9-11 widow Ellen Mariani’s allegations of disrespect by the host Joe Scarborough during her MSNBC interview attempt to explain government involvement in the September 11 attacks raises questions as to whether the national cover-up of the dead body of Scarborough’s former 28-year-old female staffer found in his Fort Walton Beach, Florida congressional office in 2001 is linked to the MSNBC job protecting the public’s right to know—or preventing truth about 9-11 from becoming a factor in exposing White House crime family evidence.

After Mariani called us yesterday in dismay regarding how she was treated on-air by Scarborough, members of U.S. intelligence were contacted to find out why the normally affable Scarborough cut off Mariani’s comments about September 11 since she was the first victim family member to sue the Bush administration for direct involvement in the attacks—also refusing to join the other victim families in accepting millions in congressional “compensation” in return for signing a legal document promising never to sue the U.S. government or seek 9-11 criminal evidence in a courtroom.

Sources within United States intelligence Special Operations Group told us yesterday that former congressional staff aide Lori Kaye Klausutis was found dead at her desk in Scarborough’s office and that she had been reading secret explosive “True Colors” documents, raising questions as to how and why Scarborough was in possession of transcripts detailing illegal covert operations conducted by and linked directly to White House crime families.

U.S. intelligence officials were specific in their reports that “a P-2 team of three operatives from Central Intelligence suffocated her in Scarborough’s Florida district office recently after his divorce,” information blacked out by all U.S. national media outlets.

The source told us he would be willing to come forward at a later date if subpoenaed by the Fitzgerald grand jury or possibly appear on a major cable news outlet.

Intelligence officials said the top-secret True Colors files dealt with 1) government involvement in the 9-11 attacks, 2) White House-sponsored “death squads”—including state and local police known as “red squad” units also involving FBI Division 5 and other federal counter-intelligence groups within government agencies, 3) the Oklahoma City bombing and 4) evidence involving some 150 witnesses implicating former President George H. W. Bush, former President Bill and First Lady Hillary Clinton and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush and others in the assassination of John F. Kennedy Jr., who told family members he was planning to run against Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush in 2000.

The agents said federal, state and local prosecutors were and still are being employed to frame innocent citizens on false charges to silence and neutralize patriot activists, whistleblowers and public officials.

Creating a cable news media spin doctor?

The strange death of Lori Klausutis received only a few short stories in the Northern Florida press; and the Washington Post printed only 44 words in a Nation-in-brief report dealing with the covered up and mysterious death of a female staffer in a Republican congressman’s district office—a story that shocked us after hearing about it from federal agents because the revelation was kept from the public. The 44 words released were:

"FORT WALTON BEACH, FL—Lori Klausutis, a 28-year-old office worker for Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL), was found dead in the congressman's district office. Police said preliminary findings from the medical examiner's office showed no foul play or any outward indication of suicide."

Curiously, Klausutis was reportedly active in Florida’s Bush v. Gore 2000 election recount activity—raising questions about what she knew; and on Friday, July 20th, 2001, her body was found slumped next to a desk on the floor of Scarborough’s Fort Walton Beach office where Lori served as a constituent services coordinator since May, 1999.

Klausutis was found around 8:00 a.m. on Friday morning by a couple arriving for an appointment, and she had been dead for some time as the police cordoned off the office for an investigation; but they later announced that there was no reason to suspect foul play, nor were there signs of suicide—but national news outlets commenced a total television blackout.

Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress—prematurely and unexpectedly—on the heels of reported rumors about his marital fidelity and shortly after his marriage ended in divorce.

Not choosing to bring to bear the substantial power of a U.S. congressional office to get to the bottom of Miss Klausutis’ death or force a full investigation given the secret documents to which she had access according to U.S. intelligence, Scarborough’s office released a short statement several hours after the discovery of her body:

“My staff and family are greatly saddened by the loss of Lori Klausutis. I know Lori will be missed by the thousands of citizens who regularly contact my office to seek assistance with a variety of problems. May God grant Lori’s family the grace, comfort and hope that will get them through this difficult time.”

Intelligence “roster” of autopsy cover-up physicians and hit teams

Reports revealed that Scarborough’s press secretary Miguel Serrano mentioned health problems in Klausutis’ past and Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Berkland said "She had a past medical history that was significant, but it remains to be seen whether that played a role in her death.”

A member of her immediate family rejected the Scarborough office intimations that Lori had medical problems, reporting that Klausutis was a fine athlete, having recently run an 8 kilometer race with a good time as a member of the Northwest Florida Track Club.

Dr. Michael Berkland, who found inconclusive results after performing the Klausutis autopsy, had recently relocated to Florida; and public reports reveal that Berkland's medical license in the state of Missouri was revoked in 1998 as a result of Berkland reporting false information regarding brain tissue samples in a 1996 autopsy report—charges that Berkland does not deny.

A former agency official who spoke to us directly recognized the name of Dr. Michael Berkland and identified him as being “on the roster of secret CIA operatives used in sensitive and controversial deaths involving government officials to cover up evidence and keep families and American citizens from learning the truth about a loved one’s death,” cover-ups which can then be “employed to blackmail particular government officials involved.”

Berkland was also reportedly suspended from his position as a medical examiner in the state of Florida in July, 1999.

According to an August 8, 2001 American Politics Journal (APJ) report, repeated requests to Dr. Stephen Nelson, Chairman of the Medical Examiners Commission, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, failed to verify that Dr. Berkland's suspension was lifted and that his license and disciplinary record were clear at the time of the Klausutis autopsy. Dr. Nelson was appointed Chairman of the Commission by Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Berkland acknowledged on Monday, August 6 according to APJ, that Lori had sustained a "scratch and a bruise" on her head and that his original denials were to prevent undue speculation about the cause of death. "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury,” Berkland said.

An August 29, 2001 report in the Northwest Florida Daily News revealed that “Klausutis’ head injury was more severe than previously reported,” raising additional obstruction of justice questions for any future grand jury probe.

The same North Florida newspaper removed its September 1, 2001 story revealing that a “controversial autopsy report by ‘where’s the brain section’ Berkland raises more questions than it answers.” There are no indications why the report was removed.

This, reminiscent of Arkansas medical examiner Dr. Fahmy Malak who was involved with the “dead boys on the railroad tracks” and other important autopsies involving suspicious and curious deaths during the Clinton gubernatorial administrations.

The long-time intelligence official who spoke with us about Dr. Michael Berkland also immediately recognized the name of Dr. Malak as “another one of the ‘roster’ doctors called in to cover up suspicious deaths involving high government officials,” raising more serious questions about similar deaths involving government physicians.

The intelligence agent told us “these physicians are also known in our circles as ‘suicide doctors,’ employed to cover up government-sponsored murders of public officials, legislators, political candidates, whistleblowers, journalists and activists attempting to expose government corruption—in other words, orchestrating a ‘suicide’ to cover up ‘red squad’ hits.”

Toxicology and pregnancy tests have been sealed by Florida authorities according to reports, which adds to speculation concerning why the national media blacked out coverage of the suspicious death of a young female congressional staff aide in the member’s own office.

Interestingly, the Klausutis family refused to acknowledge the fact that their daughter knew or even worked for Scarborough for nearly three years as a congressional aide, leaving her important position of state-wide honor out of her obituary altogether.

Moreover, as a high-profile deceased member of the Young Republicans of America national organization, a search of the Young Republicans web site found no mention of Lori or her contributions to the Florida Republican Party, nor any tribute to her memory, or comments about her passing, or position as Rep. Scarborough’s aide, also according to APJ.

Cutting off White House crime family involvement in 9-11

An NBC insider told U.S. intelligence yesterday that Scarbororgh was drinking heavily in the afternoon while complaints came in to MSNBC questioning his treatment of Mariani and his reasons for shutting off the widow’s microphone just as she was discussing 9-11 evidence never heard before during a national news broadcast in the United States.

Ellen Mariani’s husband Neil was a passenger on United Airlines flight 175 that allegedly crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—after which it was later reported by the Associated Press that the plane landed at the Cleveland-Hopkins, Ohio airport where the passengers were told that a bomb might be aboard the aircraft and that they were to be taken into the NASA Glen Research Center.

It has further been reported that other 9-11 flights were taken to this clandestine government facility.

Ellen was then asked by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough to express her opinion of the 9-11 Commission’s final report.

When Scarborough asked Mariani what she thought of the 9-11 Commission’s report, she said, “1) 9-11 Report is nothing more than obstruction of justice and a continuous cover-up by the Bush administration, 2) 9-11 commissioners were all hand picked by Mr. Bush to obstruct justice and maintain a cover-up of the facts and the evidence, 3) The Bush crime family was behind the attack on America.”

When the 9-11 widow started with “4) Lets talk about Able Danger, the scripted 9-11 attack on America, the Oklahoma City Bombing, with direct ties to the Philippines and Wachovia Bank--also known as Project Bojinka, and then, let’s connect the dots: Oklahoma City, 9-11 & Able Danger, Scarborough cut off Mariani’s mike, took the camera off her and never allowed her to complete her statements.

Mariani referred to another Scarborough guest last night, Richard Miniter, as a professional presidential spin doctor who referred to Able Danger as a former operation to rid terrorists throughout the world, which Mariani maintains is not true.

Avoiding the 9-11 evidence factor

Mariani explained that she was about to expose and explain her 9-11 research to listeners before she was cut off by Scarborough—evidence that she had heard and learned about from federal whistleblowers Tom Heneghan and Stew Webb’s weekly American-French Alliance U.S. Intel News Hour on Thursday evenings from 8 to 9 PM Eastern, linked through www.stewwebb.com.

She told us, “It is Joe's privilege as host to cut me off; but he did it before hearing the rest of the facts. How can Americans find the common sense and truth when I’m not allowed to speak out on what I know and believe it to be.”

The widow showed us her notes and went over what she was going to present on MSNBC Scarborough Country:

“Able Danger was the secretive bucket shop operation in Brooklyn, New York where alleged terrorist Mohamed Atta, a known Mossad-Defense Intelligence operative, had direct ties to the Bush-Clinton crime families.”

“The bucket shop was known as a cash cow linked to Maurice ‘Hank’ Greenberg,former CEO of AIG Insurance and the Greenburg-Traurig law firm. Mossad lobbyists and paymaster Jack Abramoff were partners with White House-linked money launderers Leonard & Elaine Millman who owned Silverado Savings where Neil Bush was a director of the failed Savings & Loan. Millman controlled CITI Group-CITI Bank before his death two years ago, and was a direct partner in re-insurance and securities fraud with Greenberg and Meyer Blinder also linked to a failed 1990-91 penny stock collapse during a federal investigation involving billions in securities fraud in Denver, Colorado.”

“New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer, filed a RICO Suit against Greenberg instead of putting him in jail in 2005 after whistleblowers Stew Webb, Tom Heneghan and Karl Schwarz provided evidence to Spitzer who then covered it up. But Greenberg had to resign as CEO of AIG to take the heat off of the connections to Greenberg-Traurig.”

“There is substantial evidence that the Greenberg-Traurig firm is connected to the challenge over control of my dead husband’s estate in order to silence my 9-11 RICO suit against the Bush crime family, several stories of which are found at TomFlocco.com.”

“Maurice Hank Greenberg controlled through Greenberg/Traurig a foundation known as the Waymark Group which was set up to finance the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9-11 attack on America. Silverado Savings and Loan owner Leonard Millman laundered narcotics money into the Waymark Group—and the narcotics were brought into Mena, Arkansas, a part of Iran contra which involved George H. W. Bush, Fox News Host Oliver North and Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

“Jack Abramoff had direct ties to Mohamed Atta and Florida casinos. One casino owner linked to the group was murdered. Abramoff was laundering money through the casinos and Mohammad Atta was seen gambling at the Florida casinos.”

“The information documents that Mohamed Atta was a Defense Intelligence Mossad agent were taken out of the national security archives by former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Burger with current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's permission to steal the evidence.”

“Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s former NSA Director, took the Able Danger document evidence out of the National Archives and literally ate some of the documents, while stuffing some of the other documents in his underwear and socks. Burger was fined a few months ago and never sent to prison; but U.S. intelligence agents have concrete evidence of Berger’s actions—but he still got away with selling out America.”

