, (brother of John) who also worked in oil.

"Scott Hinckley, the brother of John Hinckley Jr., who is charged with shooting President Reagan and three others, was to have been a dinner guest Tuesday night [March 31, 1991] at the home of Neil Bush, son of Vice President George Bush, The Houston Post has learned."

The two families lived close to each other. They knew each other socially and financially. When the Hinkley oil company started to fail in the sixties, Bush's Zapata Oil financially bailed out Hinkley's company. It went from being Vanderbilt Oil to Vanderbilt Energy or Vanderbilt Resources in the 60s after Bush intervened. The Hinkley's had been running an operation with six dead wells but then they were making several million dollars a year after the Bush bailout. Was this some sort of a money-pass front where they were laundering money through on this phony oil operation but actually operating some type of an intelligence pay-off?

The father in that family, John W. Hinkley Sr., was also the president of the board for World Vision. World Vision is a far-right evangelical missionary operation that does missionary and "good work" operations in countries where there is a political purpose for it to be there. From its inception, it was rabidly anti-Communist and it focused on refugee populations of people running from countries that had been taken over by Communism. This was from the fifties on.

World Vision had a hand in the movement of the Cubans into the United States and other refugees of revolutionary regimes. When you're a refugee you're cut loose, basically, and pretty much fair game to be manipulated by whoever is willing to give you a hand because you don't have a home or any place to stay and somebody has got to accept you.

World Vision was able to recruit out of these mercenary populations, people who could be politically turned to their intelligence purposes. World Vision served as a penetration force -- not as visible as the military actually going in or the CIA going in - but going in as missionaries and working among the people.

This link between missionary and intelligence for capitalistic infiltration operations goes way back. It was part of the internationalism with the Rockefellers. It's talked about in the book, Thy Will Be Done, about Rockefeller, Venezuela, and Latin American Oil, the Summer Linguistic Institute, World Vision and others. But they operated in this way for a long time.

They were paid by the CIA for a long time during the Vietnam War and went into South East Asia -- Cambodia and Laos. Throughout Vietnam they were given U.S. military equipment to use. They still maintain a budget under USAID, (Agency for International Development), which was just a pass-over in order to give the CIA more cover. They ran operations through USAID. The current cover replacing that is the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), which is supposed to be how we're exporting democracy around the world.

But of course, we're exporting exactly the kind of corrupt democracy we have here, which is rigged and manipulated elections and press manipulation in order to keep in power or put in power the people that we want to be in those countries for the purpose of having our investments protected and milking what we can out of the resources and the labor available in any of those countries.

World Vision was part of that scheme and they did some nasty things. They ran the refugee camp in Sabra-Shatilla where the fascist Phalange was allowed in to kill the Palestinians. They ran the Cuban and Thai refugee camps in the United States. The assassin -- who eventually shot John Lennon -- worked at the Thai refugee camps out in Arkansas that World Vision operated there. They ran these camps brutally, forcing people into political education against Castro, refusing to feed people, beating people -- by many reports -- and bringing in Alpha 66 and Omega 7 people (the worst of the killing teams -- or murder squads -- of the anti-Castro Cubans in the United States) to run the camps in Florida, Fort Chafey in Arkansas and other places where the Cuban exiles were. These people came in and there were eventually riots in the Cuban refugee camps against their treatment there. And the eventual assassin of John Lennon just happened to work there.

Who Authorized The Assassination Of John Lennon?

It took me almost 22 years to figure out who most likely authorized the assassination of John Lennon, the greatest singer songwriter and the most influential political artist of our time. I believe it could have been the CIA that manipulated the assassin of John Winston Lennon, but more likely, I believe a new army of old school CIA, which was let go under President Carter, manipulated the assassin. I believe the assassin was a mind-control experiment, like all their old tricks of MKULTRA, only much more sophisticated. I believe their old boss authorized it. The person the CIA building in Washington D.C. is named after. I believe he was the same person who tried to assassinate President Ronald Wilson Reagan on his sixty-ninth day in office -- March 30, 1981. He is the person with the most to gain from both of these assassinations. So, who authorized the assassination of John Lennon? I believe it was the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush.

Click here to comment on this article

"M.L. King Murder A Government Plot," Says Former CIA Participant. "I was part of it."

by Pat Shannan

New evidence has surfaced in the 1968 Martin Luther King murder case. It is supplied by an "insider" who claims to have been part of a "hit team" that had come out of the "Missouri Mafia" headquartered in the town of Caruthersville, a small town in the bootheel section of that state. In a yet-to-be-published book, former County Deputy Jim Green reveals his assigned role in the conspiracy, the name of the actual trigger man, and the long-suspected involvement of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Green also believes that he possesses the actual murder weapon, which he personally secreted away only hours after the murder.

"Jim Green is telling the truth," says Lyndon Barsten, an astute researcher of the case over the past decade. "I have no doubt whatsoever. The pieces he has supplied fit perfectly and could not have come from someone who was not there." Indeed they do fit, and it is all backed up by FBI documentation derived by Barsten through numerous FOIA requests.

On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King was gunned down on the second floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee by a single shot from a high powered rifle. Several witnesses said the shot came from the bushes on a slope from across the street. The FBI concluded that it came from the rear bathroom window of a cheap hotel, also across the street and higher up the hill.

Two weeks later the name of James Earl Ray, a fugitive escapee from the Missouri State Penitentiary, was announced to the world as the man who had killed King, escaped to Canada, and was currently in hiding somewhere across the border. After Ray was identified as the killer and long before he was captured, the FBI spent little or no time pursuing any other leads. Two months later the fugitive was caught changing planes at Heathrow Airport in London, after having left Canada and spending ten days with persons unknown in Portugal. He was attempting to board a plane to Brussels.

On March 10, 1969, James Earl Ray, with his attorney Percy Foreman, pled guilty to the murder before the court of Judge Preston Battle. He was sentenced to 99 years in prison. He recanted almost immediately and filed a motion for a trial only three days later. But before the month was out, Judge Battle was found dead in his chambers, slumped over his desk. Beneath his head were the papers of the handwritten motion from James Earl Ray. The case was closed, and Ray began his sentence in the Tennessee State Penitentiary. [...]

New Pieces To The Puzzle

Over the years Jim Green's Federal Intelligence connections have become legendary in his hometown of Caruthersville, Missouri. "He's untouchable," or "He can't be arrested, the feds just walk him out of jail, everybody knows that." But now one must assume that the Untouchable is fast becoming anathema to his former handlers. Jim has had an attack of conscience and is talking!

"I hope to change a lie in history to the truth about that day in Memphis," says Green, 54, a reformed "bad boy" who spent the first half of his life as a teenage runaway, moonshine runner, and car thief. The last half was spent in law enforcement, raising children, teaching school, and coaching football - along with occasional undercover work. His only source of income today is a social security disability check. Since coming forward with his story, he has refused all offers of any work involving government covert action, for fear of being "set up" and/or killed.

On December 3, 1998, he spent six hours with MLK's son Dexter King, Rev. James Lawson, and William Pepper (Ray's attorney and author of Orders to Kill, a semi-accurate compilation of facts and conjecture describing the government's involvement in the King assassination).

"At this meeting, I cleared my soul telling Dexter of my involvement on the day of his father's death," says Green. "I knew there would be many more questions to come, and that's when I decided to put my story in writing." [...]


March 24, 1998: CBS News' 48 HOURS broadcasts "Orders To Kill," a scathing attack on Dr. William F. Pepper, for eighteen years the attorney of James Earl Ray. In 1995, Pepper had released his book by that name, and it is his assertion that his client, James Earl Ray, was a patsy, manipulated to cover-up the real events surrounding Dr. King's death. A hit team, Pepper claims, murdered Dr. King at the request of the Intelligence Agencies of the Federal government. [...]

