As always, Caveat Lector! The material presented in the linked articles does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the owners of Cassiopaea.org. Research on your own and if you can validate any of the articles, or if you discover deception and/or an obvious agenda, we will appreciate if you drop us a line! We often post such comments along with the article synopses for the benefit of other readers.
The links will open a new window. To return to this page, simply close the new window.
The most successful tyranny
is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one
that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it
seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the
sense that there is an outside.
It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. --Voltaire--
For Web Searches, Try All the Web Better than Google
December 8, 2002 - Today is the day George Bush wants to have a war. Last night, Ark and I watched Oliver Stone's movie JFK. We highly recommend that everyone watch this movie in order to understand the events of the current day. It is all spelled out there, and it was with the murder of JFK that the present "power structure" took over by a coup d'etat. If you have already seen it, please watch it again because there are many things there that made no impact when I watched in years ago, but which now have an implicit meaning in the activities of the Bush Reich. It was astonishing to view this movie in light of the events of the past two years.
Excerpts from Eisenhower's Farewell Speech - [... ]We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. [...] [T]hreats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only. [...] A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. [...]
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. [...]
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Comment: Despite the efforts of the debunkers to twist Ike's words, the information presented in our Timeline suggests that IKE KNEW! And, considering what we have discovered about COINTELPRO in science, and our own experiencing of that as well as the twisting and distortion produced by the Mass Media - the False Prophet - have certainly demonstrated that there is a VAST conspiracy in operation, and has been for a very long time.
On March 1, 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested businessman Clay Lavergne Shaw on the charge of conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Precisely two years later, Shaw was acquitted. Clay Shaw is the only individual ever prosecuted for conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Here is testimony from the historic Shaw trial, along with other resources. Comment: Even though it seems that this site is assembled for debunkery purposes, it does include the text of the trial testimony.
Excerpts of Jim Garrison's closing statement in the trial of Clay Shaw - Now, a government is a great deal like a human being: It is not necessarily all good, and it is not necessarily all bad. We live in a good country, and I love it and you do, too, but we have nevertheless a government which is not perfect, and there have been indications since November 22 of 1963 -- and that was not the last indication -- that there is excessive power in some areas of our government -- and that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things that have happened, some of the assassinations that have occurred, and particularly with regard to the assassination of John Kennedy. Going back to when we were children, I think most of us, probably all of us here in this courtroom, felt that justice came into being automatically, that virtue was its own reward and good would triumph over evil, that it occurred automatically. And later when we found that it wasn't quite so, most of us felt that, hopefully, that at least justice occurred frequently of its own accord, but now I think that almost all of us world have to agree that there is really no automatic machinery, not on this earth at least, which causes justice to happen automatically. Men have to make it occur, individual human beings have to make it occur, otherwise it doesn't come into existence, and this is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it is always hard, because justice presents a threat to power, and in order to make justice come into being you often have to fight power. [...]
The Government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud, it was the greatest fraud in the history of our country, it was probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. So that is where I stand on that point. But that doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We are not forced to either leave this country or accept the authoritarianism that is developed, which tells us that in the year 2039 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy. [...]
In the issue which is posed by the Government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case, in the issue of humanity as posed to power, I have chosen humanity, and I will do it without any hesitation, and I hope every one of you will do the same, and I do that because I love my country and I want to communicate to the Government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live 75 years longer we may be given more data. [...]
In this particular case, our efforts to look into it -- and it was our duty when we found out that part of the assassination planning occurred in New Orleans -- massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom as it has. The power to make authoritative pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry, the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, was demonstrated in this case. [...]
We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or leave the country. I don't accept that alternative. I don't intend to leave the country, and I don't intend to accept power without truth. I intend to fight for the truth, and I suggest that not only is this not un-American but it is the most American thing we can do, because if the truth does not endure then our country will not endure -- not in the way it was supposed to. In our country the worst of all crimes is when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons if they should dare to fight for freedom, and then announce that they were killed in an industrial accident or shot by the enemy, or God knows what. [...]