“President Bush ordered the Washington, DC missile defense system to stand down in late July 2001. Bush also signed an executive order that told the FBI to back of their investigations of Muslims. The reason Mr. Bush told the FBI to allow the Brooklyn, New York bucket shop cell to operate as an active entity and not be apprehended was so the cell could carry out the planned 9-11-2001 attack on America.”

“FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who recently lost her certiorari appeal before the United States Supreme Court after having been ordered gagged by three Republican appeals court judges to help obstruct justice, intercepted the Turkish American Council communications of Defense Intelligence rogue agent Gary Best and others who were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Best was an Iran-contra Shadow Government player now in French custody for trying to blow up the French satellite launch pad in French Guyanna.”

“Other US intelligence agents also intercepted the Turkish American council communications when George H. W. Bush discussed the 9-11 attack on America. George H. W. Bush and Richard Cheney were 400 feet below ground in the White House situation room controlling the Justice Department Tripod II Brooklyn, New York bucket shop operation attacking America on 9-11-2001. This, while George W. Bush was reading a goat story in a Florida classroom, far away from the action—and why did he select a story about a goat?”

“Federal Whistleblower Karl Swartz's investigation revealed that missiles were retrofitted by Hughes Corp on one of their A-3 Airplanes at the Ft Collins Colorado Airport and that one of them was the missile that hit the Pentagon—not an airplane.”

“The warehouse was owned by several people including Maurice Hank Greenberg, former CEO of AIG Insurance, the largest U.S. insurance group allegedly linked to narcotics money laundering and re-insurance frauds, and connected to Leonard Millman's National Acceptance-First National Acceptance Company at 50 S. Steel, Denver Colorado.”
Ellen Mariani

“Whistleblowers Schwartz, Heneghan and Webb provided evidence to New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer who continues the cover-up, which is obstruction of Justice.”

“Let’s look at the facts and evidence that friends of mine, federal whistleblowers and US intelligence agents have and want to present before a Federal Grand Jury and have filed in US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (in Denver) Case # 95-Y-107 Filed Aug. 4, 2004 by Stewart Webb.”

“My research found a number of 9-11 Commission" conflicts: Jamie Gorelick covered up Iraq-gate/BNL Bank/Gulf War Syndrome—the scandal which keeps changing names. Bob Kerry of Nebraska has been identified by U.S. intelligence as a pedophile and the Clintons have blackmailed him. Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean had oil investments linked to both Bush and the bin Laden family but sold them just before being named chairman of the 9-11 Commission."

Ellen told us, “I was interviewed in May of 2002 by FOX News Network and their top spin doctor, Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough are nothing more than little boys doing an adult job as spin doctors for the Bushes; and Americans know this,” adding, “I finally realize that the major media in America is nothing but a cover-up machine for the Bush-Clinton crime families.”

Sadly, Mariani told us, “On September 11, I not only lost my husband Neil, but I lost my country as well—especially my freedom of speech and my rights in the federal judicial system.”

The 9-11 widow’s distasteful experience on Scarborough Country and facts uncovered by U.S. intelligence regarding explosive documents in Scarborough’s possession—linked to his congressional aide—raise questions as to whether there is more to this story than meets the eye, the paucity of national media coverage notwithstanding.

“The American people will have to decide whether the potential to blackmail a U.S. congressman with the power to a) send our children to war based on lies, b) allow our pension funds to be stolen or c) bribe 9-11 victims so they promise never to sue the government for the facts is more important than a potentially compromised national cable news host with the power to cut off my microphone before I expose the Bush administration’s involvement in the death of my husband,” said the 9-11 widow.

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Let us start out with the fact that the Constitution is actually written on parchment, not paper. A trivial point, I grant you, but one that reveals (along with your inability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear") a shocking lack of education in a head of state.

But to get to the point, the Constitution is not the parchment itself, but the ideas written upon it; ideas which form the foundations of our nation, ideas which would carry equal weight if written on stone, glass, metal, or even paper. These ideas are the soul of the nation. They include the recognition that the people of this nation have certain rights, rights which the government doe snot have the authority to remove. These rights include freedom of speech, to say what we think about the nation at any and all times, to write that opinion down and share it however we choose to. These rights include the freedom to worship as we choose, free from coercion. These rights include the right to privacy, in our homes and businesses, free from government intrusions other than in very specific and well-defined circumstances.

Maybe those rights are inconvenient to you, as such rights are always inconvenient to tyrants, but you are not allowed the choice which rights you will abide by or not. That too is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution.

The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper or parchment. It's a contract; the original contract with America. It's the contract you yourself swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. You attached your name to that promise. You swore that oath before a judge of the United States Supreme Court, with your hand on a bible. That isn't just scenery for the cameras. Swearing an oath before a judge carries legal obligations with that oath, and legal penalties for breaking that oath.

The election process by which you claim authority is defined in that Constitution. And as you claim authority by Constitutional process, so too are you limited by Constitutional process. If you act outside the limits of the Constitution, you are no longer acting as the President, but as a private citizen abusing the powers with which you were trusted. A government that acts outside the Constitution ceases to be the legal government of this land.

The Constitution exists not only to tell the government what it may do, but more importantly what it may not do. You, as the President, are not allowed to declare wars without the US Congress. You, the President, are not allowed to seize people at random and send them off to be tortured. And most of all, you, the President, and not allowed to lie to the people and to the Congress.

Every President before you, including your father, swore that oath to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution. Millions of Americans died in wars in the firm belief that the form of government describes on that parchment was worth such a sacrifice. To state that the Constitution is just a "dammed piece of paper" is a slap in the face of every American who ever donned the uniform of the military forces of this country.

Go over to Arlington National Cemetery. It's not that far from where you live. Look at those tombstones. By your statement, you have written across and every one the words, "Died for a goddamned piece of paper."

Here we go:

1. Do you understand that no tangible, truthful reason has ever been given for the invasion of Iraq and that the 9/11 Commission Report – which is the de facto, official findings of our government – says there was no reason whatsoever for this war?

2. Have you ever heard of the Downing Street Memos? Would it interest you to know that these official notes, from the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, show that the Bush administration was dead-set on war with Iraq and twisting intelligence to fit that goal?

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," reported the secret memo, later published in the Sunday Times of London. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

3. When you look at the picture of even one military man or woman killed in Iraq and imagine the pain their family must feel, can you multiply that by 2,134 and believe that was a worthwhile down payment on removing Saddam Hussein from power? Before you answer, are you aware that Iraq had nothing to do with any attacks on our country and that it has been proven that Saddam Hussein had no capability at all to harm our people?

See the 9/11 Commission Report for more information.

4. Do you approve of how ineffective the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been rendered since 2000 and the deadly results in our inability to protect our own people in disasters -- even those for which we have plenty of warning? Were you surprised to find out that the campaign contributor President Bush appointed to be the recently-disgraced head of FEMA had no experience at all in disaster management?

5. Do you have health insurance? Are you aware that almost 46 million Americans have no medical insurance and that the Bush administration thinks this works just fine? Most of us parents have seen our young children suffer with a common ear infection. Imagine watching your child in that pain and how you would feel being powerless to get antibiotics to ease your child's suffering. Are you comfortable with children in America living in situations like that – and worse?

6. Is your family better off and more stable socially, medically and economically now than when Bill Clinton was president? Even assuming you are not an economist, how do you compare the 22.7 million jobs created by President Clinton's administration with a net loss of jobs -- a 4.6 percent decrease in total employment -- since Bush took office?

7. Did the photos of prisoner abuse released from Abu Ghraib – the worst are in litigation and still to come – make you proud of our country?

8. Do you ever lie awake at night and question how the world went from a mentality of "we are all Americans today" on September 12, 2001 to almost universally despising our country now? To what do you attribute this?

9. Do you understand that scientists have almost universally agreed that a Category 1 hurricane doesn't become a Category 5 overnight without the impact of significant global warming? Did you know that Team Bush doesn't believe in the concept?

10. Do you believe it is good for your family and the future of your children that President Bush took the biggest federal budget surplus in U.S. history – amassed during the Clinton years – and turned it into the largest deficit ever in just his first term? What is your view of public policy that continues to give massive tax cuts to the richest Americans while doing nothing about our health-care crisis and, at the same time, cutting safety-net programs for children, the elderly, disabled Americans and Veterans?

11. Do you have a "support the troops" sticker on your car? How does this square with the fact that the Bush administration has cut Veterans benefits repeatedly and that the Republican Congress has on many occasions voted down Democrat-sponsored measures that would have provided physical and mental health-care funds for returning Iraq-war Vets?

12. Have you heard the name Valerie Plame in the news and just not understood why? Did you know that she's the covert CIA officer outed by the Bush administration as retaliation against her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who exposed a major lie used by the administration take us to war in Iraq?

13. Did you know that the 44 Democrats in the U.S. Senate represent well over 50 percent of the country's population and yet Republicans have voted down almost 90 percent of legislation sponsored by Democrats in 2005?

14. The federal minimum wage has stayed below the poverty level -- $5.15 per hour –for almost a decade, creating a situation where a hard-working American, working 50-60 hours a week, still lives at or below the poverty line. Does that sound right to you? Are you aware that Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy brought minimum wage increases to the Senate floor twice in 2005 and they were shot down each time by the Republican majority?

15. Are you okay with the culture of corruption in the GOP that has the vice president's chief of staff indicted for perjury, Tom DeLay up on money-laundering charges and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist being investigated for insider trading – and that this may only be the tip of the iceberg?

If you are fully aware of everything I have cited here and can still say that you approve of George W. Bush, then we just flat-out have very different views of what America is supposed to be. But I have to ask: What happened to your love of country?

If this has given you food for thought, please do your own homework on these issues and use the information to make you more carefully consider who gets your vote in 2006 and 2008.

For the 60-65 percent of you who already think that the president is doing a lousy job, use these as talking points whenever anyone dares to talk about what a great leader we have in the White House.

The initial facts that have emerged from the shooting are appalling. Alpizar, a US citizen who left his native country 20 years ago, was returning with his wife from South America, where they had participated in missionary work with her uncle, a Michigan dentist who provides free treatment to the poor.

As the two were boarding a connecting flight in Miami bound for Orlando, Florida, Alpizar became extremely agitated, bolted up the aisle and tried to flee the aircraft. It was then that he was confronted by two undercover air marshals.

Passengers said that his wife was running after him shouting, “My husband is sick, my husband is sick.” Others heard her pleading, saying that he was bipolar and had not taken his medicine. She told them that it was her fault for persuading him to get on the plane.

Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, affects an estimated 2 million American adults. It is characterized by severe mood swings that can include provocative or aggressive behavior.

Alpizar’s wife of 20 years, Anne Buechner, is a project director with the Council on Quality and Leadership, a not-for-profit agency that assists people with disabilities and mental illness.

Alpizar fled the aircraft after being confronted by the plainclothes marshals. It was then that passengers heard five or six shots fired. A spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, Dave Adams, told the press that Alpizar had “run up and down the aisle yelling, ‘I have a bomb in my bag,’” CNN reported. Passengers interviewed, however, said that they didn’t hear him say anything.

After the shooting, the marshals claimed that Alpizar had told them that he had a bomb and that they shot him after he failed to obey orders to put the bag down and appeared to reach into it. Given the unsupported claim by the spokesman about Alpizar yelling he had a bomb, this version of events is also suspect.

The only thing that is clear is that a man suffering from mental illness acted in an agitated fashion and was shot to death while fleeing.

What happened next was a police response that was far more berserk than anything that the slain passenger had done. Police and federal agents stormed onto the plane and ordered every passenger to put their hands on their heads and not to move.

John McAlhany, a Florida construction worker on the plane, told the Miami Herald that other passengers were “treated roughly” by the cops.

“They put a gun to the back of my head and said, ‘Put you hands on the seat,’” he said. “That was more scary than anything else.”

McAlhany continued: “I don’t know if they shot an innocent man or not. I don’t think he was armed or had a bomb. I think he had a mental illness. I don’t think they really had to shoot him.”

After being held on the plane at gunpoint for an hour, the other passengers were ordered off—again with their hands on their heads. They were then held at the airport for questioning, the last of them released nine hours after the incident.