Comment: These are just a few of the heroes of recent times that dared to confront the established powers - there have been many others. Senator Wellstone for example, a man with a conscience who died mysteriously 2 years ago:

Senator Wellstone was seen as a leader in a movement that would have the U.S. take a more equitable approach in Middle East policy. There is a growing cabal of Zionist controlled political officials that has taken over our government. Putting pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians their own state is the last thing these dangerous individuals want. Senator Wellstone was seen as a threat,a voice of reason. This must be investigated. Ask Rudy Boshwitz or better yet, ask the Bush family.

Shortly after the news was announced, speculation broke out on Indymedia that his death was no accident. On a post to the Twin Cities site, the question is asked , "If Bush had died in a plane crash, would there not be immediate open speculation about the possibility of assassination? Wellstone held the balance in the Senate for the Democrats; he was as opposed to Bush policies as any Senator could be, in issues of war, health policy, and labor issues. His death has great political and social significance."

So far, corporate media has not raised the possibility of assassination and is pointing to bad weather conditions as the cause of the crash. There is much doubt about this story, though. - "Paranoid Observer" notes that a key detail in an ABC news story was changed: A quote: "The pilot had reported no problems before and there was no severe weather in the area at the time, the Federal Aviation Administration said." Now the same story says this: "The cause of the crash was not immediately known, but sources (which sources? - P.O.) told ABCNEWS that during the pre-flight weather briefing, the pilots were told they they would have "adverse icing conditions throughout the flight."

Sherlock Holmes solved at least one case by noticing that something that should be present was missing. In the Hound of the Baskervilles, he solved the case by noticing that no one reported a barking dog.

So what's missing in terms of the Wellstone plane crash? For the last 14 months, anytime there has been a plane crash, the media go way overboard in assuming that this must somehow be a terrorist incident. The initial reaction of the media in the first hours of the event is always now "oh my, I hope this isn't happening again. I hope this isn't another terrorist attack."

Just a few days ago, there was a news story that Al-Queda may be targeting US Senators. The story referred to the possibilities of sniper attacks on golf courses. Just a few days later, a US Senator dies. So, what's missing?

Sen. Wellstone's plane crashes, and there is absolutely no speculation that this is a terrorist attack. Somehow the media immediately knows that this plane crash was caused by bad weather, and this is in no way a terrorist attack.

Today there seems to be more scope for public figures to speak out and criticise the government and continue to breath, but we fear that, far from signaling a relaxing of controls and censorship, this merely suggests that, by now, it is too little too late and poses no real threat. If we take the example of the Dixie Chicks, we notice that no covert government action was needed to deal with them when they dared to speak out against the Iraq war - the government owned media (thanks to Bush Sr) took care of it, banning the Dixie Chicks songs - "Land of the free" indeed.

We notice also that, despite the fact that he paid the ultimate price for refusing to tow the line, John Lennon's song "Imagine" is apparently still seen as a danger, to the extent that it was put on a "do not play" list for all Clear Channel owned radio stations after the Iraq Invasion.

What are we to do? Are there really no heroes out there to act as cultural spokespersons for a generation being hornswoggled and hoodwinked by Bush and Co? Well, it seems there are one or two, but we are a little doubtful of their message...

Click here to comment on this article

Springsteen Kicks Off 'Vote for Change'

Oct 2 2004

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Twenty years after releasing "Born in the U.S.A.," Bruce Springsteen returned to the anti-war anthem as he and other artists kicked off a multistate tour aimed at helping oust President Bush.

Springsteen and R.E.M., both vocal critics of Bush and the war in Iraq, are the headliners for the "Vote for Change" tour, a 10-day series of shows in battleground states. Friday night's performance at the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia was one of six across Pennsylvania.

Springsteen and R.E.M. frontman Michael Stipe introduced the first band, Bright Eyes, and reminded the crowd of the importance of voting Nov. 2.

"This is a very important moment for every one of us and for our country," Stipe said.

Springsteen opened his set with a solo version of "The Star Spangled Banner," followed by "Born in the U.S.A."

"I hope everybody saw the debate (Thursday) night," Springsteen said at one point, adding that he thought Democratic candidate John Kerry did well. "We're on a roll now."

During R.E.M.'s hourlong set, Stipe occasionally offered political comments. Introducing a song called "Final Straw" that was released the week the United States declared war on Iraq, he said: "Did anyone watch the debates last night?" Thousands in the packed stadium cheered loudly, many raising their hands.

On the other end of the state, the Dixie Chicks and James Taylor performed in Pittsburgh. Other concerts were held in Erie, State College, Reading and Wilkes-Barre.

"I think our guy did really pretty good last night," Taylor said of Kerry's debate performance. He advised undecided voters to "take a real close look at both of the candidates and then vote for the smart one."

Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines, once criticized for saying she was ashamed to share her home state of Texas with Bush, noted that a few people booed Taylor's assessment of Kerry's debate performance.

"We don't feel at home unless we hear some boos, so you're welcome," she said.

The tour, also featuring Pearl Jam, Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, John Mellencamp and others, includes 37 shows in 30 cities through Oct. 11. Proceeds will go to America Coming Together, or ACT, a group raising money for Democratic candidates. Organizers said 90 percent of the shows, including the one in Philadelphia, were sold out as of Friday.

The tour will also make stops in Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Washington, Arizona and Washington, D.C.

Pearl Jam guitarist Stone Gossard said he wants to convince voters that the Bush administration has been reckless in its foreign policy since Sept. 11.

"For me, personally, I very much want John Kerry to win," Gossard said in an interview. "I think that he's expressed an interest in re-engaging the world community and saying the last administration is not representative of the way America wants to do business with the world."

Comment: The problem here is that, in all probability, Kerry will be no better than Bush. There really is no choice in the upcoming US elections. Maybe if John Lennon was alive, he'd have advocated a write-in vote for someone altogether different, or perhaps for no one at all. It seems that the age of the hero who stands up and speaks out for humanity has long since passed, not so much because there are none willing to take on that mantle, but because the control system is so pervasive, they would not last 5 minutes.

In any case, the battle has always been for our minds. As such, the only option is for each of us to play the part of the hero ourselves, to search for and fearlessly face the truth of our world and our present predicament and with all our being reject at every turn the lies and manipulations that are being foisted upon us.

Click here to comment on this article

DISASTER FOR BUSH: America Clearly Sees At Last That The Emperor Is Naked
by Betsy R. Vasquez
OCTOBER 1, 2004

How bad was it for Bush?

So bad that FOX News' website didn't even run any poll. So bad that all Matt Drudge could try and boast about on his website was that some Democrat called it a draw. So bad that even Bush's people could only try to say, Yeah, he lost, but so what.

Other media outlets have been telling you this election would be close and that the debates might be even as well.

We hate to say it (not that much) but we told them so.

Bush got shellacked so badly it was astounding. He was like a wounded animal desperate for a place to hide but not able to find one.

For the past week the right-wing had been joking about how Kerry was a sweater, would sweat during the debates. But it was Bush who the camera saw wiping sweat from his brow. And drinking heavily from his water glass repeatedly. And fumbling through his papers, desperate to find something else to say besides the one or two talking point phrases he could manage to remember.

There was no escaping or hiding the fact that Bush was not even remotely deserving of being on that stage. He was rambling, incoherent. His answers wandered not only off topic but out of comprehensibility. In short, all of the things the President's handlers have been adeptly hiding from the public - that the emperor truly is butt naked - got stuck right out there in the bright light.

And now America knows.

Even the Gallup poll, which took its usual heavily Republican biased sample, said Kerry blew Bush away.

These were supposed to, according to the non-Moderate Independent media, be Bush's strong points: foreign policy and style. He got clobbered on both.

He gave answers that were flat out dishonest, huge gaffes that will certainly be brought back to haunt him.

"The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice," said President Bush, bragging about his national security record. (see: Washington Post transcript)

Excuse me? How about reality: US Supports A Q Khan Pardon

As this story reports, "The United States has supported Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's decision to pardon scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed to leaking nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea."