But in this case finally it has been possible to bring the truth about the assassination into a court of law, not before a commission composed of important and powerful and politically astute men, but before a jury of citizens. Now I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a sense what you are passing on is equivalent to a murder case. It has the same essential characteristics, and the difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the defendant, and it is very difficult to identify with someone you can't see; and sometimes it is hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant and his problems. In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane, is conscious of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight, and I suggest to you that if you do your duty you also are not free to forget the victims who is buried out of sight. You know, Tennyson once said that authority forgets the dying king. This was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and deceptive conduct of the Government after his murder began while his body was warm and has continued for five years.
In a sense, you have seen in this courtroom indications of the interest of some part of the government power structure in keeping the truth down, in keeping the grave closed. We presented a number of eye-witnesses, as well as an expert witness, as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out steps Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's testimony in detail for you to see that it simply did not correspond with the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a general told him not to complete the autopsy.
Now, in this conflict between power and justice -- to put it that way -- just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general, who was not a pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete it. This is the way I don't want my country to be. When our President is killed, he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizen gets every day in the state of Louisiana. We can't have government power suddenly interjecting itself and preventing the truth from coming to the people.
But in this case, before the next morning when the sun rose, power had moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And five years later in this courtroom it is continuing in the same way. We presented eye-witnesses who told you of the shots coming from the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington and out came ballistics expert Frazier for the defense. [...]
Now, the issue I'm sure every one of you understands is whether or not the Government has created a fraud, and I call your attention that Mr. Frazier's explanation of the sound of shots coming from the front, which was heard by eyewitness after eyewitness and after eyewitness - his explanation is that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he broke the sound barrier as well. [...]
Who is the most believable -- a Richard Randolph Carr seated here in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he was told to shut his mouth, or Mr. Frazier with his sonic booms? Do we have to actually reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig, and the testimony of all those honest witnesses -- reject that and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or else leave the country? I suggest to you that there are other alternatives, and one of them has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana, and that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding, where attorneys can cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against him, where the rules of evidence are applied, and where a jury of citizens can pass on it, and where there is no government secrecy, where you do not have evidence concealed for 75 years in the name of national security. [...]
All we have in this case are the facts -- facts which show that the defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President, and that the President was subsequently killed in ambush. The reply of the defense has been the same as the earlier reply of the government in the Warren Commission, has been authority, authority, the President's seal outside of a volume of the -- each volume of the Warren Commission, made necessary because there is nothing inside of these volumes. Men of high position and prestige sitting on a board and announcing the results to you but not telling you what the evidence is, because that has to be hidden for 75 years. [...]
You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks eye-witness after eye-witness after eye-witness, and, above all, you saw an eye-witness which was indifferent to power -- the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is indifferent to power, and it tells you what happened, and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know exactly what happened. They should know what you know now. Why hasn't this come into being if there hasn't been government fraud? Of course there has. But I am telling you that I think we can do something about it. I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight authoritarianism: the government's insistence on secrecy, the government force used in counter-attacks against an honest inquiry; and when we do that we are not being un-American, we are being American, because it isn't easy, and you are sticking your neck out in a rather prominent way, but it has to be done, because truth does not come into being automatically. Justice does not happen automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here, have to work and fight to make it happen, and individual men like you have to make justice come into being, because otherwise it doesn't happen. And what I am trying to tell you is that there are forces in America today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be like that, as long as such forces can get away with these kind of actions, then this is no longer the country in which we were born. [...]
The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment in the history of our country. Yet circumstances have placed you in the position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence, but you are actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture for the first time.
I suggest that you "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people; and if you do that, as long as you live nothing will ever be more important than that.
The Colonel Prouty site - "X" in the Oliver Stone
film - where you can find some of the dialogue from Stone's
UNDERSTANDING SPECIAL OPERATIONS - 1989 Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty Colonel USAF (Retired)
Here is a "professional debunkery" site about the Garrison investigation and the Oliver Stone film. It's pretty standard debunking with "experts" etc. It's always good to examine the background of "experts," and find out who pays their salaries and what they have to gain by debunking. In particular, note the debunking of Prouty's statement about UFOs. With the publication of Dolan's chronology, and our own Timeline, Prouty's statement takes on added validity. Keep in mind, this event is one that is just BURIED under layers of lies and disinformation and debunking. It's a minefield out there! JFK's assassination ONLY begins to make sense in the present day, when the ultimate events it was designed to set in motion are being finalized...