Meanwhile, law enforcement agents blew up Alpizar’s luggage on the tarmac, confirming that he was carrying no bomb or other weapon. All of the other passengers’ bags were searched using explosive-sniffing dogs.

In Costa Rica, the slain man’s 72-year-old father said that his relatives were stunned by the killing. “I cannot believe what has happened to my son,” Carlos Alpizar Fonseca told the San Jose daily Nación. “I cannot get over the fact that they gunned my son down like a criminal.”

Neighbors of Alpizar in the town of Maitland, Florida were equally shocked by the killing. They described him as friendly and helpful, having never shown signs of volatile behavior. Louis Gunther, who said he was looking after the couple’s home while they were in South America, said, “Everybody is talking about a guy I know nothing about.”

The fatal shooting has shed some light on the secret air marshal program initiated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. While the number of such marshals, their procedures and even their names are all classified information, there are reportedly between 3,000 and 4,000 currently riding undercover on American passenger planes. It is now clear that they have been given shoot-to-kill orders.

Even if the marshals’ account is taken at its face value, the sudden lethal response to Alpizar’s actions is at best questionable. First, his bag had been inspected three times before he boarded the plane—once before boarding in Ecuador, once in clearing customs and a third time before boarding the connecting flight in Miami. The odds of getting a bomb on board were minuscule. Second, he was shot after leaving the plane.

David Laird, the former security director of Northwest Airlines and head of an aviation security consulting firm, called the decision to shoot the passenger “a terrible call.” In an interview with UPI, he pointed out that if he indeed had had a bomb, the shooting could have caused him to trigger it.

No such questions, nor the slightest indication of regret, however, were forthcoming from Washington. Instead, the fatal shooting was hailed as a success.

“They did an outstanding job,” Adams, the marshals service spokesmen said of the two agents who shot an innocent man to death.

“Their training showed they made the right decision, though there turned out to be no bomb in the bag,” Department of Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle told the media.

Asked about the shooting at a White House press conference Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan declared: “...the air marshals that were on this flight appear to have acted consistent with the extensive training that they have received, and that’s important to note. And so we are appreciative of all that our air marshals do day in and day out in terms of trying to protect the American people.”

The most enthusiastic response, however came from Congressman John Mica, a Florida Republican whose district office is located in Maitland, the same town where Rigoberto Alpizar lived.

“This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations,” the Congressman said of the slaying. Mica is chairman of the House transportation subcommittee on aviation.

Asked on CNN television news whether the marshals shouldn’t be able to distinguish someone suffering from mental illness from a terrorist—as many of Alpizar’s fellow passengers did— Mica replied contemptuously, “Air marshals don’t have time for counseling.”

Mica is typical of the right-wing element that dominates in Washington. Earlier this year, he delivered a speech declaring the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo “too good for the bastards” and dismissing the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by declaring, “I saw worse things at fraternity houses in college than what our troops were involved in.”

Summing up his attitude to the gunning down of a mentally ill airplane passenger—one of his own constituents—Mica declared, “This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat.”

Official Washington’s celebration of the fatal shooting of an innocent man fleeing a commercial airliner, however, sends another message entirely. It is a message of a brutal society, increasingly indifferent to human life, and prepared to inflict the methods of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Fallujah on its own citizens.

What those like Mica and the Bush White House welcome in this bloodletting is that the “war on terror” has come home. They see in the killing of Rigoberto Alpizar an act that will serve to intimidate the public at large and an affirmation of the unfettered powers of the state and its security forces to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Sunday on "Face the Nation," John Kerry said to Bob Schieffer: "There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking ... the historical customs, religious customs. ... Iraqis should be doing that."

After the laughter died, Democratic spin-doctors were out in force explaining that Kerry was not calling U.S. troops terrorists.

After Bush went before the Council of Foreign Relations to report some progress in the war, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi headed for the cameras to sneer: "Just because he says things are improving doesn't make it so. ... The president says the security situation on the ground is better. It is not."

How's that for a morale booster?

Rep. Jack Murtha added, "Bush's plan is to stay the course and hope."

But, surely, hope is superior to this remorseless despair and defeatism oozing out of the Democratic Party. One wonders what Jack Murtha's old Marine buddies think when they hear him -- day in, day out -- wail that all is lost and the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth."

"They have a right to criticize who have a heart to help," said Lincoln. Listening to Democrats, it is hard to discern any of the latter, outside of Sen. Joe Lieberman. Whatever one thinks of the war, the party is revealing itself to be so steeped in pessimism that it is unfit to lead the nation. Who could vote for such a party?

Democrats are again courting a perception that they are not really a loyal opposition at all, but a party of defeat and retreat, whose worst nightmare would be to see George Bush emerge as a victorious president in a war they said we could not win. This is precisely the perception Democrats created in the last days of Vietnam -- and they paid a hellish price for it.

Half the nation now believes the war was a mistake and wants U.S. troop withdrawals to begin. But no patriot wants to see Iraq collapse into chaos and civil war, and everything for which 2,100 Americans died and 16,000 suffered washed down a sewer.

But if President Bush is doing his duty in rallying the nation not to cut and run, there appears to be a disconnect between his policy and reality. If, after 30 months and 150,000 troops in Iraq, the insurgency is not defeated, how will we achieve victory when we withdraw 20,000 after this week's elections and another 40,000 next year, bringing U.S. troop levels to 100,000 by Election Day 2006?

While undeniably true that the U.S. military presence is a primary cause of the Sunni insurgency, it is also true that the U.S. military presence alone stands between the insurgency and victory in the Sunni provinces of the west.

As U.S. forces are drawn down and Iraqi forces "stand up," in Bush's phrase, we are going to face a moment when our Iraqis are going to have to engage and defeat an insurgency we have been unable to beat with 150,000 of the best-trained anti-insurgency troops in the world. What leads us to believe they can hack it, if, after three years, we couldn't?

Murtha's depiction of the Army as "broken, worn out ... living hand to mouth" sounds like the Army of Northern Virginia after the fall of Petersburg. It is surely an exaggeration. But the Army is stretched -- including Reserves, Guard and combat units, some of which are headed back for second and third tours. This cannot continue.

As our moment of truth in Vietnam came in the Tet Offensive of 1968 that broke Lyndon Johnson, Bush's "Tet moment" is coming in Iraq, almost surely in 2006, when the insurgency appears to be growing in strength and confidence, and the new government appears shaky.

If his generals come to him, then, and say: Mr. President, we have to stop the withdrawals and may need more troops to stave off a collapse -- what does Bush do? Almost certainly, we shall find out in the new year.

Meanwhile, Bush should keep praying Voltaire's prayer.

Key provisions cover the ability of law enforcement officials to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity.

Broadened wiretap powers

The measure provides a four-year extension of the government’s ability to conduct roving wiretaps — which may involve multiple phones — and to seek access to many of the personal records covered by the bill.

Also extended for four years is the power to wiretap “lone wolf” terrorists who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power. An earlier, pre-Thanksgiving stab at compromise had called for seven-year extensions of these provisions.

Yet another provision, which applies to all criminal cases, gives the government 30 days to provide notice that it has carried out a search warrant.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, described the final product as “not a perfect bill but a good one,” and credited the White House with helping bring the House and Senate negotiators together.

Feingold: 'This battle is not over'

But lawmakers in both parties attacked the measure. “This battle is not over,” said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who complained that the bill lacked “adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms.” He vowed to do everything he could, including a filibuster, to stop the bill from passing.

It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. While Republican officials seemed confident the bill would pass the House, it was not clear Thursday night that it could command the level of support needed for Senate passage as well.

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act, which passed in the days following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, four years later, lawmakers in both parties appear more willing to express their opposition, on grounds that the bill fails to protect privacy rights. Three Republican and three Democratic senators issued a statement calling for revisions to give law enforcement “the tools they need while providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.” The six included Republicans John Sununu of New Hampshire, Larry Craig of Idaho and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, plus Feingold and fellow Democrats Richard Durbin of Illinois and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid intends to oppose the bill, based on what he has reviewed to date, according spokesman Jim Manley. He said the Nevada lawmaker needs to consult with fellow Democrats before deciding whether to join a filibuster.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who is the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, voiced opposition to the bill, but also declined to say whether he would join Feingold.

White House officials signaled their satisfaction, and Specter has credited Vice President Dick Cheney with intervening this week to help bring the House and Senate together.

Additionally, some Republicans said that, purely in political terms, they relished the prospect of Senate Democrats mounting a last-ditch attempt to block the measure.

Mixed signals

The agreement capped weeks of fits and starts, and came after a day of confusion and mixed signals.

Specter held a late-morning news conference Thursday to hail the compromise and confidently predicted that the five other Senate Republican negotiators involved in talks with the House would back the deal.

But within a few hours, a House Judiciary Committee aide circulated an e-mail notice citing a “misrepresentation by Sen. Specter’s office” and saying the legislation was unlikely to be completed this week.

Several Republican officials, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said GOP Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona, whose signatures were needed on official papers, had not yet given their approval.

By late afternoon, both men swung behind the bill. One official said that before giving their approval, the two senators wanted to know why the measure contained four-year extensions instead of the seven-year renewals in an earlier compromise — a change that Specter had been seeking in hopes of winning Leahy’s support.

These officials spoke to The AP on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to provide details of private conversations.

Under the measure announced during the day, law enforcement officials could continue to obtain secret access to a variety of personal records from businesses, hospitals and other organizations, including libraries.

Access is obtained by order of a secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The recipient of the request for information is subject to a gag order that cannot be challenged in court, according to officials.

Specter said the draft legislation would, for the first time, require the law enforcement agent to present a judge with a “statement of fact” showing the request was relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation. Critics said other provisions rendered the requirement virtually meaningless.

On a second issue, relating to a National Security Letter, government investigators could continue to gain access to a more limited range of personal records without a court order of any kind.

The recipient of the letter — a bank, for example — would have the explicit right to challenge the government’s request in court, as well as the right to consult a lawyer without having to notify the FBI it had done so.

FBI Special Agent Monique Kelso, the spokeswoman for the agency in Colorado, disputed the claim the task force wastes resources gathering information on protesters.

“We do not open cases or monitor cases just based purely on protests,” she said Thursday. “It’s our job to protect American civil rights. We don’t surveil cases just to do that. We have credible information.”

The documents cover the June 2002 protest of the North American Wholesale Lumber Association convention at The Broadmoor hotel and an anti-war protest at Palmer Park in February 2003, the ACLU said.

The FBI files contain the names and license-plate numbers of 31 people at the 2002 protest, Silverstein said.

Activists accused the lumber association, a trade organization of about 650 forestproducts and building-material wholesalers, of destroying endangered forests and needlessly logging on public land.

A few of the activists were arrested after sneaking onto The Broadmoor’s roof to un- furl a 45-foot banner.

The FBI documents indicated agents planned surveillance in Denver where protesters gathered to carpool to Colorado Springs for the 2003 anti-war protest at Palmer Park, the ACLU said. FBI agents also collected information on three Web sites that listed details of the planned protest, the ACLU said.

The file was classified as domestic terrorism and acts of terrorism, Silverstein said.

“The FBI is unjustifiably treating nonviolent public protest as though it were domestic terrorism,” Silverstein said. “The FBI’s misplaced priorities threaten to deter legitimate criticism of government policy while wasting taxpayer resources that should be directed to investigating real terrorists.”

The 2003 rally was part of an International Day of Peace to oppose possible U.S. military action against Iraq. Protesters gathered at Palmer Park and outside Peterson Air Force Base.

Nearly three dozen protesters at both locations were arrested for failing to disperse.

About 30 protesters at the park obstructed traffic and blocked Academy Boulevard, which was shut down for about an hour. Some sat down in the northbound lanes and wrote messages in chalk on the street. Others stood in front of cars in the southbound lanes.

Dozens of police officers used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse the crowd.

The FBI files are available online

"We must make sure that we dry up the swamp of terrorism and we must have a lot of intelligence sharing in order to achieve that. That is how we can combat terrorism."

Mr Erdogan, whose country has suffered at the hands of terrorists, stressed how hard it is to deal with those whose tactics include suicide.