This man, who gave nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran, and North Korea, Bush let him get pardoned - and then stood before America last night and said he, "has been brought to justice."

Bush even said at one point, "I didn't need anyone to tell me to go to the UN."

President Bush's fantasy world has crumbled right before the American public. Last election he came across as one of the average people. This time he showed himself to be one of the "special" children who ride the little yellow bus.

And President Bush had a Freudian moment from hell, when he was trying to counter Kerry's charge that Bush confused Saddam with Osama and incorrectly attacked Iraq for 9/11 instead of just going after Osama.

Bush replied, "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden."

President Bush didn't even come prepared with any zingers, the usual Republican- fed crack lines.

No, on this night it was Senator Kerry who was calm, forceful, relaxed, in complete control - and personable and funny.

Kerry brought down the house when he talked about Tora Bora, saying the President even "outsourced" the job of going after Bin Laden when we had him cornered..

"Just yesterday," said Kerry, "General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crowe; General Tony McPeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father -- all believe I would make a stronger commander in chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.

"Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong."

What happened last night was exactly what we said would happen way back in May in articles like these (see: Look, We Told You Months Ago Kerry Would Win By A Landslide and John Kerry, Leader Or Loser?) The Bush people had been making the horrible mistake of running against John Kerry as if he were Al Gore or Mike Dukakis, whiny sort of weak liberal types who let themselves be bullied. We warned that Kerry wasn't one to let himself get bullied, and that he had strength, charisma, and charm that the press was underestimating. No, he was not the smooth-talking southern charmer like Bush or Clinton, but he was the quiet, cool Northeastern-type charmer.

Last night, the Bushies went up there seemingly without a plan except to have Bush repeatedly - and we mean repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly, until he began to sound like Rain Man - say that Kerry, "changes positions." "He sends mixed messages." "He changes positions." "Mixed messages." "He changes positions." (We are not exaggerating here - I am accurately reflecting the number of times Bush mumbled these phrases in incoherent desperation.) "Mixed messages." "Mixed messages." "Mixed signals." "Mixed signals." "Mixed messages." "Mixed messages." "Waver."

And he only stopped babbling that mantra when he was saying not one, not two, but seven times, that Kerry had called Iraq, "...the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place," and not seven, not eight, but eleven times that it is, "hard work," fighting terrorist (in addition to pointing out twice people were, "working hard," at it.

So people are sitting there, seeing Kerry give actual, coherent answers, and Bush is lost, sweating, pounding water likes it's JD, fumbling through papers desperately, sneering and looking miserable and angry, like he wants to leave, and giving answers that are incoherent rambles laced with flat out lies or misstatements.

Over and over, "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "Hard work" "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "Hard work" "Hard work" "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "Hard work" "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "Hard work" "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "Hard work" "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." "Hard work" "Hard work" "Working hard." "Hard work" "Hard work" "Working hard." "Hard work"

Only interrupted by, "Changes positions." "He sends mixed messages." "He changes positions." "Mixed messages." "He changes positions." "Mixed messages." "Mixed messages." "Mixed signals." "Mixed signals." "Mixed messages." "Mixed messages." "Waver."

Folks, this was only a ninety minute debate - and Bush only got half of it.

The worst part was seeing the look of the Bush spinners' faces afterwards. They were, at first, trying desperately to try and pretend their guy won, but couldn't muster it. Then they tried to call it a draw. No luck. So in the end they simply admitted the obvious, that their guy lost - which, coming from the Bushies, means he really got clobbered. And, desperately, they tried to sell the spin that Kerry won but it won't affect the voters or polls.

Like we've said, this is not an election, it is a chump check. One candidate is not even considerable. And America saw that clearly last night.

And they saw that the other candidate, Kerry, is no Al Gore. They had been told he was not warm, aloof, unable to connect, a flip-flopaholic. As our John Ashton said, all Kerry had to do was pass the, "I'm not a pushover" test. And there is no question he did so with flying colors.

He nailed points, like about how Bush let Osama get away at Tora Bora, that the President had been given a free ride on until that point. And he made important, clear distinctions about Iraq policy. The press said it wasn't clear what the difference was between Kerry's and Bush's positions on Iraq. Kerry made it clear again and again: It's the how, stupid.

He said clearly and concisely, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way."

And he was very specific in pointing out what the wrong way meant, and what the right way would be: to win peace, the people over there must trust we are not there to occupy their country and take their oil.

"I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it. As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them. When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

When, "The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry," we created an insurgency, said Kerry. When Bush, "didn't guard the nuclear facilities... didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction... didn't guard the borders," Bush created the mess that exists there now; he wouldn't have made such a mess and will correct mistakes like these now.

And, again clearly pointing out how he would fix the situation in Iraq, correcting the mistakes Bush has made, he said, "I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq."

It would be nice to show some area or moment where Bush shined and Kerry could use some improvement, but there was none. Tonight was ugly, a complete disaster for the Bushies - and so far, unlike with Gore, the non-M/I media hasn't even been able to cover for Bush on this one.

No, tonight America saw that the emperor clearly has no clothes, and they all realized, as they gazed upon him standing naked before them for ninety painful, tortured minutes, that the naked truth is, the emperor really doesn't have much there.

Comment: There are perhaps a few issues to consider related to this latest election development. It appears that the Bush clan is revving up for another attempt at stealing a presidential election. In order to make the theft seem even half way legal, there would need to be a substantial amount of support for Bush - or at least manufactured support in the form of rigged poll results that show a large percentage of Americans supporting Dubya. Otherwise, Bush's efforts will be too obvious, and he would be forced to take drastic measures to maintain power. The obvious alternative would be another "terrorist" event before or during the election that would cause the postponement or cancellation of the election entirely.

Although Kerry has spoken out against many of the Bush administration's actions, Kerry has made it clear that he will continue the war on terror and the clampdown on civil liberties. He has also spoken of how he will seek more international support for America's anti-terror operations. The problem is that most other countries do not want to have anything to do with the US and its imperialist policies and actions. Kerry is also a supporter of Israel. Essentially, not much will change if Kerry becomes president.

Of course, many important US elections have been "close races" where the apparent support of the majority wavered between candidates many times. But consider that during the first debate, chaos erupted in Iraq. Israel also made substantial moves against the Palestinians. It should not be forgotten that the appearance of a "close" election benefits the powers that be. Perhaps the real question is: From what is our attention being distracted? Regular readers may remember the following article...

Click here to comment on this article

Flashback: Israel Is Given a Free Hand Ahead of US Elections

Uri Avnery
Arab News
18 August 2004

TEL AVIV — Once upon a time, an assistant to Levy Eshkol, our late prime minister, rushed up to him and cried: "Levy, a disaster! A drought has set in!"

"Where?" the prime minister asked anxiously, "in Texas?"

"No, here in Israel!" the man replied.

"Then there's nothing to worry about," Eshkol said dismissively.

Right from the beginning, the state of Israel has been critically affected by events in the United States. "If America sneezes, Israel catches cold," is the local version of the universal saying.

This is particularly true in the run-up to American elections. They can be as important for Israel as our own, since the occupant of the White House can influence the fate of Israel in many significant ways. But they have an additional significance: The months before the American elections are a kind of open season for Israel.

The basic assumption is that no candidate for the White House would dare to provoke the American Jewish voters at election times. They are an extremely well organized and highly motivated political bloc, ready to donate heaps of money, which gives them political clout well beyond their numbers.

Actually, there are now more Muslims than Jews in the United States, but they are not organized, their motivation is weak, their willingness to donate large amounts of money near zero. Their adherence to the Palestinian cause, for example, cannot match the fierce loyalty of most of the Jews to Israel. Moreover, in this the Jews are now joined by tens of millions of Christian evangelical fundamentalists.

Israeli governments naturally time their most controversial moves to coincide with the American elections. The more closely fought the elections, the more attractive it is for Israeli planners and adventurers.