Without any official public notice, and without any congressional hearings, the Bush administration—with an initial appropriation of $200 million—is constructing the Total Information Awareness System. It will extensively mine government and commercial data banks, enabling the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies to collect information that will allow the government—as noted on ABC-TV's November 14 Nightline —"to essentially reconstruct the movements of citizens." This will be done without warrants from courts, thereby making individual privacy as obsolete as the sauropods of the Mesozoic era. (Intelligence from and to foreign sources will also be involved.)
Our government's unblinking eyes will try to find suspicious patterns in your credit-card and bank data, medical records, the movies you click for on pay-per-view, passport applications, prescription purchases, e-mail messages, telephone calls, and anything you've done that winds up in court records, like divorces. Almost anything you do will leave a trace for these omnivorous computers, which will now contain records of your library book withdrawals, your loans and debts, and whatever you order by mail or on the Web.
As Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out in the November 17 Los Angeles Times : "For more than 200 years, our liberties have been protected primarily by practical barriers rather than constitutional barriers to government abuse. Because of the sheer size of the nation and its population, the government could not practically abuse a great number of citizens at any given time. In the last decade, however, these practical barriers have fallen to technology."
...Poindexter, as Turley reminded us, "was the master architect behind the Iran-Contra scandal, the criminal conspiracy to sell arms to a terrorist nation, Iran, in order to surreptitiously fund an unlawful clandestine project in Nicaragua."
Poindexter was convicted of lying to Congress and destroying documents. His sentence was reversed because he had been granted immunity for testifying in the case. But the evidence against him stands. So this lawbreaker has been put in charge of a project, paid for by our tax dollars, to direct all kinds of personal information on all of us into interconnected computers. ...
As usual, George W. Bush, the commander-in-chief of the Pentagon, has been ignored by the press as the ultimate authorizer of the Total Information Awareness System—except for one reference. Queried about Poindexter's Iran-Contra history, Bush said, "Admiral Poindexter has served our nation very well." ...
Meanwhile, on National Public Radio, Larry Abramson reported that the Office of Information Awareness, which Poindexter heads, is developing techniques of "face recognition, using CCTV camera systems that would allow government officials to identify individuals moving in public space." As we move, we could also be identified by the way we walk or the sound of our voices.
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
The audacious courage of Mr Blair - You cannot help but admire the [UK] Prime Minister's steadfast refusal to be intimidated by facts and figures - I would like to pay a tribute to the courage of Tony Blair. During these dark days in the build-up to war against Iraq it is reassuring to find ourselves with a leader who demonstrates such fearlessness in the face of tremendous odds.
Despite bitter opposition,Tony Blair has demonstrated that he will push ahead stalwartly with whatever the US intends to do. Even though the majority of his fellow countrymen are against the war (despite last week's propaganda campaign in the media), Mr Blair has shown not the slightest sign of wavering from his determination to do whatever Mr Bush wants. [...]
I would like to say a special word about another side of Tony Blair's courage - his moral courage. Tony Blair has the guts to stand on platform after platform repeating the words of the President of the United States even though he must be well aware that in so doing he makes himself a laughing stock to the rest of the world. Tony Blair has the balls not to be influenced by the knowledge that people imagine he is the US President's parrot and that his knee jerks only when George W. pulls the strings. It must take a very special kind of stamina to withstand that sort of daily humiliation. It is time we gave Mr Blair credit for it.
Tony Blair's dedication to carrying out the policies of the White House proves time and again that he has the courage of their convictions. He is prepared to back Mr Bush's arguments to the hilt even when they are palpably nonsensical. [...]
It is this refusal to be intimidated by the illogicality of the US position that perhaps displays Mr Blair's courage at its best. He is Mr Bush's faithful echo when the President demands that Saddam Hussein immediately cleanse Iraq of all terrorist organisations, even though he knows the UK never found a way of eradicating the IRA, and that, in any case, the terrorist organisations that perpetrated 9/11 were operating out of the US and Germany. [ More...]
Noam Chomsky Analyzes the Bushies - Bush is probably irrelevant. But the people around him have a record: They are recycled Reaganites. That’s why media and intellectuals so scrupulously ignore what they did when they were running the first “war on terror” that they declared 20 years ago. Better not to remember the horror stories for which they were responsible.