"It's very difficult to deal with people who have dedicated themselves to death," he said. "These are people who have bombs on their bodies, who are willing to kill themselves to kill others."

Meanwhile, addressing the CEW Bean Foundation last night, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock strongly defended the Government's new sedition laws, rejecting arguments that the media should have an exemption "because no one should be above the law".

"Calling yourself a journalist should not give you the right to urge the use of violence against democratic institutions," he said. "I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that someone describing themselves as a journalist could never be directly involved in assisting the enemy."

Sooner or later, the old order will evolve into a new order, one way or the other. It's not foreordained or otherwise etched in stone, which "order" that will be. Man has free will -- each to their own. True servant leaders represent the highest and best aspirations of humanity. They define the problem and lead us out of them.

The low-end of free will is always the "paradigm paralysis" (victim dictum) that gets along by going along with wolves in sheep's clothing intent on fleecing the sheople. Conversely, the high end of free will embraces the sovereign rights based on Divine Rights as will evolve the core "mediation" process of the instant-everywhere-interactive MEDIA in more intelligent ways... with a heart.

The economy is under attack for the same reason the media is afflicted. The fleecing of the truth and fleecing of the economy is inseparable. An economy based on lies is bankrupt. It's just another "weapon of mass deception" used to further the agenda of wolves who continue to provide "solutions" that compound the core problem... stripping the economy of all value in the process.

Obviously, the beginning of a New World of Internet media freedom is the end of the Old World of the "Big Lie " (Grand Illusion). Truth is indeed a challenge to those government-media forces that hide behind a mask of "truth-tellers" but live the Big Lie. The truth of this betrayal of all that Americans hold sacred is also a challenge for those who live by the boob tube and believe the lies. As the scripture says in response to willful ignorance, "their dam-nation is just" -- creating a "dammed nation" where self-deceit, denial and destruction are conditioned at the expense of enlightened awareness of the healing process needed.

True servant leaders who are Truth-based are fearless in their faith. They know the test of modern civilization is to evolve with truth and love that checks deceit and fear. They know that the dark night will end as "more light" on the core media problem brings people out of denial, especially when a clear vision of the core media solution is highlighted.

FREEDOM IS A CHOICE

It's one thing to know that information overload and cultural shock from 9-11 trauma is numbing the mind of many Americans. It's quite another thing to be so clear on the solution that one is compelled to support it in full faith that the healing will begin.

That solution is a critical mass of awakening in the collective conscience of humanity. This awakening begins with awareness of the problem with mainstream media propaganda. But more so, true awakening is exalted through a definitive vision of the solution for holistic healing of the "nervous system" of humanity -- the New Media system of "mediation" called "web 2.0" (www.heartcom.org/UrgentAppeal.htm)

Fearless faith in divine rights is the real casualty when the warmongers feed on faithless fear in the name of "security". As wise old Ben Franklin said, we will lose both freedom and security when we head down the slippery slope that surrenders freedom for security. Yet that self-sabotage message is incessantly drilled into the consciousness of the public by the mainstream media. Without vision of the solution to this core problem, the only "self-evident" truth is the self-destructive problem that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; the people perish.

Enlightened people -- those who conceive and believe a global mediation model whereby a New Enlightenment is achieved -- understand all this. They understand the mind-control vested interests of the special interests represented in the mainstream media. They understand how fear is programmed at the expense of faith. They see how denial of truth is charged with fear -- how "selective memory" is fear-frozen. And why people can't see the solution while frozen in denial of the problem.

It is faith in a Higher Power that is under attack. A truly enlightened person doesn't surrender true faith in the face of fear. They understand how even the concept of "faith-based initiates" is inverted, subverted or otherwise co-opted by the REAL terrorists to create subservient loyalty to endless war "Belief Systems" (BS) that "the faithful" believe religiously for a "fraction of the action" (payola) from "compassionate conservatism".

The wolves will say and do anything to keep their "sheople mask" in place. They will continue to pull the wool over the eyes of mindless sheople. But true leaders know we must be wise as the serpents as well as harmless as doves. And wisdom is what wise dominion does -- exposing the Big Lie in context of the Whole Truth -- calling a spade a spade. And doing what the poor in Spirit are not able or willing to do.

The fallen ones who lack "Higher Power" create false faith as the solution to false fears. Subservience to "poor intelligence" in government is compounded by even poorer intelligence... that wants everyone as numb and dumb as it is. They live in constant fear that they will be exposed as the REAL terrorists behind the 9-11 Pearl Harbor. And they want everyone to suffer "FUD and DUH" that keeps the blinders on. (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt and Dummies Unconscious and Heartless)

The enlightened public KNOWS these terrorists will do anything to maintain power. They created the 9-11 psychotic break in the minds of Americans for the ultimate "mind control" (suspension of reality) that overlooked the overt stealing of the election with rigged voted machines. That was their prelude to their creation of the endless war on terror to begin suspending the Constitution with war powers that were never authorized with a Congressional declaration of war as required by law.

This slippery slope down the road of tyranny just gets worse if people don't get a grip on reality and network articles like this far and wide... while the Internet is yet free and open. That doesn't cost anything. But the price to pay -- if we don't -- is abject tyranny.

It's now well known that the Patriot Act was drafted BEFORE 9-11 just as the Iraq attack was planned long before 9-11. All part and parcel of the Big Lie of wag-the-dog terror and tyranny tactics used to bomb the hell out of truth and resistance to fear-based lies. When we finally come out of "shock and awe" we will conceive and believe what the New Media can achieve.

The U.S. crisis is at a critical point. The forces behind that crisis have used the media to expand it on purpose... just as they have always used war, disease, and economic crisis to leverage "solutions" that consolidate their power and control.

Read the following "23 Reasons" why the old economic order of "scarcity economics" is on the verge of collapse. And keep in mind that the REAL SOLUTION -- for transition to a New Economy based on abundant Virtue and Truth in the New Media -- is the REAL action plan needed at this critical hour of Earth's evolution.

From a netizen journalist addressing the economic crisis in a letter to the editor of USA Today, in response to a typical superficial editorial on the "problem" with the economy:

Let me list the facts. Check them out yourselves.

1. Bush et al has grown the current government in 5 years by over 23% from any previous administration.

2. There are 21 million employees of tax payer funded government services. That is exactly the same number as the entire manufacturing base of this nation.

3. Consider what happened to all the money the baby boomers put into the system including those that have died already and where are the investments to make it grow? Who spent it and why is it not available to them?

4. How come we are paying billions in interest on the debt and not obtaining interest on all the deposits of monies we have on deposit with the banks from various tax revenues?

5. What about all the NO BID CONTRACTS that are raping and pillaging our tax dollars in Iraq and for Katrina, Rita, Wilma?

6. What about the subsidies that were passed to give tax dollars to the oil companies to aid in building refineries when they have record breaking profits???

7. What about the trillions in tax breaks for all the various corporations that are the biggest ever?

8. What about the moving of industries that were our greatest tax revenue generating industries, to overseas locations with impunity? This started with Bush in the 80's and finished up with Bush the son in the past 4 years. They destroyed our tax base along with other affected communities and businesses that generate revenues for gov. expenditures through small business profits, wages and investments.

9. What about Cheney's secret energy policy written by the oil companies? That has cost government in gas, as well as the pentagon and military and this winter. That was a bogus crisis, since the obscene profits prove it. There was no shortage, only gouging and profiteering. ["Peak Oil" is a scam to sell artificial scarcity. -CR]

10. What about the 1 trillion dollars that was reported missing from the pentagon by the GAO office who investigates gov. wrong doing? Where is the beef?

11. What about the recent disclosure that the Pentagon in its "no bid" mind set is spending 15 times the value for pieces of equipment and supplies?

12. What about the 12 border stations we built in Afghanistan at $300,000 a piece to protect drug running, while we leave our borders unprotected?

13. What about the 14 permanent bases being built in Iraq? We are paying for those.

14. What about the oil revenues to Iraq that we are slant drilling out of Kuwait and selling? Where are those revenues to replace the money we are spending there? That alone should be enough to free up our tax dollars in Iraq.

15. What about the government prevention of obtaining gov financed medicines from countries at 2/3rds lower price (Canada) that are manufactured by our drug companies? So we have a budget deficit so these drug companies can make obscene profits.

16. What about all the pensions funds that these corporations are defaulting on, retaining their profits, held not accountable and the tax payer picks up the bill??? Why is that!

17. Subsidizing airlines as a form of corporate welfare. I am a small business owner and no one subsidizes me. If I go down through bad management and bad decisions no one will give me a hand out. I simply disappear. That is what they should be doing.

18. You didn't talk about the billions in soc sec funds being shipped to Mexico for the ILLEGALS who worked here illegally and didn't pay into the system? How come the media doesn't mention all this? They get better terms than those baby boomers who paid in (HAD TO PAY IN TO QUALIFY TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS) a huge chuck of their income over those many years.

19. You didn't mention the huge bucks Bush paid for bogus reporters to shill his positions, remember Williams? Remember all the videos that were sent to various news agencies??? How come the media doesn't mention that? Same with the so called "reporters" who were to shill his "every child left behind" program.

20. You didn't mention the failed star wars program that has cost the tax payers close to a trillion dollars and has not yet ever had a successful test. [breakthrough anti-gravity and free-energy technologies have been developed but suppressed from public awareness or use in order to sustain the population reduction and control agenda of the elite. -CR]

21. You didn't mention the funds to fly chemtrails over various urban areas that was finally disclosed by the Las Vegas Tribune. And the huge cost of that? Maybe if you stopped that we could have quite a few billion in savings and in medical costs from the illnesses those damn things cause.

22. You didn't mention the billions and billions spent on various vaccines that we never needed like anthrax, small pox (remember the pic of the pres taking it in the arm?) and finally tamiflu that has just killed 12 or 14 teens who took it in Japan. Now true, Rumsfeld makes a killing on it, but we are stuck with the tax bill for their friends again.

23. You didn't mention that 50% of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel which is the least effective ally we have and needs the funds less than any one. They could just make peace with their neighbors and we wouldn't have to send all that money. If a country can't protect itself on its own it needs to go away.

There is much more but I am running out of time and I doubt you will read all of this anyway, but you really want to do a good Pulitzer prize piece, then do some REAL REPORTING on how we got here. Many of us watched as they turned a budget surplus into a budget deficit and knew their policies would crash the economy.


UP AGAINST A CRUMBLING WALL

The wall of lies is crumbling. Whether that wall falls on the wolves in sheep's clothing -- or the American public -- depends on whether enough enlightened people both prepare and respond with TRUE FAITH from the "top down":

ACTION PLAN: FROM TOP TO BOTTOM

SPIRITUALLY: Pray for discernment for self and civilization. The power of prayer -- THE FIERY WILL for divine direction, perfection and protection -- is the prelude of revelation. Powerful prayer fields are created through expectation and anticipation of divine solutions. We are what we "BE-LIVE" (BELIEVE) having become what we "BE-LIVED" (BELIEVED).

Given the Spirit of Love-in-action -- the greater LOVE that is for-giving -- God is alive and well. This is the quintessence of Faith that is winning from the beginning. Envision a LOVE-centric solution to the deceitful fear-based media. Prepare your heart and mind with the frequency of compassion and the blueprint for a Golden Age. Keep the faith -- Love will prevail over those who are love-challenged.

MENTALLY: Keep in mind that this is the "graduation test" for self and civilization. Whether you believe the veil is thinning due to Earth's entering the highly charged Photon belt in the sector of Aquarius -- or not -- the fact remains, the collective conscience of humanity is still going through a profound POWERSHIFT as the instant-everywhere-interactive capability of the Internet challenges the lock-step, command-and-control martial law mindset of the dark side of the force.

Remember that the "Mind of G.O.D." (Geometrically Ordered Divinity) follows from the spiritual heart of compassion. We are what we THINK in heart and mind, having become what we THOUGHT. Use it -- conscientious reasoning -- or lose it to the pervasive influence of the mainstream mass media mind control matrix.

And above all -- in your higher mental body -- understand the natural evolution of the Internet that will culture the World Wide Web with the "InnerNet" web of Light and Love.