The state of Israel unilaterally declared its independence in May 1948 , when Harry Truman's reelection campaign was in a critical condition. David Ben Gurion made the decision against the advice of some of his wisest colleagues, who warned him that the United States would oppose the move with all its might. He bet on the inability of the American system to do that during an election campaign.

At the time, Truman was desperately in need of money. Some Jewish millionaires provided it. To show his gratitude, and against the express advice of his Secretary of State (George Marshall) and especially his Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal), Truman immediately accorded the new state de facto recognition. (Stalin trumped him and recognized Israel de jure.)

Since then, this has been a repeating pattern. The Israeli government ordered the army to attack in 1967 (starting the Six Day War) after receiving an OK from President Lyndon Johnson, who at the time was still hoping to be reelected in 1968 .

The critical first year after that war, when America failed to induce Israel to withdraw from the territories its army had conquered, was, of course, an election year. Most of our present troubles stem from that.

Only once did the calculation fail. In 1956 Ben Gurion colluded with France and Britain against Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. After conquering the Sinai peninsula, Ben Gurion declared the "Third Israeli Kingdom". He was convinced that the Americans were preoccupied with their election and would not interfere. He was wrong.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was standing for re-election, was assured of a landslide majority. He did not need the Jewish vote. He was also a man of principle. So he presented Ben Gurion with what amounted to an ultimatum: Evacuate the Sinai or else.

Four days after setting up his "kingdom" Ben Gurion announced its demise. But this was an exception.

Ariel Sharon, who considers himself a personal disciple of Ben Gurion (as does Shimon Peres), is basing his present policy on the same calculation. President George W. Bush is fighting for his political life. He will not dare to provoke a quarrel with Israel at this juncture. So from now until November, Sharon can do much as he pleases.

President Bush's famous road map is dead. (I can hear him exclaiming: "Road map? What road map? The only map I need is of the road to the White House!") His demand for a freeze on all building activity in the settlements, "even for the natural increase", is becoming a joke. Sharon has just openly flouted this by announcing plans for 600 new houses in the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement.

Emissaries of the Security Council and the State Department are practically begging Sharon on their knees to dismantle dozens of new settlements (referred to as outposts") put up since he assumed power in 2001 . Sharon has promised this to Bush many times, in return for reversals of long-standing US policy. Sharon must be hard put not to laugh in their faces.

However, Sharon does have a vital interest in Bush's re-election. He is afraid of John Kerry, even if he says exactly the same as Bush on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and his grandfather's name was Cohen.

Experience has shown that there is no necessary correlation between what politicians say before elections and what they do after them. That is the other side of the election coin.

So Sharon may be induced to do something - anything at all - that will allow Bush to claim the credit for a "historical breakthrough" in the Middle East. Perhaps — who knows? - a week before the elections, three mobile homes may be dismantled on some godforsaken hilltop in Samaria. Wow!

Comment: The comment about there being, "no necessary correlation between what politicians say before elections and what they do after them" is also particularly interesting. Bush lied, and now Kerry is calling him on it. But why should anyone assume that Kerry won't also lie? Why should anyone assume that Kerry is telling the truth when he says he will work with the international community, or that he won't direct the US armed forces to invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? In case there are any lingering doubts regarding the Kerry camp's intentions about continuing Police State USA:

Click here to comment on this article

Flashback: Kerry and Edwards Will Use Campaign to Push Domestic Spy Agency

July 7, 2004

The selection of Sen. John Edwards as John Kerry's running mate has raised concerns inside the FBI and among civil-liberties groups that the North Carolina senator will use the campaign to promote his controversial proposal to create a new domestic spy agency.

For the past 18 months, Edwards has been perhaps the Senate's foremost champion of a much-debated proposal to strip the bureau of its intelligence-gathering functions and turn them over to a new domestic spy agency patterned after Britain's M.I.5.

Edwards's promotion of the idea has created friction between him and FBI Director Robert Mueller who, along with other bureau officials, has warned that such a move would spark renewed turmoil within the U.S. intelligence community that would hinder the war on terrorism. It also has stirred the fears of civil-liberties groups, who believe such an agency would inevitably end up spying on political dissidents and religious groups.

But Edwards has refused to back down—and there are signs that Kerry himself may be warm to the idea. "He thinks it's still the way to go," said Mike Briggs, Edwards's Senate press secretary on Wednesday when asked about the M.I.5 proposal.

Indeed, in an op-ed article for a North Carolina newspaper as recently as two months ago, Edwards wrote "that the FBI has failed as an intelligence agency." He also dismissed Mueller's own efforts to reform the FBI to make it more attentive to intelligence gathering, as opposed to strict law enforcement.

Despite receiving numerous briefings from the FBI director on the subject, which Edwards would have received as a member of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, "I have heard nothing that gives me confidence that the proposed changes will enable the FBI to more effectively collect intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists," Edwards wrote in a May 2, 2004, op-ed in the Raleigh News and Observer.

Although Kerry himself has talked more vaguely about reforming intelligence in his major campaign speeches, a little noticed "Defending the American Homeland" plan on his campaign Web site seems to reach a similar conclusion as Edwards on the subject.

"Many of the examinations of 9/11 have raised serious questions about whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis," the Kerry plan states in a section entitled "Reforming Domestic Intelligence." "America needs an independent intelligence capability that focuses explicitly on domestic intelligence." A senior Kerry campaign official said that language—taken from a fact sheet handed out after a Kerry speech to a firefighters' group in March 2003—was not intended to specifically endorse an M.I.5 over a beefed up intelligence function within the FBI. "We've been back and forth on this issue—and it's still not determined," the campaign official said.

The idea of creating a new domestic spy agency first received wide currency in the wake of the September 11 attacks and has been debated intensely by the 9/11 commission. The panel is due to make its recommendations for intelligence reform later this month. But sources inside the commission say the prospect of such a major overhaul—along with its profound implications for civil liberties—has caused many panel members to shrink from such a step and favor less sweeping recommendations to improve intelligence gathering inside the country.

Indeed, top FBI officials had until this week concluded that Mueller's own reform efforts—including a recent proposal to create a new "intelligence directorate" within the FBI—had pretty much put the matter to rest. "We're not too worried about that," said one senior bureau official about the M.I.5 proposal.

Now, however, the prospect that the Kerry-Edwards ticket might push the M.I.5 idea could swiftly change the political dynamic. Since late 2002, in speeches and on the Senate floor, Edwards has argued that the failures of the FBI to pick up the trail of the 9/11 hijackers graphically shows the bureau's fundamental deficiencies in intelligence gathering. As a law-enforcement agency, the FBI is by culture and practice focused on arresting, prosecuting and convicting criminals—not collecting fragmentary bits of intelligence about potential terrorists and then analyzing the information to make sense of it, he has said.

"Asking a law-enforcement agency to manage intelligence is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole," Edwards said in a December 2002 speech to the Brookings Institution. "The FBI … builds cases rather than connecting dots, and it keeps information secret rather than getting it to those who can use it stop the terrorists."

Edwards's repeated pounding away on the subject early last year annoyed top FBI officials. Some privately expressed irritation, suggesting that the politically ambitious first-term senator had seized on the idea as a vehicle for his presidential campaign. At one point, Mueller appealed to Edwards to hold off introducing legislation on the subject until the FBI director could brief him about what he was doing to correct the problem. Edwards went ahead and introduced his bill anyway in February 2003—and then took Mueller up on his offer, a sequence that did not go down well among some of Mueller's deputies.

Mueller's own reform efforts have revolved around making terrorism the FBI's top priority, beefing up the bureau's own intelligence and analytic functions and bringing in fresh managers with backgrounds in the intelligence community. But bureau officials argue that creating an entirely new agency dedicated solely to spying inside the United States would only create new bureaucratic rivalries—especially because the bureau law-enforcement agents would still be needed to develop evidence for criminal prosecutions. "You can't separate criminal prosecutions, terrorism and foreign intelligence," said one top FBI manager.