On human behavior, it’s not hard to figure out what’s going on. Unless you’re an unusually saintly figure, you’ve done things in your life that you knew were wrong. Maybe when you were 7 years old you took a toy from your younger brother, and when he ran crying to your mother, you told her – believing every word – that it was really yours, and he’d taken it from you, and he didn’t want it anyway, etc. Did you tell yourself that you’re stronger than he is so you could take it and get away with it?
It’s the same when you’re running a country in the world. It’s interesting to read the archives of Nazi Germany, fascist Japan, the Soviet Union. The leaders are acting from the highest imaginable motives, and probably believed it. It is remarkably easy to come to believe what it is convenient to believe. That’s the secret of being a “responsible intellectual,” someone who serves power abjectly while believing oneself to be an independent thinker.
It’s the same when you’re running a country in the world. It’s interesting to read the archives of Nazi Germany, fascist Japan, the Soviet Union. The leaders are acting from the highest imaginable motives, and probably believed it. It is remarkably easy to come to believe what it is convenient to believe. That’s the secret of being a “responsible intellectual,” someone who serves power abjectly while believing oneself to be an independent thinker.
We have no weapons of mass destruction. Your move, Mr Bush - Iraq yesterday threw down a challenge to the United States, announcing that it had no weapons of mass destruction as it handed over more than 12,000 pages of information on its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programmes to the United Nations a day ahead of the deadline set by the Security Council. - The US insists it has intelligence which will show Baghdad is lying. Once Iraq's report to the UN is analysed, any evidence that it has concealed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or hidden medium- or long-range missiles, could trigger the war many senior members of the Bush administration have been seeking. - According to diplomatic sources, Washington does not want to show its intelligence on Iraq to all the UN weapons inspectors, only the ones it trusts – a stance which could set off a row with the UN. If the US gets its way, however, it is possible that "surprise" inspections could be carried out in Iraq before the end of the month, designed to trigger war within weeks. - President Saddam, meanwhile, opened a surprising new front in the propaganda war, issuing an open letter to the Kuwaiti people in which he apologised for his 1990-1991 occupation and urged them to struggle against foreign armies.
'There are times when a nation has to go to war. This is not the time' - Noam Chomsky, academic - If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilisation, why wasn't that true a year ago? And, more dramatically, in early 1990? - Al Gore, former US Vice-President sez: By shifting his focus from war against terrorism to Iraq, the President has disposed of the sympathy and solidarity compiled by America.
Yesterday the US administration was already rubbishing the dossier prepared by Iraq before a word of it had been read. Over recent days the whisperings have predictably started in the US and Britain suggesting that the UN's weapons inspectors are not up to the job either, implying they could by easily duped by Saddam. - [T]he US and Britain have contrived a situation in which nearly all paths lead to a war. Almost certainly, President Bush and Tony Blair have sought such an outcome from the beginning, and the discussions between them have focused more on the best way to bring this about. - There is also the broader question of why the British government, with plenty of other matters on its mind closer to home, should see its role as being the main propagandist in preparing the world for war.
CANADA IS NEWEST MEMBER OF U.S. ENEMIES LIST - We soon won't have any friends left - A few days ago, right-wing pressure on both sides of the border forced Francoise Ducros to resign her job as Prime Minister Jean Chretien's communications director after she made an off-the-record remark calling President Bush a "moron." What wasn't widely reported was what prompted Ducros' remark. She and other Canadian officials objected to President Bush's insistence on turning the recent NATO summit in Prague into another showcase for his much-desired war with Iraq as well as a chance to hector NATO members to increase military spending to fight the "war on terrorism." -
Since Canada is a country that has no enemies and goes out of its way not to make new enemies, it's hard to believe how many right-wingers in this country have gone ballistic over Ducros remark as yet another sign that Canada is - in the words of the immortal Robert Novak - "a country of weenies." Is it because Canada has a national health care system that, despite the horror stories the conservatives always trot out, actually works? Is it because Canada has a more liberal immigration policy and doesn't consider "multicultural" to be a dirty word? Is it because, compared to the U.S., Canada is simply a more humane, more egalitarian place?