PHYSICALLY: We are what we DO, having become what we DID. Old habits die hard when DOING is not connected to BEING as in BE-IN-God (living Love). Breaking the old habits cultured by the corrupt influence of profiteering plutocrat potentates behind public education, mainstream media, a sick "health care" system and the bankrupting endless war insanity has ONE determining factor -- enlightened ACTION.

Affirmation of Spiritual discernment is most important.

Confirmation with higher mental understanding naturally follows.

But honoring the Truth of Spirit with higher conscience requires DETERMINATION to act with honor and ACTION.

Striking at the root of the global problem is more than just exposing the manipulation of the hearts and minds of "We the People" through corrupt media. It is moreso exposing and developing a definitive vision for healing the media with an electronic instant-everywhere interactive upgrade of our core Bill of Rights at the heart of the Constitution.

ECONOMICALLY: Abundant Truth and Love is the heart of the Abundant Life and the New Economy. The fruits of the oxymoronic "economics of scarcity" should be self-evident as it self-destructs before our eyes. Equally self-evident -- to enlightened Netizens of our global village -- is how the Next Economy will be cultured through the New Media that centers and connects the mediation process via ABUNDANT Truth and Love. Those who invest in this process -- The Legacy Project -- will be rewarded far beyond the trinkets and babbles of this world.

So get the Spiritual Vision, embrace the conceptual virtue, commit with determined action, and be winning from the beginning through the investment of your heart, mind and soul that claims the victory of global LOVE-in-action.

Those who give their light, love and life for this cause will graduate from this "test that's best" with the Abundant Life as their self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those who try to save their lives via faithless fear of the Liar and his lies will have their reward, going to the same dark place reserved for the dark side of the force.

Abundant Love has always been the Great Law at the heart of evolutionary ascent. It's the currency of "Net worth" at the LOVE-centric heart of the new Net-centric economy.

Ask not what the world can do for you; ask how you can contribute to make a difference if not THE difference. It's a CAN DO if you WANT TO --
see www.heartcom.org/contribute.htm . Bank on it.

DO what you CAN because YOU CAN!

All Ways Victory When We LOVE Enough,

Since the introduction this April of new draconian laws that forbid spontaneous free speech within a one-kilometre radius of the House of Commons, many demonstrators have fallen foul of the legislation. Only three days ago Maya Evans, 25, was convicted of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 after reading aloud the names of the 97 dead British soldiers next to the Cenotaph on Whitehall.

Voices from across the political spectrum have condemned the Government for trying to suppress free speech and deny protesters their right to demonstrate. In making the case for the war in Iraq, Mr Blair has often stated his ambition that Iraqis should be allowed the political freedoms enjoyed in Britain. But the evidence is that those freedoms are being steadily eroded in the United Kingdom. Speaking at the George Bush Snr presidential library three years ago, Mr Blair celebrated the right to protest, telling his audience: "I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can." But in the bitter aftermath of the war in Iraq, the margins of domestic dissent are being squeezed.

Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, said yesterday: "All governments have been sensitive to criticism, but this Government has taken the suppression of dissent to a new level - it is nervous to the point of paranoia and frightened of being told the truth."

John McDonnell MP, chairman of the Campaign Group of Labour MPs, added there was an increasing build-up of anger in Parliament: "Freedom of speech has never been under such attack in the UK and it is shameful this is happening under a Labour government. We need a concerted campaign in Parliament and if necessary in the courts to counter this full-frontal attack on our centuries' old democratic rights."

Mr Haw was driven to Charing Cross police station to answer accusations that he had breached the peace. Ironically, while his vocal vigil outside the House of Commons inspired the new Socpa law, High Court judges in July ruled that he was exempt from the ruling as his protest began before it came into force. But, he insisted, he continues to be "harrassed" by the police.

"I wrote to Tony Blair and said dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. I am not a lone ranger. I am not the saviour of mankind. But I do know that I am responsible. We each have a responsibility."

He explained that he was asleep yesterday morning while a supporter - a freelance photographer, Maeve Tomlinson, 29 - kept a vigil by his side.

"I heard all these loud voices. I called out: 'Can you keep the noise down.' Finally, I stuck my head out and these two PCs - one man and one woman - were giving Maeve the tenth degree. She was just sitting in a chair minding her own business."

At the station, Mr Haw protested loudly on the phone to his solicitor and within the hour the desk sergeant released him to walk back to his permanent post on Parliament Square.

Having joined a protest against sanctions in Iraq in early 2001, the father-of-seven was so moved he came back in June that year with a plastic grey chair and a small sign proclaiming "Stop Killing Kids, Let Iraq's Infants Live". Bar three spells in hospital and many court cases, as defendant and witness, he has kept that vigil night and day ever since. His one sign has now been joined by hundreds of others.

Yesterday, one of his most devoted fans, Peggy Preston, 82, turned up and announced: "I went to Charing Cross and I told them off."

Once freed from police custody yesterday, Mr Haw solemnly read out the names of dead British soldiers as well as Iraqi victims of the conflict in the shadow of Big Ben, mimicking Maya Evans' "crime". But - unlike most people in this country - the law, or to be more precise the High Court judge who decreed he was exempt, was on his side.

Wildmon's remarks came after Foxman, in a November 3 address to an ADL meeting, listed AFA among a group of conservative religious organizations whose "goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America." Salon.com reported Foxman's remarks on November 29. On December 5, Foxman and Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, convened a meeting of American Jewish leaders to discuss what Foxman termed the religious right's effort to "Christianize America." In his December 5 broadcast, Wildmon discussed the New York meeting with three AFA staff members.

Later in the broadcast, Wildmon stated that "20 years ago ... when B'nai Brith ... complained about anti-Semitic [sic], some people paid attention to 'em. Really, today, not that many people pay attention to 'em."

B'nai Brith, a leading Jewish organization, founded ADL in 1913.

AFA's American Family Radio is a network of nearly 200 radio stations across the United States whose stated mission is to "inform Christians about what is happening in America." AFA also publishes the AFA Journal, a monthly magazine "full of information that will keep families informed about cultural trends, important issues, boycott information, and even television programming."

From the December 5 broadcast of American Family Radio's AFA Report, which also featured AFA Journal associate editor Rusty Benson, AFR news director Fred Jackson, and AFA Journal news director Ed Vitagliano:

WILDMON: We talked last week -- I think it was last week, the week before last -- Abraham Foxman. Anybody know who Abraham Foxman is or remember us talking about him?

JACKSON: Anti-Defamation League.

WILDMON: He's national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which is a Jewish organization. And Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, have set a meeting today in New York, and their discussion is how to stop the religious right, because they say that the religious right is threatening to destroy America. He says, "They are better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized, and organized -- of coalitions of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before." In other words, he's saying, Fred, that you three fellows sitting here -- now I'm excluded, I'm not like what he's talking about -- you're a danger to the Jews in this country.

[...]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fred, is the Anti-Defamation League -- are they a very high-profile group these days?

JACKSON: You hear from them. I mean, the mainstream media will go to them for comments, like Mr. Foxman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you expect -- expect after this get-together for him to be on CNN or Fox or wherever?

JACKSON: Possibly, but you know, he doesn't get a lot of profile.

WILDMON: You know, he's got himself kind of in a bind, because the strongest supporters Israel has are members of the religious right, the people he's fighting. He's got himself in a bind here. Because the more he says that "you people are destroying this country," you know, some people are going to begin to get fed up with this and say, "Well, all right then. If that's the way you feel, then we just won't support Israel anymore."

JACKSON: Well, thankfully, there are people like [Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation president] Don Feder, there are people like [radio host] Michael Medved. He has a great editorial in today's USA Today.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe.

JACKSON: Jeff Jacoby. There are people like that, Jewish people like that who've come out and said, "Mr. Foxman is dead wrong, and you shouldn't even be listening to him 'cause we don't feel the way he does."

WILDMON: You know, 20 years ago, people kind of feel -- when B'nai Brith, the organization here -- same organization -- complained about anti-Semitic [sic], some people paid attention to 'em. Really, today, not that many people pay attention to 'em.

The awarding of Nobel peace prizes is often controversial but it is rare for the scientific laureates to generate significant opposition. However, a petition to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences signed by about 1,000 intellectuals and academics from Israel, Europe and America describes the awarding of this year's prize to the two professors as "monstrous".

The critics accuse Professor Aumann - a member of the hawkish thinktank, Professors for a Strong Israel, which believes the Jewish state should retain the occupied territories - of using his mathematical theories to promote his political views. "Aumann uses his analysis to justify the Israeli occupation and the oppression of the Palestinians," the petition says.

It describes Professor Schelling's theories as directly inspiring the US military strategy in Vietnam, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. "This strategy resulted in 2 million civilian deaths and was a complete failure in realising its objectives," the petition says.

"Neither of these individuals has contributed anything that improves the human condition; rather, they have contributed to the misery of millions." The petition is signed by Israeli peace campaigners, economists, academics, Holocaust survivors and leftwing politicians. Signatories from about 50 other countries, including the US and several Arab states, have also supported it. Those from Britain include academics at several universities, members of groups such as Jews against Zionism, and activists in the Respect party.

Shraga Elam, an Israeli writer among those behind the petition, concedes that his objection is to Prof Aumann's political views and not to the quality of the analysis on game theory. "Every person, including a Nobel prize laureate, is entitled to his political views," he said. "But ... it is not enough to say that politics does not enter in to it.

"Can a racist or a Holocaust denier receive the Nobel prize even if he is very talented in his scientific field? Political views are relevant." Prof Aumann, who fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s and moved to Israel in 1956, has described the removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza strip as an "expulsion" and described it as "immoral, inhuman and stupid".

In a recorded interview with an American website after winning the Nobel prize, Prof Aumann said game theory showed that prime minister Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza strip was a mistake. "From a game theory point of view it was a very bad move. But if I didn't study game theory, I would also say the same thing.

"It was a bad move because it sends a signal to the other side that if you apply enough pressure then we will respond in a way that you're applying pressure. It's a bad move theoretically. It sends the wrong signal," he said. In another interview he was asked if, according to his theory, he foresaw an end to the conflict in the near future. "It's been going on for at least 80 years and as far as I can see it is going to go on for at least another 80 years. I don't see any end to this one, I'm sorry to say," he said.

The petition calls on the Swedish Academy to withdraw the prize. "You should reverse your decision to reward Professors Schelling and Aumann. We request that you find people who have truly advanced the health and welfare of humanity, as has always been the intention of the Nobel prize," it says. The Swedish academy responded to the campaign by saying it "makes its decisions based on the quality of the scientific contribution".

Prof Aumann, who was travelling to accept the award, was not immediately available for comment but he was asked about the petition at a recent press conference and said he would not dignify the petition by speaking about it.

BERLIN - Despite her repeated assurances this week that the United States does not torture terrorist suspects, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice failed to convince European public opinion and, if anything, her visit may have added to the controversy.

The pro-Greens newspaper Tageszeitung ran a fake CIA recruitment ad yesterday underscoring the skepticism in Germany and much of Europe: "Torturers Wanted. U.S. citizens may not apply."

The problem, said European commentators, is that the new U.S. policy need not apply to foreigners interrogating suspects on the CIA's behalf.

"It's not especially reassuring when the biggest Western power has to give assurances that it doesn't torture prisoners," said conservative German daily Die Welt. "What's even more unsettling is that no one believes these assurances."

Nor did Rice calm European concerns over CIA "ghost flights" of terror suspects to secret prisons - some possibly in eastern Europe - where they can be interrogated with little regard for international law.

Speaking in the British Parliament this week, Menzies Campbell, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said of the practice of "renditions," or secret transfer of terror suspects: "What possible purpose is served ... other than to subject individuals to harsher treatment than would otherwise be the case?"

Despite the negative reaction, Rice won some admirers just in coming to Europe, facing the critics and shifting U.S. attitudes toward more consultation and away from the first Bush administration's with-us-or-against-us attitude.

Analysts said her bid to erase suspicions over CIA practices was an almost impossible task because Europe's faith in U.S. policy has been sapped by the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

In fact, America's image abroad has deteriorated so sharply under President George W. Bush that it will take a long time to repair relations, said Frank Umbach, analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations, an independent research organization.