Civil-liberties groups have other concerns about the Edwards plan. For decades, FBI agents who seek to develop evidence about potential domestic threats have operated under tight Justice Department guidelines; those guidelines require there be grounds to believe targets are engaged in criminal acts. A new domestic spy agency would not be so encumbered, the critics say.

In an effort to insulate himself from such criticism, Edwards had proposed steps to curb potential excesses by a domestic spying agency, such as requiring approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for infiltrating domestic political or religious groups. But some civil-liberties advocates say such steps would be insufficient—the FISA court has historically acted as a rubber stamp, critics say—and that a domestic-intelligence agency such as Edwards has advocated would inevitably be tempted to spy on legitimate dissenters. [...]

Click here to comment on this article

Briton 'tortured at Guantanamo'
By David Barrett
The Independent
01 October 2004

Documents newly declassified by the United States government reveal that a British citizen has been tortured in Guantanamo Bay, lawyers claimed today.

The papers - being released later this morning - will show that Moazzam Begg "has been and continues to be abused and tortured by the United States", the lawyers said.

Begg has been held at the US military base in Cuba for more than two years.

The documents will also reveal "shocking evidence concerning the US motive in continuing to hold him under inhumane circumstances", it was claimed.

Begg's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and his US counsel, Clive Stafford Smith, will unveil full details at a central London press conference.

Five of the nine Britons originally detained at Guantanamo were released without charge in March.

One detainee - Tarek Dergoul, a 26-year-old former care worker from east London - said after his release that US guards forced him to look at pornographic magazines and subjected him to "very loud" American music during interrogations.

He said he suffered repeated strip searches and sleep deprivation.

During cell searches by guards wearing riot gear the soldiers "poked their fingers in my eyes, banged my head on the floor and kicked and punched me and tied me up like a beast," Mr Dergoul said in a statement released in August.

Four Britons remain at Camp Delta - Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar.

The British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, revealed in June that he was "unable to accept" President George Bush's proposals for military tribunals at Guantanamo because they did not meet international standards for fair trials.

Click here to comment on this article

Heart surgery and £3.5m house purchase cast doubts over Blair's future as PM

By Andrew Grice and Robert Verkaik
The Independent
01 October 2004

Tony Blair went into hospital today for heart treatment after suffering a health scare while on holiday in August.

The fresh question mark over the Prime Minister's health comes as The Independent can reveal that he has bought a Georgian house for about £3.5m in an exclusive part of central London. It will become his family home when he leaves Downing Street.

Mr Blair signalled last night that he intends to serve at least another four years as Prime Minister, which would enable him to match Margaret Thatcher's 11 years in power. However, he announced that he would quit shortly before the following general election and would not seek a fourth term.

The Prime Minister, 51, who was admitted to hospital a year ago with an irregular heart beat, suffered a recurrence during his month-long summer break. Today he was having a "catheter ablation", under which a catheter will be fitted to give off pulses of energy to stop his heart "short-circuiting" again. Doctors advised Mr Blair to have the medical procedure, described by No 10 as standard, after his second flutter.

It will not require surgery but he will have a local anaesthetic and be sedated for a couple of hours. He may stay overnight in hospital but intends to return to work on Monday and go ahead with a long-planned visit to Africa next week.

Aides brushed aside suggestions that a second scare would cast doubt on how long Mr Blair would stay on. They said he would serve a "full term" if Labour wins the next election but would stand down "towards the end" of the parliament to allow time for his successor to establish himself before the election. "He wants to do at least another four years," said one close ally. That message will not be welcomed by Gordon Brown, the front-runner to succeed, who fears he will inherit a Labour government in its dying days.

Speculation that Mr Blair might leave sooner rather than later will be fuelled by the revelation that he has bought a home in Connaught Square, which will be rented out until he leaves No 10. The Blairs have financed the purchase partly on the basis of Mr Blair's future earnings when he is no longer Prime Minister, which include a likely seven-figure sum from his memoirs.

Close allies insisted yesterday that the Blairs' move reflected their desire to get back into the property market after a gap of almost eight years rather than anything about his political intentions.

When approached by The Independent last night, Downing Street confirmed that the Blairs had bought a house in central London. It is understood that sale was completed recently and that the house will provide a family home and offices for Mr and Mrs Blair. [...]

Click here to comment on this article

UAL Refuses to View Proof Flight 175 Did Not Hit WTC
Christopher Bollyn
October 1 2004

Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press offered United Air Lines (UAL) to view the video "911: In Plane Site" by Dave von Kleist of The Power Hour, and discuss the images of what is allegedly UAL Flight 175 hitting the South Tower at the World Trade Center.

It is not possible that United Air Lines used a windowless plane with a missile pod on its underside for UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, therefore, the plane seen in the videos cannot be UAL Flight 175.

Below, UAL categorically refuses to view the video evidence.

Bollyn-United Air Lines Correspondence follows.

From Christopher Bollyn (AFP) to Jeff Green, UAL spokesman:

Jeff Green Media Relations Manager United Airlines World Headquarters Worldwide Communications Elk Grove, Illinois

Dear Mr. Green,

Thank you for responding to my inquiries. I write for American Free Press ( an independent weekly newspaper based on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

With all due respect, I'd like to respond to your comments in today's email and phone conversation.

I was surprised to hear you say that any suggestion that it was not UAL Flight 175 that hit the South Tower was "offensive." I am also surprised that you are not interested in viewing the video images from "911: In Plane Site."

The video images in Dave von Kleist's video come from mainstream news coverage of the events. They are simply the images that have been shown countless times on television sets around the world. In the video, however, they are slowed down and examined frame by frame. What they reveal when viewed in slow motion is nothing short of astounding.

You said, "Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video." Do you speak for all of the employees at UAL?

Does that mean that there is a corporate diktat ordering employees not to view the video, or has a consensus been reached through a democratic-type process in which all of the executives and your colleagues voted or expressed their own opinions personally and told you that they are not interested in seeing the video?

You said it is offensive to suggest that it was not UAL 175 that hit the South Tower at about 9:03 a.m. on 9/11. If it was UAL 175 that hit the South Tower, then it must be that UAL 175 had an object attached to the under side of the fuselage that looked and acted like a missile pod when it fired a missile at the South Tower just before it entered the building.

To maintain that position means that all four videos, taken by four different cameras in different positions and by four different networks, are all showing falsified images.

What the video appears to show is a modified Boeing military tanker plane that has a missile pod attached to the underside. The video images of the underside of the plane also show what appears to be the boom port of such a tanker. Witnesses also reported the plane that hit the second tower had no windows nor markings like a commercial jet.

In the face of the video evidence and eyewitness testimony that it was NOT a commercial jet that hit the South Tower, I would like to ask this question to UAL: What evidence can you provide that it was UAL 175 that hit the tower?

The evidence available to the public simply does not support this claim.

The government has made that claim, the media has repeated it, and you say it is offensive to challenge it. But what can you tell the American public to convince them that it was UAL 175 that hit the South Tower? What proof can you offer?

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Christopher Bollyn American Free Press

Jeff Green's earlier e-mail follows:

"Green, Jeffrey [WHQPR]" <> wrote:

Mr. Bollyn,

I know that you've been trying to reach me for a few weeks now regarding questions you have related to flights 93 and 175. My colleagues inform me that you have a video you would like to show us regarding Flight 175. I have looked at the site you suggested, as well as the UK-based site, The Truth Seeker, that features your writing. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video.

I would suggest that you contact the FBI, who is leading the criminal investigation into the crash of each flight, and arrange to show them the tape. You may reach their public affairs group by calling 202-324-3691.

I also know that you've had some other questions, which I think I can generally answer for you. If you have very specific questions about the events of 9/11, I'm afraid I have to once again direct you to the federal authorities as they are the group responsible for the continuing criminal investigation.

1) The wreckage of Flight 93 recovered from Pennsylvania has been preserved in a storage facility as it will likely be used as evidence in pending civil litigation.

2) Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was painted in United's standard blue and gray livery.