Or maybe it's because someone else dared to point out the painfully obvious fact that President Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer? The truth hurts, and it's funny that it seems that women are the ones who seem to have the courage to take on Bush.
California Congressman Barbara Lee stood alone last September when she cast the sole "no" vote against giving President Bush a blank check for a global war. She received death threats and all sorts of abuse but she will be part of the 108th Congress next year, only because Berkeley is the only city in the U.S. that would send someone as liberal as Lee to Washington. The same cannot be said for Georgia's U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, one of the few at the start of this year who called for a congressional investigation on what the Bush administration knew prior to the Sept. 11 attacks while others in Congress kept quiet. Rep. McKinney didn't make it past her party's primary, thanks to the conservatives.
(An aside: If, as humorist Tom Lehrer pointed out in the 1970s, "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize," what can possibly be said about the incongruity of President Bush appointing Kissinger to lead the investigation in the Sept. 11 attacks?)
Then there was the remark made by German Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin said: "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used." Comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler cost Daubler-Gmelin her job, even though she was right on this point.
Canada even gone as far to warn its naturalized citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria to steer clear of the U.S., after a Syrian-born Canadian that the U.S. suspected of terrorism links was deported after he was detained while he traveling through the U.S.
The U.S. claims Canada is not serious about fighting terrorism and that its immigration policies are too lax - so much so that Canada could be a haven for Al Qaeda operatives. But does the U.S. have the right to tell its neighbor how much to spend on its military, how to police its borders and how to conduct its foreign policy? Put it this way, which country is funding Israel's occupation of the West Bank? Which country supports Arab dictatorships (as long as they are willing to sell us oil) and has military bases throughout the Middle East and Central Asia? Which country revised its military philosophy so it now reserves the right to make pre-emptive war against any nation it sees as a threat? One hint. It's not Canada.
Billions for NASA to... grow soybeans! - Like farmers across the nation bringing in their crops this season, researchers in Wisconsin are carefully taking stock of a very special harvest – one grown aboard the International Space Station. They’ve measured and weighed plants, counted seeds, and collected additional physical information from the first-ever soybean crop grown aboard the orbiting research laboratory.
Aren't the Marines a Cult by Your Definition? - Cults clearly differ from such purely authoritarian groups as the military, some types of sects and communes, and centuries-old Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox Orders. These groups, though rigid and controlling, lack a double agenda and are not manipulative or leader-centered. The differences become apparent when we examine the intensity and pervasiveness with which mind-manipulating techniques and deceptions are or are not applied.
Jesuit seminaries may isolate the seminarian from the rest of the world for periods of time, but the candidate is not deliberately deceived about the obligations and burdens of the priesthood. In fact, he is warned in advance about what is expected, and what he can and cannot do.... [...]
And what is wrong with cults is not just that cults are secret societies. In our culture, there are openly recognized, social secret societies, such as the Masons, in which new members know up front that they will gradually learn the shared rituals of the group.... In [cults], there is deliberate deception about what the group is and what some of the rituals might be, and primarily, there is deception about what the ultimate goal will be for a member, what will ultimately be demanded and expected, and what the damages resulting from some of the practices might be. A secret handshake is not equivalent to mind control.
One man thought the noise was a sonic boom. Another guessed he was hearing rolling thunder. When a woman feared it was a bomb or an earthquake, she called the police. But they had no answers, either. No one in the Massachusetts Avenue Heights neighborhood of Northwest Washington knows what is going on at the house of their neighbor, the vice president of the United States. But one thing is certain: They're tired of the daily blasting at the Naval Observatory that has shaken houses, rattled windows and knocked mirrors off the walls.
The blasts, which last three to five seconds apiece, have been going off two or three times a day -- as early as 7 a.m. and as late as 11 p.m. -- for nearly two months, residents say. But neighbors have received so little information from government officials about the top-secret project that speculation is running wild. The leading theory: A security bunker is being built for Vice President Cheney. The second most-popular guess: The government is digging tunnels to spy on nearby embassies. In third place: A helicopter hangar is under construction.
Condi Rice - Born in ‘Bombingham,’ the enigmatic adviser has become the ‘Warrior Princess’—Bush’s secret White House weapon - Rice’s role bears watching as the president faces a critical turning point in his long-running face-off with Saddam.