"The U.S. was once seen as a power that exerted true moral leadership for the whole world and convincingly stood for democracy and freedom," he said. "That image has been undermined by past and present policies, and the resulting mistrust won't disappear overnight."

In France, the newspaper Libération said Wednesday: "George W. Bush and his clique are wrong to think that anything goes in the fight against terrorism, even if the law suffers collateral damage as a result."

Rice's first meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin Tuesday was marred by a diplomatic spat over German citizen Khaled al-Masri, who was abducted by the CIA and held secretly for months in a case of mistaken identity.

Merkel said Washington had admitted erring. U.S. officials, possibly aware of the legal implications of Merkel's statement, denied Rice had made such an admission. But Merkel's spokesman stood by her statement.

Karsten Voigt, the German Foreign Ministry's coordinator on German-U.S. cooperation, said Rice's assurances had allayed concerns regarding future U.S. practices in the war on terror. But, he said, "You can lose trust very quickly and it takes a long time to regain."

Umbach said trans-Atlantic relations are likely to remain difficult for some time because Europe and the United States are at odds over how to fight terror.

"A really new start will probably only be possible after Bush," he said.

The government said it did not condone torture, but that the burden to demonstrate that evidence used against them had been obtained by torture would be placed upon defendants.

The director of human rights group Liberty, Shami Chakbrabati, said Thursday's ruling sent a clear signal around the world and Amnesty International called it "momentous".

"This ruling shreds any vestige of legality with which the UK government had attempted to defend a completely unlawful and reprehensible policy," rights group Amnesty International said.

BRITAIN "DOES NOT CONDONE TORTURE"

The British government had argued that its secretive Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) needed to consider all information, no matter how it was obtained, to be able to decide whether terrorism suspects were a threat to national security.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government did not condone torture and said the ruling would not affect its attempts to fight terrorism.

"The majority of their lordships have ruled that evidence should be admitted to SIAC hearings unless those acting for terrorism suspects can establish ... that the evidence was obtained by torture," Clarke said.

The Law Lords overthrew an earlier ruling by Britain's Appeal Court in 2004 that secret tribunals hearing cases relating to the terrorism suspects could consider evidence that would not be acceptable in a British criminal court trial.

That meant British authorities could consider information that might have been extracted using torture in another country, provided British agents were not directly involved.

Clarke said the verdict would have no effect on appeals to SIAC by some of the suspects detained in the wake of the July 7 attacks on London which killed 52 people.

The men are being held prior to being deported on the grounds they pose a threat to national security although they argue they face being tortured in their homelands.

The cases include that of Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada who is accused of being the inspiration for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The Appeal Court's original decision related to the case of 10 foreigners held without charge by Britain under a now defunct security law which allowed police to detain terrorism suspects if there were "reasonable grounds" to think they were a threat.

The court ruled torture evidence could be considered by SIAC, arguing the September 11 attacks justified such a stance.

Two of the 10 have since left Britain, but the eight suspects remaining challenged the verdict.

Even worse, the White House continues to oppose a bill, championed by Sen. John McCain of Arizona and passed by the Senate and the House, that would ban all U.S. forces from ever using cruel and inhumane treatment on any prisoner. Vice President Cheney is leading the Bush administration's opposition to the McCain bill, pushing for an exception for the CIA.

The shameful refusal of high officials to simply outlaw the use of torture, everywhere and in all cases, seems to enjoy a significant measure of support from the American public. An Associated Press poll released this week found 38% of Americans think torture against suspected terrorists can "often" or "sometimes" be justified to obtain information about terrorism, compared with 36% who believe such torture can "never" be justified.

It's easy to guess where the pro-torture sentiment comes from. Many Americans, shaken by the horrific attacks of 9/11, no doubt imagine the famous, hypothetical "ticking time bomb" emergency, in which authorities resort to torture to extract information about an impending attack from a suspected terrorist.

The problem with such dramatic scenarios, repeatedly played out in various Hollywood movies and television shows, is that they have no basis in reality. When it comes to turning up vital information, there's compelling evidence that torture doesn't work.

Just ask McCain, who was a prisoner of war and tortured by the Vietnamese. When his captors demanded names of the men in his unit, McCain gave them names - every member of the starting offensive line of the Green Bay Packers.

Another tortured POW named Larry Chesley, who was held by the Vietnamese for four years, told the Arizona Republic he gave the names of high school classmates. And Jack Bomar, who was held for six years, invented names. He had joined his unit right before being captured, and didn't know anybody.

You get the picture. People under torture can be forced to "reveal" almost anything, true or not, making them a dubious source of information.

In Israel, where real ticking bombs go off with depressing regularity, the country's Supreme Court unanimously voted to outlaw torture in 1999, noting it "does not constitute a reasonable investigation practice."

The administration will - and should - continue to get international condemnation until it comes clean on the question of the secret prison camps and publicly makes clear that torture, an unreliable and immoral practice, will not be practiced by American military or intelligence forces. Not ever.

The prisoner is Ibn Sheikh al-Libby, captured in Pakistan in December 2001 and, at the time, the most senior al-Qa'ida figure in US hands. In early 2002 he was secretly handed over to Egypt under the "rendition" process.

Last month, in a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, it emerged that some US intelligence agencies had doubts about his testimony a full year before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The revelation was seized upon by war critics as fresh proof that the White House distorted intelligence to make its case for war.

Indeed, declassified documents made public by Senate Democrats showed that even the DIA - the Pentagon's own intelligence division - believed as early as February 2002 that al-Libby was probably "intentionally misleading debriefers" in asserting that Saddam Hussein's regime was training al-Qa'ida on explosives and chemical weapons. Now, however, it seems that he provided this false information to avoid being tortured by the Egyptians, if "current and former US government officials" quoted by The New York Times yesterday are to be believed.

Al-Libby is known to have spoken about Iraqi ties with al-Qa'ida when he was first held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. But, according to the officials, he provided the most detailed information after he was sent to Egypt - one of at least 150 terror suspects to have been subjected to "rendition".

Ever since details of secret CIA "ghost flights" first surfaced some two years ago, the US has been fending off accusations that it was sending suspects to allied countries, including Egypt, where it knew they might well be subjected to torture banned by international conventions to which the US susbscribes. But the al-Libby affair appears to bear out what opponents of torture have also long insisted - that far from eliciting the truth, its use only encourages victims to tell interrogators what they want to hear, to avoid further suffering. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials insist the US eschews torture.

Separate uproar is also looming about secret CIA prisons - after John Bellinger, the State Department's legal counsel, said the International Committee of the Red Cross did not have access to all prisoners held by US forces. The ICRC could visit "absolutely everybody" at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, he said. But, asked if that applied to all detainees held elsewhere, he replied simply, "No", without giving further details.

The recording of flights by spotters like Paul from places as far afield as Bournemouth and Karachi has unintentionally played a significant role in helping journalists and human rights groups expose the scale of the CIA's renditions system. But his impact on such international intrigue largely passes Paul by. "It's not the CIA bit that interests us. You don't even know who owns the plane when you take down the serial number," he said, already distracted as something comes in to land through the grey drizzle. "You keep accurate logs, for your own records."

At the door of the shabby end terrace which houses the Glasgow Airport Aviation Enthusiasts Club, Paul is considering how his hobby got him tangled in such a complex web. "We know now that these planes are run by the CIA, but it's not something we set out to know," he said. "I have seen the planes land in daytime and I've seen them land at nighttime. You never see anyone get off them. Most of the time they are just coming in to refuel, but the ones coming in at night you would expect to see people getting off. But you don't - at least, I never have."

Broadly, planespotters fall into three categories: those who like to take serial numbers, those who like to take photographs, and those who indulge in both.

About 40 miles away, on a mound exposed to wind and rain near the freight terminals of Prestwick airport, Stephen, lugging a lens more commonly used by paparazzi lurking in the undergrowth, is setting up a tripod waiting to see what will land today.

He knows it won't be as exciting as July, when the planes of G8 leaders and their secret service entourages landed at Prestwick, but he's hoping for a good day.

"It's my day off, so I've come over to Prestwick, but I'll go to Glasgow and Edinburgh as well," he said. "I do it mostly for myself - it's been a passion since I was child - but I'll post good photographs on websites too."

Stephen clicks the shutter. He doesn't think this one will make airliners.net, his favourite planespotting website. But he'll add it to the collection of hundreds of other plane photographs.

Despite the particular eccentricity of planespotting - and the obvious capacity for fun-poking - it is not a pastime limited to Britain. In Spain town planner Josep Manchado is part of a small group who gather with their long lenses and foil-wrapped sandwiches at Majorca's Son Sant Joan airport.

In January last year Mr Manchado saw a Boeing 737 on the airport tarmac. He pressed his camera shutter button while speculating idly that some US millionaire was in town. Then he put the picture of the Boeing (tail fin number N313P) on airliners.net, and forgot about it.

Within a few days Mr Manchado starting getting strange calls and emails. They came from the US and from Sweden. "People were asking me questions about the plane. They obviously weren't all planespotters because they were asking questions that people who know about planes don't ask," he said.

Activists and journalists had become interested in the rendition flights. There were also, however, strange calls. "One man wanted to buy up all the photos. He eventually sent me a form in which he asked for everything, including my home address. I didn't give it to him and I never heard from him again," he said.

Months later, he got a call from Germany's ZDF television. A man called Khalid El-Masri had come to them claiming he had been kidnapped by the CIA from Macedonia, bundled onto a plane and taken off to a prison many hours away. Several months later, after allegedly being tortured, he was flown back and dropped in Albania.

One of the planes thought to be involved was one Mr Manchado had photographed. It was believed that it had flown on to Macedonia that very same day. With the photo in their hand, ZDF reporters were able to persuade Skopje flight control to give them a printout of the flight plan. The aircraft had gone from Palma to Skopje and from there to Baghdad and Kabul. Mr El-Masri's story, convincingly told but difficult to believe, fitted.

For those prepared to sift through the endless information complied by planespotters and posted on websites, there are many more clues to the CIA's activities to be found. In Ireland peace campaigners have turned themselves into planespotters.

At Shannon airport Tim Hourigan uses a scanner that allows him to see what air traffic control sees, and he, and other activists, religiously note down the numbers of landing planes. Then, using a combination of Federal Airport Authority Records and planespotting websites, they can track the movements of intelligence planes across the world. "It is a tedious job looking through hundreds of pictures of planes," says Mr Hourigan, who is not a planespotting enthusiast. "But it allows you to confirm and expose the activities of the CIA and our own government."

· The planespotters have been given first names only, as they asked not to be identified.

It's a history exhaustively documented in an avalanche of books, declassified documents, CIA training manuals, court records and truth commissions. In his forthcoming book, A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy synthesises this evidence, producing a riveting account of how monstrous CIA-funded experiments on psychiatric patients and prisoners in the 1950s turned into a template for what he calls "no-touch torture", based on sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain. McCoy traces how these methods were field-tested by CIA agents in Vietnam as part of the Phoenix programme and then imported to Latin America and Asia under the guise of police training.

It is not only apologists for torture who ignore this history when they blame abuses on "a few bad apples". A startling number of torture's most prominent opponents keep telling us that the idea of torturing prisoners first occurred to US officials on September 11 2001, at which point the methods used in Guantánamo apparently emerged, fully formed, from the sadistic recesses of Dick Cheney's and Donald Rumsfeld's brains. Up until that moment, we are told, America fought its enemies while keeping its humanity intact.

The principal propagator of this narrative (what Garry Wills termed "original sinlessness") is Senator John McCain. Writing in Newsweek on the need to ban torture, McCain says that when he was a prisoner of war in Hanoi, he held fast to the knowledge "that we were different from our enemies ... that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or approving such mistreatment of them". It is a stunning historical distortion. By the time McCain was taken captive, the CIA had launched the Phoenix programme and, as McCoy writes, "its agents were operating 40 interrogation centres in South Vietnam that killed more than 20,000 suspects and tortured thousands more."

Does it somehow lessen today's horrors to admit that this is not the first time the US government has used torture, that it has operated secret prisons before, that it has actively supported regimes that tried to erase the left by dropping students out of airplanes? That, closer to home, photographs of lynchings were traded and sold as trophies and warnings? Many seem to think so. On November 8, Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott made the astonishing claim to the House of Representatives that "America has never had a question about its moral integrity, until now".