3) Yes, United is certain that Flight 175, a Boeing 767, was hi-jacked by terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. The flight carried 54 passengers and 11 employees.


Jeff Green
Media Relations Manager
United Airlines World Headquarters
Worldwide Communications

Click here to comment on this article

Mossad kills 34 Iraqi children with car bombs
09/30/04 05:31 PM

Baghdad's three bombs went off as crowds gathered to celebrate the opening of a new sewage plant. It was attended by US troops who passed out candy to the crowds of children. 41 people were killed - mostly children.

The first explosion was followed by two more that struck those who rushed to help the initial victims. Ten U.S. soldiers were wounded in the attack, two of them seriously, the military said. Iraq's Health Ministry confirmed 41 dead, 34 of them children, and 139 wounded.

Someone had to know there would be a ceremony and that US troops would be there as good will ambassadors. Only the Americans and Israelis had this information. The press is screaming ' Radical Muslims' but why would they kill Arab children.

The only ones that benefitted were the Israelis. Only they could build these sophisticated bombs.

Mossad agents arrested in Gaza recruiting Arabs

They used Hamas to recruit Arabs who have lost families to IDF killings. Israel has thousands of consultants, interogators and Mossad roaming all over Iraq. Israel’s style for the last 100 has been using False Flags to incite wars. In Iraq their goal is the oil but they want the US and the Muslims at each others throats.

Hamas which is controlled by Mossad is supplying the bombers and Israel the bombs and info.

See: The Phony (Mossad) Al Qaeda Cell in Palestine

Click here to comment on this article

At home with the Mossad men
New Zealand Herald

Yossef Barkan is not a talkative man. His son, Ze'ev, is a Mossad agent, on the run after fleeing New Zealand in the aftermath of the Mossad spy ring collapse last April.

"Stop calling here, you hear me," he said when I called to speak to Ze'ev. "I've nothing to do with this business. Goodbye." And he hung up.

Of more than a hundred people contacted in connection with this Weekend Herald inquiry, only a handful were prepared to talk.

The activities of Israel's intelligence services, whether legal or not, are a minefield that ordinary Israelis steer clear of, wherever possible.

Ze'ev Barkan, 37, is married to a woman called Irit. They live in a small village called Shoham, about 15 miles southeast of Tel Aviv.

When I telephoned for him at his home, the woman who answered told me she did not know a Ze'ev. But when I asked if I was speaking to Irit, she said "yes".

Ze'ev was born in the United States as Ze'ev William Brokenstein in 1967. He later changed his name to the more Israeli-sounding Barkan.

He has reportedly worked as an Israeli diplomat in Austria and Belgium. But he is a man of many identities and is believed to be a long-standing Mossad spy.

Before the arrests of the Mossad men, he was known to have three passports - American, Israeli and diplomatic - but these proved insufficient to his needs.

Entering New Zealand on his United States passport, he applied for a New Zealand passport in the name of a cerebral palsy sufferer.

While he waited for his helpers to do their part, he stayed in flats in Sandringham and Mt Eden and told people he was on a sailing course.

One of those helping Barkan in his bid to obtain another passport was David Tony Resnick, an Auckland paramedic who abruptly left New Zealand when police swooped.

His uncle, Keith Bookman, says this was not the first time that Tony Resnick - the name by which he is known in New Zealand - had left New Zealand for the Middle East. "When [Tony] was young, he felt a connection to Israel and to the Zionist idea," Bookman said from London, where he now lives.

Tony's parents, Gail and Selwyn Resnick, tried to stop him from going to Israel, but he wouldn't listen.

As a teenager in a strange country, he lived with Bookman and his ex-wife Dina in Kibbutz Yizrael, near Nazareth in the country's north.

This kibbutz had several New Zealand families who went to Israel after the 1967 war. They were affiliated with the Habonim, a Zionist youth movement.

In those days, Israel seemed to be a small country surrounded by hostile enemies and every Jew who could migrate to the country was desperately needed.

"[Tony] saw me as a role model,' said Bookman, who also left his New Zealand home because of a belief in the Zionist ideal.

Shortly afterwards, Resnick decided to join the Israeli army. He served as a paramedic and was adopted as a "soldier without family" by Kibbutz Yizrael.

The Jews who went to Israel from New Zealand are close. In some ways, they behave like a small family - they know each other intimately, keep in touch with each other regularly, and every year, meet up on the grass of Kibbutz Yizrael to catch up.

For David Resnick, the kibbutz and Army service were like a ticket into Israeli society.

People who knew Resnick described him as someone with two feet on the ground, who knew what he wanted from life.

After the Army, he worked as an ambulance driver in Haifa. He rented an apartment there and met and married his wife, Karen.

About four years ago, Resnick and his family moved to Auckland so he could study to be a paramedic.

But his uncle says Resnick missed Israel.

"It was obvious that his move to Auckland was temporary and just for studies," he said.

As an ardent Zionist with dual Israeli-New Zealand citizenship, Resnick fitted the bill of a "sayan", an assistant hired by Mossad from Jewish communities to help in a supportive role.

Mossad is smaller than most government intelligence agencies, employing 2000 people.

But from its small office in Herzliyah, just outside Tel Aviv, Mossad runs global operations using sympathetic contacts among Jewish communities.

Mossad does not employ them as such; it gives them small missions as part of wider intelligence operations.

Uriel 'Uri' Zosha Kelman, who had a Canadian passport and English as a mother language, was the third man supporting Barkan and Resnick.

His father was also an Israeli intelligence operative.

Kelman was the right person in the right place - young, brilliant and highly motivated. He needed only to collect the New Zealand passport and disappear.

Born to a religious Zionist family in Canada in June 1973, he was educated in Jerusalem at Nativ Ma'ir, one of the top yeshivas in the country.

A yeshiva is a religious school that teaches rabbinical practices as well as ordinary classes. The Israeli Knesset has five members with degrees from Nativ Ma'ir.

Kelman's friends at the yeshiva remember him as a brilliant and sharp student, who spoke English fluently.

He passed his final tenth grade mathematics examination two years before most of his contemporaries took it.

Nativ Ma'ir teaches a nationalistic curriculum and its 300 pupils, aged between 14 and 18, are exclusively male.

Most of its graduates, like Kalman, finish school with a strong motivation to serve the country.

They tend to serve in the Army together in a unit called Yeshivot Ha'hesder, which combines military responsibilities with religious duties.

Kelman's military career began in the armoured division, but because of medical problems he was moved to serve in intelligence. His education records show he went on to take part in an officer-training course.

His family owned a three-storeyed house in Harav Berlin St, and his father still prays in the nearby Haychal Ariel synagogue where he collects dues from congregants.

Kelman became a member of the "Dror" faction of the B'nei Akkiva religious Zionist youth movement, which imbues teenagers with militaristic values and teaches them to build new settlements.

Most of its members use these skills in the West Bank and Gaza.

For a long time, Kelman did not see his father, Israel "Easy" Kelman, who for most of his son's childhood was abroad on missions with Israeli intelligence agencies.

It was a natural progression for Kelman to follow his father's footsteps into Israeli intelligence.

His friends knew that he had been involved in a 'secret project' but none knew he was working for Mossad.

They reacted with shock when a photograph of him in a courtroom was published by the Herald and then appeared around the world.

The fourth man in the Mossad spy ring was Elisha "Eli" Cara.

He has been in New Zealand 24 times in the past four years.

Cara, 50, like Barkan, lived in a small community, Kohav Ya'ir, populated by ex-soldiers and security service officials.

His neighbours included the head of Israel's National Security Council, Uzi Dayan, Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz and, until recently, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Married with five children, Cara nominally worked for a travel agency called Eastward Bound. This enabled him to travel the world with no questions asked.

An employee of Eastward Bound's Haifa office said a man named Eli worked in the agency's Sydney branch.

Inquiries by the Herald indicate that office does not exist - or if it does, it is operating illegally.