Rice wants people to think of her as an enigma. She has often said that she is “determined to leave this town” without anyone outside Bush’s tight inner circle ever figuring out where she stands on major issues. She claims that she “rarely” tells the president her private opinions, and if she does, she never shares her advice to the president, not even with her closest aides. -
Hers is a complicated game to play. Officials at both the State and the Defense departments complain that under Rice’s management, the national-security “process,” designed to bring together different government agencies to hammer out policy, has become close to dysfunctional. Decisions go unmade at the deadlocked “deputies” meetings or get kicked back or ignored by the president’s “principals,” his top advisers. The principals themselves tend to revisit unresolved issues or reopen decisions already made by the president, forcing him to decide all over again.
Rice’s light reins are perplexing and troubling to some who know her. After all, they say, Rice can be decisive, impatient and tough when she wants to be. When she’s angry or wants to enforce discipline, she never yells, but her voice grows cold, her speech slows, her jaw clamps, her eyes narrow. Throughout her career, faced with clashing forces and loud dissenters, she has appeared unfazed and absolutely determined to get her way.
The United States will soon have enough heavy tanks, warships, aircraft, bombs and troops in the Persian Gulf region to enable it to begin an attack against Iraq sometime in January, senior military officials say. - "The pieces are going into place that are the basic building blocks for a combination of military options," said Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who will take over the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee next month. Or as one senior defense official put it this week, "We are rapidly getting to the point where if called upon, we'd be able to execute operations in Iraq." - The steady buildup — brought together with little fanfare by air and by ship — is intended to put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government to disarm, and perhaps to persuade Mr. Hussein's generals to defect or rebel against him.
Israel Faked Gaza Qaeda Presence - The Palestinian Authority accused Israel's Mossad spy agency on Saturday of setting up a fake al Qaeda cell in Gaza so that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could justify Israeli attacks in Palestinian areas. - "It is a big, big, big lie to cover (Sharon's) attacks and his crimes against our people everywhere," Palestinian President Yasser Arafat told reporters at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo pointed to an alleged Israeli plot, details of which fellow cabinet minister Nabil Shaath said he presented to foreign diplomats in Gaza on Saturday. - "There are certain elements who were instructed by Mossad to form a cell under the name of al Qaeda in the Gaza Strip in order to justify the assault and the military campaigns of the Israeli occupation army against Gaza," Abed Rabbo said. A Palestinian security chief, however, said the alleged Israeli plot had an overriding goal -- to trick "recruits" into believing they were working for al Qaeda and monitor them.
Sharon's allegation of a link between al Qaeda and the Palestinians marked a new stage in his equation of Israel's battle against militants leading a two-year-old uprising for statehood to the U.S.-led global war against terrorism. Israel has named al Qaeda as the prime suspect in a suicide bombing at a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya last week that killed 13 Kenyans and three Israelis and a failed attempt to shoot down with missiles an Israeli airliner taking off nearby. The United States blames the al Qaeda Islamist network for the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington. Abu Shbak said the Mossad used a Palestinian "collaborator," now in a Palestinian jail, to post recruitment notices in mosques and give messages to those the Mossad hoped to enlist.
Comment: Sounds exactly like what happened with the "Al Qaeda" attack on the World Trade Center - and would certainly explain the strange "Israeli Connection." And of course, the C's have come right out and said that the 9-11 attack was:
The al Qaeda network claimed responsibility for attacks on an Israeli airliner and hotel in Kenya that killed 16 people and vowed even more "lethal" assaults against Israel and its chief ally, the United States. Comment: Which Al Qaeda? The Mossad imitation???
Earth has two heavenly bodies sharing our orbit in addition to our moon -- a pair of recent discoveries made by a Canadian, yet almost unknown in this country outside a tiny group of astronomers. Not quite a second and third moon, not quite like anything else in the solar system, these two chunks of space rock follow a path much like ours around the sun, their orbits taking almost exactly one year each, like ours. - But what are these two companions of ours? Astronomers are having a hard time coming to grips with what to call them. For now, a lot of discussion of what they are centres mostly on what they're not.