Other cultures deal with a legacy of torture by declaring "Never again!" Why do so many Americans insist on dealing with the current torture crisis by crying "Never before"? I suspect it stems from a sincere desire to convey the seriousness of this administration's crimes. And its open embrace of torture is indeed unprecedented.

But let's be clear about what is unprecedented: not the torture, but the openness. Past administrations kept their "black ops" secret; the crimes were sanctioned but they were committed in the shadows, officially denied and condemned. The Bush administration has broken this deal: post-9/11, it demanded the right to torture without shame, legitimised by new definitions and new laws.

Despite all the talk of outsourced torture, the real innovation has been in-sourcing, with prisoners being abused by US citizens in US-run prisons and transported to third countries in US planes. It is this departure from clandestine etiquette that has so much of the military and intelligence community up in arms: Bush has robbed everyone of plausible deniability. This shift is of huge significance. When torture is covertly practised but officially and legally repudiated, there is still hope that if atrocities are exposed, justice could prevail. When torture is pseudo-legal and those responsible deny that it is torture, what dies is what Hannah Arendt called "the juridical person in man". Soon victims no longer bother to search for justice, so sure are they of the futility, and danger, of that quest. This is a larger mirror of what happens inside the torture chamber, when prisoners are told they can scream all they want because no one can hear them and no one is going to save them.

The terrible irony of the anti-historicism of the torture debate is that in the name of eradicating future abuses, past crimes are being erased from the record. Since the US has never had truth commissions, the memory of its complicity in far-away crimes has always been fragile. Now these memories are fading further, and the disappeared are disappearing again.

This casual amnesia does a disservice not only to the victims, but also to the cause of trying to remove torture from the US policy arsenal once and for all. Already there are signs that the administration will deal with the uproar by returning to plausible deniability. The McCain amendment protects every "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States government"; it says nothing about torture training or buying information from the exploding industry of for-profit interrogators.

And in Iraq the dirty work is already being handed over to Iraqi death squads, trained by the US and supervised by commanders like Jim Steele, who prepared for the job by setting up similar units in El Salvador. The US role in training and supervising Iraq's interior ministry was forgotten, moreover, when 173 prisoners were recently discovered in a ministry dungeon, some tortured so badly that their skin was falling off. "Look, it's a sovereign country. The Iraqi government exists," Rumsfeld said. He sounded just like the CIA's William Colby who, asked in a 1971 Congressional probe about the thousands killed under Phoenix, a programme he helped launch, replied that it was now "entirely a South Vietnamese programme".

As McCoy says, "if you don't understand the history and the depths of the institutional and public complicity, then you can't begin to undertake meaningful reforms." Lawmakers will respond to pressure by eliminating one small piece of the torture apparatus: closing a prison, shutting down a programme, even demanding the resignation of a really bad apple like Rumsfeld. But he warns, "they will preserve the prerogative to torture."

· A version of this article appears in the Nation www.thenation.com

Scientists have long known that magnetic poles migrate and in rare cases, swap places. Exactly why this happens is a mystery.

"This may be part of a normal oscillation and it will eventually migrate back toward Canada," Joseph Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University, said Thursday at an American Geophysical Union meeting.

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the Earth's magnetic shield has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years. During the same period, the north magnetic pole wandered about 685 miles out into the Arctic, according to a new analysis by Stoner.

The rate of the magnetic pole's movement has increased in the last century compared to fairly steady movement in the previous four centuries, the Oregon researchers said.

At the present rate, the north magnetic pole could swing out of northern Canada into Siberia. If that happens, Alaska could lose its Northern Lights, which occur when charged particles streaming away from the sun interact with different gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The north magnetic pole was first discovered in 1831 and when it was revisited in 1904, explorers found that the pole had moved 31 miles.

For centuries, navigators using compasses had to learn to deal with the difference between magnetic and geographic north. A compass needle points to the north magnetic pole, not the geographic North Pole. For example, a compass reading of north in Oregon is about 17 degrees east of geographic north.

In the study, Stoner examined the sediment record from several Arctic lakes. Since the sediments record the Earth's magnetic field at the time, scientists used carbon dating to track changes in the magnetic field.

They found that the north magnetic field shifted significantly in the last thousand years. It generally migrated between northern Canada and Siberia, but it sometimes moved in other directions, too.

Two months after the 7.6 magnitude tremor destroyed their world, a second wave of death is expected to scythe through vulnerable communities in the mountains. "Scabies, flu and respiratory-tract problems are common," said Irshad Hussain, a doctor at a field hospital in Ghari Dopata, 20 miles south-east of Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-ruled Kashmir.

Some 700 cases of scabies have been treated in his clinic, close to the epicentre of the quake that killed 87,000 people and left nearly three million homeless. About 200 people suffered from colds but only a few had contacted pneumonia. Measles vaccinations are still a priority.

Health workers in tented villages for displaced villagers risk catching scabies, the highly contagious microscopic skin mites that cause relentless itching. Colds and flu spread quickly in the cramped wards where people, often with lowered immunity due to stress, mingle with outsiders. Health authorities say these diseases are hard to contain because of the lack of clean clothing and soap.

Living in temporary camps or in damaged buildings, many survivors find it difficult to bathe regularly, because they are modest and hot water is scarce.

Families stranded above the snowline, at 5,000ft, are being helped by the humanitarian agency Concern Worldwide which pledged to provide shelter and blankets to 20,000 people before Christmas. Syed Suleiman Shah, a senior relief worker for Concern, said: "Shelter, shelter, more than anything that is what we need as much as possible now."

Save the Children is distributing 6,000 tents and Shelterbox an other UK charity is distributing more than 10,000 tents and survival equipment. The push to provide shelter is urgent because when storms disrupt helicopter flights next week, the most remote villages may be cut off.

Nick Mathers, of Save the Children's in Muzaffarabad, said: "Up to 50 families are coming down from the mountains each day, and the numbers are increasing. This is their last resort. People don't want to leave their homes, their land and their livestock. If they have shelter and can find a way to stay in their villages, they will stay put."

Muhammed Saeed, a senior government meteorologist, forecast heavy snowstorms and lots of sleet across Kashmir next week. The high peaks have been dusted by snow for more than a month, but now the foothills will be blanketed and some roads may be cut again. Across the high-altitude, quake-hit zones, relief agencies and non-government organisations predict a "second wave" of deaths.

Yet some senior military officers say no such threat exists. "Those destined to die in the quake have died and there's nothing anyone can do about it," one army officer, with the relief effort in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, said. "But let me assure you, not a single survivor is now likely to die of cold or hunger."

In Lahore, a 43-year-old doctor in charge of a Lahore hospital ward, where victims of the quake are recovering, has been arrested on suspicion of raping an 18-year-old patient. The doctor denied sexual contact with her and said she had asked to marry him.

The Earth, he said, was "literally a biological miracle ... it's crazy for us to play games with our children's future."

He pointed to an array of gloomy scientific studies published in past weeks, including evidence that carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 650,000 years, that glaciers in the Himalayas and Arctic sea ice were melting and the warm Atlantic currents that bathe northwestern Europe were slowing down.

The United States "is the worst offender" for the problem, said Clinton.

America has just four percent of the world's population, but accounts for nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Clinton stoutly defended the Kyoto Protocol, whose framework was approved by his administration in 1997, but which was ditched by Bush in March 2001, in one of his first acts in office.

Bush said the evidence for global warming was uncertain and Kyoto's format of binding industrialised countries to making cuts in greenhouse gases was too costly for the US economy, and unfair because big developing countries did not have a similar obligations.

To loud cheers from an audience of thousands of delegates and green activists, Clinton said: "I liked the Kyoto Protocol. I helped to write it. And I signed it."

Clinton acknowledged, though, that the protocol "was not a perfect agreement" and there were some big criticisms of it at the time.

Conservatives argued -- and still do -- that the move to cleaner energy sources and tougher fuel efficiency standards would cost jobs and weaken the economy, he said.

In fact, cleaner technology "would strengthen, not weaken our economy," said Clinton, "... in America, there's no telling how many jobs we could create."

He spelt out a long list of things that could be done, including improving energy efficiency in US power plants, cars and buildings, switching to solar, wind and biofuels and even simple initiatives for ordinary citizens, such as using high-efficiency lightbulbs.

Clinton was invited by the Canadian branch of the
Sierra Club environment group to speak at the final day of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty that oversees Kyoto.

Because it was not an official UNFCCC event, all UN logos and backdrops were carefully removed from the podium.

Negotiations were going to the wire on Friday on how to further greenhouse gas cuts beyond Kyoto's present commitment, which runs out in 2012.

Rumours spread among the conference that the US delegation was angry that Clinton had come, and that it had even tried to block his appearance.

The delegation issued a statement, though, saying it encouraged "stakeholder presentations" of the kind symbolised by the Clinton visit.

Rubbishing the US administration's claim that signing up to Kyoto would damage the American economy, Mr Clinton, who was invited to the summit by the Montreal authorities, urged nations to take up the challenge of Kyoto.

"We will have a meeting like this in 40 years time on a raft somewhere unless we do something," he said, adding that scientific evidence is amassing that proves "if we had a serious, disciplined effort" to apply existing conservation technologies then "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would strengthen, not weaken, our economies".

Last night, details on how to progress when the first stage of the protocol ends in 2012 were being finalised by ministers.

Campaigners hailed the apparent progress on Kyoto (albeit without the US) as a vital step forward in the effort to deal with climate change and said it showed the willingness of more than 150 nations to commit themselves to the process. Of those nations, 36 are legally bound to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases.

But amid that progress, the elephant in the room remained the refusal of the Bush administration to act. During negotiations on Thursday evening, Mr Watson walked out of the room after delegates sought an agreement for those nations not signed up to Kyoto simply to agree to further talks.

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck," Mr Watson reportedly said, as delegates sought to include the word "dialogue" in the draft agreement. That agreement would not have committed the US to anything binding, and would not "open any negotiations leading to new commitments". But even that mild undertaking was apparently too much for the Bush administration.

Campaigners have rounded on the US administration. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "The US is responsible for 25 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It should take its responsibility for leading the way. But instead, under George Bush, it has been taken backwards."

Arlen Myer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said there were many in the US who were already taking action to deal with climate change at a city and state level. He claimed the position of the Bush administration placed it more out of touch with the mood of the American public.

But America's behaviour was condemned not just by activists but by other delegates. The Irish environment minister, Dick Roache, said of Mr Watson's "duck" comment: "It might go down well in the Ozarks but not here."

Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the talks, said: "It's such a pity the US is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multi-lateral effort to deal with climate change."

The talks in Montreal stemmed from an undertaking given by more than 180 nations who signed up to 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). That committed them simply to talks about further action.

It was unclear last night what sort of agreement, if any, the non-Kyoto nations would adopt. Campaigners said the US was now all but isolated, with only countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait sharing a similar position. Australia, which is not a Kyoto country, has been willing to agree to further talks.

The US argues that voluntary action is the way to deal with climate change. It says that it has spent more than $3bn (£1.7bn) a year on research and development of energy-saving technologies. It will meet with Asian and Pacific countries next year to discuss ways of using new technology to address the problem. But this appears to be a step back from the mild undertaking President George Bush agreed to earlier this year at the G8 summit at Gleneagles. Under the communiqué signed by Mr Bush, at the lobbying of Mr Blair, the US said the UNFCC was the appropriate forum for "negotiating" future action on climate change.

The British Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said: "President Bush personally agreed at Gleneagles that America would be a part of discussions here. It would be a great pity if the US thought - for whatever reason - it cannot be part of a move forward."

Jennifer Morgan, of environmental group WWF, said: "By walking out of the room, this shows just how willing the US is to walk away from a healthy planet and its responsibilities."

Anti-racist groups also were planning a counter protest Saturday to shout down the white supremacists.

City leaders fear protesters of the neo-Nazis will try to rally somewhere outside the downtown demonstration and incite more trouble.

A Lucas County judge granted the city's request Friday to block the neo-Nazi group and counter protesters from rallying beyond the downtown government building's grounds.