Click here to comment on this article

Bomb Blasts in Northeast India Kill 20, Wound 50
Sat Oct 2, 3:58 AM ET

GUWAHATI, India (Reuters) - A series of bomb blasts killed 19 people and wounded more than 50 in northeastern India Saturday in the deadliest attack since a cease-fire with the main separatist group in Nagaland began seven years ago.

Another bomb exploded in the neighboring state of Assam killing one man at about the same time.

Police said the two attacks appeared to be unrelated.

Two bombs exploded in a marketplace in Nagaland's commercial center, Dimapur, and one at a crowded railway station, an officer at the local police station said.

The Hong Kong market that sells mainly Chinese goods was open despite a holiday across India to mark the anniversary on Saturday of the birth of independence leader Mahatma Gandhi.

"There are pieces of flesh and torn human limbs lying on the platform. There are people wailing," Yanger Thakkar, a journalist in Dimapur, told Reuters.

"It was a powerful blast, the tin roof of the railway platform has been blown," railway official Robin Kalita said.

Twelve people died at the railway station and seven were killed at the market.

The blasts in Christian-majority Nagaland could have been set off by any of several smaller separatist groups that are not part of the truce with the Indian government, officials said.

The biggest group, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isaac-Muivah), which has fought for a separate Naga nation for more than half a century, has held several rounds of talks with government officials but with no breakthrough.

Police said the blast in Assam was likely the work of Bodo tribals who are fighting for a separate nation. The bomb went off in a market in Kokrajhar district, 150 km (90 miles) west of the state's main city of Guwahati.

India's mountainous northeast is home to dozens of underground groups, some fighting for greater autonomy, or statehood and others for secession. The groups accuse the federal government of plundering the region's rich resources and neglecting the local economy.

Security analysts say successive Indian governments have largely ignored the northeast, focusing almost entirely on the rebellion in the disputed region of Kashmir.

Click here to comment on this article

Mount St. Helens erupts; Pressure Building Again Inside
Oct 2, 10:50 AM (ET)

MOUNT ST. HELENS, Wash. (AP) - Mount St. Helens quieted down after spewing a plume of steam and ash - but only briefly. Within hours of the eruption Friday, seismic readings suggested pressure was building again inside the volcano, which had been dormant for 18 years.

It began rumbling last week, set off by small earthquakes occurring as often as three or four times a minutes, and scientists said there could be more steam eruptions soon.

Friday's eruption, described by government scientist Jeff Wynn as a "throat-clearing," was the sleeping giant's first since 1986. On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens blew its top with such force that 57 people lost their lives.

The volcanic burp cast a haze across the horizon as the roiling plume rose from the nearly 1,000-foot-tall dome. After about 20 minutes, the mountain calmed and the plume dissipated.

"It was such a thrill!" said Faye Ray, a retired school teacher who watched from an observatory near the mountain. "I just felt we would see something today and we did."

The ash appeared to pose no threat to anyone, but scientists warned that people living southwest of the mountain might notice a dusting on their cars. There was no sign of lava.

The earthquakes started Sept. 23 and grew steadily stronger, finally reaching a magnitude of 3.3 Thursday and Friday. After the eruption, they stopped for several hours, said Wynn, of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Then, the tremors resumed, hitting a one-per-minute pace, said Bill Steele at the University of Washington seismic laboratory. A couple exceeded magnitude 2.

A few more steam explosions are likely, Steele said, "until enough debris is cleared, and then there is a significant chance that lava could be extruded at the surface."

Tom Pierson, a USGS geologist, said officials will monitor the site "on a very intense scale until we can determine that the thing has really gone back to sleep." [...]

Click here to comment on this article

Mexico's 'Volcano of Fire' spews lava

Friday, October 1, 2004

YERBABUENA, Mexico -- Western Mexico's "Volcano of Fire" unleashed a towering column of smoke and ash Friday, after ropes of burning, orange lava poured from its peak overnight.

A light coating of ash dusted nearby communities that are home to about 600 people. Authorities were on heightened alert but said they had no plans to order evacuations.

"The volcano is very active but has not yet reached a risk level that would prompt an evacuation," said Melchor Urzua, director of emergency response teams for Colima state.

Known in Spanish as "Volcan del Fuego," the 12,533-foot-high mountain straddles the border of Colima and Jalisco states, 300 miles west of Mexico City.

Earthquakes and explosions of hot rock within the volcano began Wednesday, provoked by the collapse of a dome that formed recently in its center. Small landslides tumbled down the volcano's northern and western slopes. Lava flowed Thursday night and early Friday morning.

"The incandescent material won't affect nearby communities because it's running off into valleys," said Jorge Sapien, a spokesman for Jalisco emergency teams.

A major eruption in 1999 sent glowing rock three miles down its slopes and fired a plume of ash more than 5 miles high.

In 1913, an explosion created a crater 1,650 feet deep, blasted fast-moving flows of hot ash down the volcano's slopes and rained ash on Guadalajara, 75 miles to the north.

Vulcanologists consider the Colima volcano to be one of the most active and potentially the most destructive in central Mexico.

It has erupted violently dozens of times since its first recorded eruption in 1560.

Click here to comment on this article

Mystery Utah Explosions Cause Huge Mushroom Clouds
From Brian Justice

Note - Thanks for George Paxinos for sending this in. It came from one Brian Justice. If anyone has any knowledge of what these three LARGE explosions were caused by... each resulting in a huge mushroom cloud... please let us know right away. Something is going on underground in Utah. -ed

Mushroom Cloud

On our way back home from a family drive on 8-29-04, my wife and I noticed a peculiar mushroom cloud just east of our home in Wellington, UT.

We ran into the house and brought our both of our digital cameras and started snapping pictures. Within 2 hours there were three different "explosions" resulting in mushroom clouds.

We emailed a local news station; they looked into the pictures but to no avail. There were truck drivers parked at the gas station just down from our home, the drivers did not dare drive the road for fear of whatever was happening out there.

Pretty scary afternoon, especially during this time of heightened alert in our nation.

Comment: See the other photo of one of the explosions here.

Click here to comment on this article

Three Cosmic Explosions Could Precede Supernovae
By Deborah Zabarenko
Fri 1 October, 2004 20:10

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A trio of powerful explosions emanating from three different regions in space could mean astronomers might see stars blowing up within days, scientists said on Friday.

Astronomers believe the blasts -- which took place on September 12, 16 and 24 and lasted only a few seconds each -- may be precursors to stellar explosions called supernovae. If this turns out to be true, astronomers would have a new tool to predict these explosions, and researchers could watch the blasts from start to finish.

The first two space explosions were X-ray flashes, while the third was a more powerful blast called a gamma ray burst, the scientists said in a statement.

The explosions occurred in the constellations Aquarius, Pisces and Aries, and all are more than 1 billion light-years from Earth, and also far away from each other, said George Ricker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose team detected the explosions with NASA's High-Energy Transient Explorer (HETE-2) satellite.

The two in Aquarius and Pisces were the less powerful X-ray flashes, and may range from 1 billion to 3 billion light-years' distance from Earth, Ricker said in a telephone interview. The gamma ray burst was located in Aries could range from 1 billion to 8 billion light-years distance, he said.

A light-year is about 6 trillion miles, the distance light travels in a year.

Theoretically, within 10 to 20 days of these blasts, observers might see supernovae in these three locations, Ricker said.

"Astronomers now have three places that they can look ... If they're looking at the right spot at the right time, they'll see a supernova turn on, and that would be the first time that's happened for an X-ray flash," Ricker said. It happened last year for a gamma ray burst, he said.

Gamma ray bursts are the most powerful explosions known other than the theoretical Big Bang that many astronomers believe gave birth to the universe. Previous research with the same HETE-2 satellite showed a connection between gamma ray bursts and supernovae.

The lower-energy X-ray flashes might be gamma ray bursts viewed slightly off-angle, somewhat similar to how a flashlight is less blinding when viewed at an angle.

These three recent blasts could help determine whether X-ray flashes, like gamma ray bursts, are related to supernovae. If they are, that would be good news for scientists who study exploding stars: X-ray flashes are somewhat closer to Earth than gamma ray bursts and the supernovae could be easier to observe.

Click here to comment on this article

US Stands Firm On Kyoto Rejection Despite Russian Move To Ratify Treaty
Sept 30, 2004

Washington - The United States on Thursday stood firm in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol on global warming despite renewed pressure to yield after Russia ended years of hesitation by moving to ratify the treaty.

The State Department had no comment on the decision by the Russian cabinet to submit the document to the Duma for approval but said Washington remained committed in its own way to battling climate change.

"The United States' position on the Kyoto Protocol has not changed," spokesman Richard Boucher said. "We thought at this point it wasn't the right thing for the United States, but it's up to other nations to independently evaluate whether ratification is in their national interest."

Russia's ratification is vital for transforming Kyoto from a draft 1997 agreement into a working international treaty. Moscow had for years hedged on whether it would approve the pact.

The protocol requires industrialized signatories to trim output of six "greenhouse" gases by 2008-2012 compared with their 1990 levels. To achieve that, they will have to cut the burning of oil, coal and gas, the carbon-bearing sources that sparked the Industrial Revolution, and remain the foundation for economic life today.

Those changes carry an economic tab to consumers, a threat to vested interests and a challenge to lifestyles. Kyoto has run into fierce crossfire from the oil lobby and from conservatives like US President George W. Bush.

The United States, which by itself accounts for a quarter of global carbon pollution, walked away from Kyoto in 2001, saying the pact was too costly and unfair because developing countries are not bound to make specific pollution cuts.

Without the United States on board, the overall reduction in emissions is likely to be 0.6 percent if Kyoto is honoured, well below the initial target of 5.2 percent, according to the US-based environment group World Resources Institute. [...]

Click here to comment on this article

Strange but true: country music saps will to live
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The Independent
01 October 2004

A study showing the link between country music and suicide has taken one of the top prizes in this year's Ig-Nobel awards - the humorous alternative to the Nobel prizes.

Other winners include the inventor of the karaoke machine, the man who patented the "comb-over" for covering the head of bald men and a student who investigated the danger of eating food that has fallen on the floor. The 10 winners of the 2004 Ig-Nobel prizes - which celebrate the bizarre, weird, funny and improbable elements of genuine scientific inquiry - received their awards last night at a ceremony at Harvard University in Boston.

Marc Abrahams, who conceived the awards 14 years ago, said that the "Igs" are given to studies or inventions judged to have done most in making people laugh and then think. Mr Abrahams, who publishes the Journal of Improbable Research, said the prizes honour the "whipped cream of humanity", or those thinkers who are either eccentrically brilliant or brilliantly eccentric.

The medicine prize was won by Steven Stack of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, and James Gundlach of Auburn University in Alabama, who published an investigation into the effect of country music on suicide. The study found that country music, with its emphasis on marital discord, alcoholism and social alienation, can be linked with an increased suicide rate.

"The results of a multiple regression analysis of 49 metropolitan areas show that the greater the airtime devoted to country music, the greater the white suicide rate," the two researchers found.

The physics prize went to Ramesh Balasubramaniam of Ottawa University in Canada and Michael Turvey of Connecticut University, who carried out an exhaustive mathematical study of hula hooping. They worked out how movements of the hip and lower limbs keep the hula hoop from falling. "These modes might stabilise the hoop's angular momentum by controlling respectively its vertical and horizontal components," they said.

A Chicago high school student, Jillian Clarke, became the youngest person to win an Ig-Nobel when she won the public health award for investigating the "five-second rule" about whether it is safe to eat food that has dropped on the floor. "We first surveyed 100 people to see if they were familiar with the five- second rule, and if so, have they ever applied it and if they ever applied it what foods would they feel comfortable eating after floor contact," she said. Further work revealed what type of food - sticky or dry - and floor coverings - smooth or rough -were most likely to contaminate dropped food.

The psychology prize went to Daniel Simons of Illinois University and Christopher Chabris of Harvard, who demonstrated that when people paid close attention to one thing they can be made to overlook anything going on nearby, including a man dressed in a gorilla suit.


Miracle water

The Coca-Cola company takes the chemistry prize for using advanced technology to convert liquid from the river Thames into Dasani, the "mineral" water that had to be withdrawn for precautionary reasons

Nudist library

The American Nudist Research Library at Kissimmee in Florida wins the literature prize for preserving a cheeky slice of history so that everyone can enjoy seeing it

Flatulent herrings

The biology prize goes to a team including Robert Batty of Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory in Oban who demonstrated the ability of herrings to communicate by releasing bubbles of gas from their intestines

Inventor of the Karaoke

Daisuke Inoue, of Hyogo in Japan, won the peace prize for inventing the Karaoke sing-along machine which provides an entirely new way for people to learn to tolerate each other

Baldness cure

Donald Smith and his late father, Frank, from Florida, win the engineering prize for patenting the "comb-over", the clever technique of covering a bald spot by pulling hair over it from the side of the head, as practised by Bobby Charlton and Neil Kinnock

Click here to comment on this article

And Finally...

Why Stupid People Shouldn't Have Internet Access

Canned Opinion # 285
By Jay

Several weeks ago while watching Satellite T.V., I was maliciously accosted by a Spanish dubbed Seinfeld-a-Thon. My exact words at the moment I realised the horror of the situation were;"This is the worst thing I have ever seen." Now, I am sure most people would agree with such a statement, and I really thought I knew what I was talking about, but not one hour ago, and to my great dismay, I was enticed into following a link to a web site that topped even "Seinfeld en Español" for retardedness.

Those long time readers, and certainly fans, of the Signs Page know of my utter disdain for intellectually inferior people who insist on proclaiming that they know something. The web site in question was owned by two such people. Sadly it seems that as more and more retired couples learn about computers, a large percent of them discover 'Frontpage' and proceed to pollute the web with their senile delusions of having something worthwhile to say.

I have been using the Internet for many years and believe me, aside from my collective works there is really nothing to see.The Internet is in fact a cyber gathering place for pubescent males and lonely college geeks in search of porn. Those who are unfortunate enough to have parents with the required two brain cells to rub together while Windows installs Cyberpatrol or Netnanny, search for the only other thing uselessly abundant on the web. Retarded people's opinions.

Anytime, anywhere you see something in print, it is an opinion. Open the dictionary, look up the word "Gullible" and you will be privy to Mr Webster's opinion of what that word means. It just so happens that a lot of people agree that Webster's opinion is good. The opinions of senile old couples are not. Neither are the opinions of iconoclast english whipper-snappers.

Where was I? Oh yeah, retired old couples and why they shouldn't have internet access. So this web site I visit starts off on the wrong foot by visually molesting me with a horrible Windows Me content arrangement. As I scrolled down the page I half expected these people to claim that Bush had a measurable I.Q., Dick Cheney was human (Possibly Male), and that Condoleezza Rice invented the Question Mark and Fried Chicken Wings. To be honest I could barely stomach five minutes on the site before having to lay down nursing a stitch in my side from all the laughter.

Urban Legends aren't supposed to be believed, and they sure as hell shouldn't be disproved. They are stories, yarns, there for entertainment, a chuckle, a laff, you know...for sh**s n' giggles. These are the type of people who will rudely interject during a humorous anecdote from Grand Pa' to point out some mindless error, or erroneous statement. They do it to draw attention to themselves, and for no other purpose.

At this point I know what you are thinking.

My answer to you is this...Hypocrisy is not a's a way of life!

[Ed: We would have offered a link to the self-styled debunking odd-couple's web site in question, but Jay objected, saying our readers come here to learn, not to be tortured.]

Click here to comment on this article

Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!

We also need help to keep the Signs of the Times online.

Check out the Signs of the Times Archives

Send your comments and article suggestions to us

Fair Use Policy

Contact Webmaster at
Cassiopaean materials Copyright ©1994-2014 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.