This time, the rally will be about two miles from the racially mixed neighborhood where the original march was to take place.

Police canceled the march because they said the neo-Nazis tried to change the time and route of the protest. The angry mob, which included rival gang members, looted and burned a corner bar and smashed the windows of a gas station. Twelve officers were injured and 114 people were arrested.

Adding to the chaos were hundreds of people who came out of their homes to join the fray. Anyone attending the rally on Saturday will go through security checkpoints.

How suitable that one fantasy saga should follow on from the other, despite the immense difference between the writings and magic worlds of these two old Oxford dons. It was JRR Tolkien who converted CS Lewis to Christianity during one long all-night walk that ended in dawn and revelation. Narnia is a strange blend of magic, myth and Christianity, some of it brilliantly fantastical and richly imaginative, some (the clunking allegory) toe-curlingly, cringingly awful.

This new Disney film is a remarkably faithful rendition of the book - faithful in both senses. It is beautiful to look at and wonderfully acted. The four English children and their world are all authentically CS Lewis olde England. But from its opening scenes of the bombing of their Finchley home in the blitz and the tear-jerking evacuation from their mother in a (spotlessly clean) steam train, there is an emotional undertow to this film that tugs on the heart-strings from the first frames. By the end, it feels profoundly manipulative, as Disney usually does. But then, that is also deeply faithful to the book's own arm-twisting emotional call to believers.

Disney is deliberately promoting this film to the religious - it has appointed Outreach, an evangelical publisher, to promote the Christian message behind the movie in British churches. The Christian radio station Premier is urging churches to hold services on the theme of The Gospel According to Narnia. Even the Methodists have written a special Narnia-themed service. And a Kent parish is giving away £10,000 worth of film tickets to single-parent families. (Are the children of single mothers in special need of the word?)

US born-agains are using the movie. The Mission America Coalition is "inviting church leaders around the country to consider the fantastic ministry opportunity presented by the release of this film". The president's brother, Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida, is organising a scheme for every child in his state to read the book. Walden Media, co-producer of the movie, offers a "17-week Narnia Bible study for children". The owner of Walden Media is both a big Republican donor and a donor to the Florida governor's book promotion - a neat synergy of politics, religion and product placement. It has aroused protests from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which complains that "a governmental endorsement of the book's religious message is in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution".

Disney may come to regret this alliance with Christians, at least on this side of the Atlantic. For all the enthusiasm of the churches, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ bombed in Britain and warehouses are stuffed with unsold DVDs of that stomach-churner. There are too few practising Christians in the empty pews of this most secular nation to pack cinemas. So there has been a queasy ambivalence about how to sell the Narnia film here. Its director, Andrew Adamson (of Shrek fame), says the movie's Christian themes are "open to the audience to interpret". One soundtrack album of the film has been released with religious music, the other with secular pop.

Most British children will be utterly clueless about any message beyond the age-old mythic battle between good and evil. Most of the fairy story works as well as any Norse saga, pagan legend or modern fantasy, so only the minority who are familiar with Christian iconography will see Jesus in the lion. After all, 43% of people in Britain in a recent poll couldn't say what Easter celebrated. Among the young - apart from those in faith schools - that number must be considerably higher. Ask art galleries: they now have to write the story of every religious painting on the label as people no longer know what "agony in the garden", "deposition", "transfiguration" or "ascension" mean. This may be regrettable cultural ignorance, but it means Aslan will stay just a lion to most movie-goers.

All the same, children may puzzle over the lion and ask embarrassing questions. For non-CS Lewis aficionados, here is a recap. The four children enter Narnia through a wardrobe and find themselves in a land frozen into "always winter, never Christmas" by the white witch, (played with elemental force by Tilda Swinton). Unhappy middle child Edmund, resentful of being bossed about by his older brother, broods with meanness and misery. The devil, in the shape of the witch, tempts him: for the price of several chunks of turkish delight, rather than 30 pieces of silver, Edmund betrays his siblings and their Narnian friends.

The sins of this "son of Adam" can only be redeemed by the supreme sacrifice of Aslan. This Christ-lion willingly lays down his life, submitting himself to be bound, thrashed and humiliated by the white witch, allowing his golden mane to be cut and himself to be slaughtered on the sacrificial stone table: it cracks in sympathetic agony and his body goes missing. The two girls lay down their heads and weep, Magdalene and Mary-like. Be warned, the film lingers long and lovingly over all this.

But so far, so good. The story makes sense. The lion exchanging his life for Edmund's is the sort of thing Arthurian legends are made of. Parfait knights and heroes in prisoner-of-war camps do it all the time. But what's this? After a long, dark night of the soul and women's weeping, the lion is suddenly alive again. Why? How?, my children used to ask. Well, it is hard to say why. It does not make any more sense in CS Lewis's tale than in the gospels. Ah, Aslan explains, it is the "deep magic", where pure sacrifice alone vanquishes death.

Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart. Every one of those thorns, the nuns used to tell my mother, is hammered into Jesus's holy head every day that you don't eat your greens or say your prayers when you are told. So the resurrected Aslan gives Edmund a long, life-changing talking-to high up on the rocks out of our earshot. When the poor boy comes back down with the sacred lion's breath upon him he is transformed unrecognisably into a Stepford brother, well and truly purged.

Tolkien hated Narnia: the two dons may have shared the same love of unquestioning feudal power, with worlds of obedient plebs and inferior folk eager to bend at the knee to any passing superior white persons - even children; both their fantasy worlds and their Christianity assumes that rigid hierarchy of power - lord of lords, king of kings, prince of peace to be worshipped and adored. But Tolkien disliked Lewis's bully-pulpit.

Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight. Philip Pullman - he of the marvellously secular trilogy His Dark Materials - has called Narnia "one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read".

Why? Because here in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right. I once heard the famous preacher Norman Vincent Peale in New York expound a sermon that reassured his wealthy congregation that they were made rich by God because they deserved it. The godly will reap earthly reward because God is on the side of the strong. This appears to be CS Lewis's view, too. In the battle at the end of the film, visually a great epic treat, the child crusaders are crowned kings and queens for no particular reason. Intellectually, the poor do not inherit Lewis's earth.

Does any of this matter? Not really. Most children will never notice. But adults who wince at the worst elements of Christian belief may need a sickbag handy for the most religiose scenes. The Guardian film critic Peter Bradshaw gives the film five stars and says, "There is no need for anyone to get into a PC huff about its Christian allegory." Well, here's my huff.

Lewis said he hoped the book would soften-up religious reflexes and "make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life". Holiness drenches the Chronicles. When, in the book, the children first hear someone say, mysteriously, "Aslan is on the move", he writes: "Now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had enormous meaning ..." So Lewis weaves his dreams to invade children's minds with Christian iconography that is part fairytale wonder and joy - but heavily laden with guilt, blame, sacrifice and a suffering that is dark with emotional sadism.

Children are supposed to fall in love with the hypnotic Aslan, though he is not a character: he is pure, raw, awesome power. He is an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion. His divine presence is a way to avoid humans taking responsibility for everything here and now on earth, where no one is watching, no one is guiding, no one is judging and there is no other place yet to come. Without an Aslan, there is no one here but ourselves to suffer for our sins, no one to redeem us but ourselves: we are obliged to settle our own disputes and do what we can. We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass. Everyone needs ghosts, spirits, marvels and poetic imaginings, but we can do well without an Aslan.

Must have been a large crowd. It would take a few thousand to find at least one person who might, possibly, possess a lower level of stupidity than Ann Coulter. By the way, Annie, most dictionaries – and my English teacher from high school – will tell you there is no such word as “stupider.”

Right wingers, of course, love Coulter for her ball-busting rhetoric. Those with an IQ above that of an average plant find her boring, tedious and lacking in either style or substance. She’s a bomb thrower, a babbling blonde bimbo who preaches the outrageous theory that all things conservative are beyond question while all things liberal are beyond shame.

Notes the Norwich (CT) Bulletin in an editorial today:

“However, like a large number of conservative celebrities, and a growing number of liberal ones, she makes her living not on meaningful dialogue but in bullying diatribes on shows such as The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. Her syndicated columns refer to former Democratic presidents as "an aging porn star" (Bill Clinton) and "a nitwit" (Jimmy Carter).”

Coulter is joined in the loony bin by Fox News’ resident phone sex freak, Bill O’Reilly, who refers to the students who dared boo his favorite blonde bimbo as “Nazis” whipped into a frenzy by “left-wing websites” with a goal “to defame, to lie, to do whatever, you know, sleazy thing they can think of to people with whom they disagree.”

We learned long ago that O’Reilly is a few neurons short of a working brain. Someone should hand him a history book so he can learn that the Nazi movement grew out of the right wing in Germany, not the left, and that attempts to silence free speech is a hallmark of his fellow conservatives.

Maybe O’Reilly has Coulter on speed dial so he can ring her up and tell her, in graphic detail, what he’d like to do to her scrawny little body. Or maybe he’s doing her in person. God knows her reputation won’t qualify her for the Virgin Hall of Fame.

The boos started at the university this past week when Coulter referred to former President Bill Clinton as an “executive buffoon.”

I’ve often wondered if Coulter’s anger at former President Bill Clinton is motivated by politics or the fact that she was the only woman in Washington that he didn’t hit on.

Even Clinton wasn’t that desperate.

In rough outline, to discover your own narrative, divide your life into chapters; identify critical events, talk about your greatest challenge and how you faced it, describe the heroes and villains in your book, that is, the people who had the great positive and negative effects on you, think about what could be positive and negative futures for you, and, finally, identify the major theme of your life narrative.

I'm not sure I'm interested in actually doing this, because at least for me chance plays too great a role in life for the results to be useful, going all the way back to which sperm fertilized your mother's egg. It's up to you what you make of the chances life deals you, but if the result seems to have a theme or a pattern it's probably because we humans are prone to see patterns even where they don't exist.

Daniel Gilbert, in an essay titled "The Vagaries of Religious Experience" posted at edge.org, says, "things can be viewed in many ways, but human brains like the most rewarding view and thus they search for and hold on to that view whenever they can." He is writing primarily about religious belief, but the observation is broader.

For instance, he says, "a significant portion of those who survive major traumas not only do well, but claim that their lives were enhanced by the experience."

But most people don't know their brains are organized to look on the bright side. So, Gilbert says, "we are surprised when experiences we once feared and avoided turn out to be much less awful than we had anticipated, and we are deeply surprised when they turn out to be blessings in disguise."

Who knew, Gilbert asks, "that widowhood or divorce would be an opportunity to meet the partner of our dreams? Who knew that a heart attack or a prison sentence would lead us to refocus our lives and concentrate on the things that matter?"

McAdams' work with people who see a redemptive theme in their lives bears out Gilbert's observations. McAdams studies what he calls "generativity," the extent to which people are committed to making the world a better place for the next generation. He notes a number of behaviors that are associated with generativity, some of them seemingly trifling yet collectively indicating what kind of person someone is, as well as how the person feels about him- or herself.

The sidebar to the article asks whether you've done a number of the following within the past two months: taught someone a new skill or learned one yourself, baby-sat someone else's children or repaired a child's toy, tended a plant or sewed or mended, donated blood, cooked for friends, made a decision that influenced many people, gave a stranger directions, volunteered or donated money.

That's not the whole list, but note there is an element of chance even in those things. I used to be a blood donor, but now I'm not because I've had cancer. Nobody's asked me to baby-sit, but then I don't have many friends with young children. I do water the bougainvillea tree, but I'm afraid I've put off doing the mending so it's more than two months since I sewed anything.

On the other hand, I certainly hope my decisions have influenced many people, because that's my job.

As McAdams told Blackwell, people who are highly generative are not necessarily saints. Dedicating yourself to making the world a better place means, among other things, that you believe your opinion about what is better for the world should be more highly regarded than differing opinions.

Some opinions are better than others, but the people who hold them are not necessarily in the best position to know which ones.

"The more redemptive the life story, McAdams has found, the better a person's psychological well-being," Blackwell writes. Maybe that's true only because brains are wired to think that way, as Gilbert says, but if people are happier as a result, it's a good thing either way.

(Contact Linda Seebach at Rocky Mountain News, http://rockymountainnews.com.)