With the Baez hoax, and the coverage it has gotten in the press, we have seen how the news is manufactured. This is another case, as is bitigly observed by Terry Jones. - Osama bin Laden is looking 'haggard'. A videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera TV showed the Most Wanted Man in the Known World looking haggard. And in case we didn't notice how haggard he was looking, the Western media have been pounding us with the word ever since the pictures were released. So I would like to congratulate George Bush and Tony Blair on the first concrete evidence that their 'War on Terrorism' is finally achieving some of its policy objectives.
When those planes smashed into the World Trade Centre with the loss of 2,500 innocent lives, I don't think anybody's first reaction was: 'Well, the sooner we get the mujahideen and the warlords to take over Kabul the better!' No, as I remember, President Bush laid out the policy objectives of his 'War on Terrorism' in measured terms: 'We must catch the evil perpetrators of this cowardly act and bring them to justice.' Bringing to justice the people who actually perpetrated the crime was out of the question since they were already dead. They'd killed themselves in a typically cowardly fashion. So, as I remember it, President Bush pretty quickly said he would get whoever egged them on to do it and then he would make them pay for it.
Well, many months later, who has paid for it? US taxpayers have stumped up billions of dollars. They've paid for it. So have the British taxpayers, for some reason which hasn't yet been explained to us. Uncounted thousands of innocent Afghan citizens have paid for it too - with their lives. I say 'uncounted' because nobody in the West seems to have been particularly interested in counting them. It's pretty certain more innocent people have died and are still dying in the bombing of Afghanistan than on 11 September, but the New York Times doesn't run daily biographies of them so they don't count.
Oh, I nearly forgot - we've all paid a considerable amount in terms of those precious civil liberties and freedoms that make our way of life in the Free World so much better than everyone else's. Bit of a conundrum that. -
If the objectives of the 'War on Terrorism' were to catch the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks, bring them to justice and make the world a safer place, so far the score - on all three objectives - has been nil. We're all jumping around scared shitless that something similar is going to happen at any moment. No perpetrators have been caught; no perpetrators have been brought to justice. -
However, finally the 'War on Terrorism' is achieving its policy objectives. Osama bin Laden is looking haggard. We may not have caught him or brought him to justice but, at the cost of thousands of innocent Afghan lives, billions of dollars of US citizens' money and the civil liberties of the Free World, we have got him looking haggard. -
This is a considerable triumph for the US forces, for the brave bomber pilots who release their bombs from such considerable and dangerous heights above the ground, and for Tony Blair, who has so fearlessly led his entire nation into the position of being terrorist targets for no good reason that any of us can think of. -
So keep up the good work, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, let's see if we can continue in this vein and perhaps - at the cost of only another few billion dollars, a lot more innocent lives, many more civil rights, and the stability of the Middle East, India and Pakistan, and perhaps a Third World War, we might even be able to make Osama bin Laden frown.
Shoot First, Ask Questions Later - In what may be a landmark Supreme Court case to overturn the Miranda decision, the court is scheduled to hear arguments from Solicitor General Theodore Olsen on December 4, 2002. Bush's political appointee intends to claim our government has the right to coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness.
The landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision ruled that suspects could not be interrogated without first being advised of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. The wording of Miranda is familiar to all Americans who watch TV, and is assumed as a basic right. The Justice Department wants to change all that. In other words, Olsen plans to argue the police can detain or arrest anyone for any reason and then beat you up or even shoot you to get information, even if there are no emergent circumstances. In other countries, this is called torture. In our country, we have the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent such horrendous abuses by the police.
The Tremendous and Escalating Cost of US and Israeli Policies - In the worst case, a war with Iraq could cost the United States almost as much as the government spent in the last budget year -- nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections in a major report just released from the Committee on International Security Studies of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Of course the American Government isn't making such projections, certainly not in public anyway. And furthermore assertion of control of Iraqi oil, the world oil markets, and the Middle East region -- even if brought about through old-thinking neo-imperialistic modern-day military means -- apparently is thought by those who today have control of the Pentagon and military-industrial complex to be worth it all. The prices that may be paid in furthering the isolation of the U.S. in world affairs; in generating hatred into future years; and in the weakening of the social, economic, and political institutions of the United States; are also likely to be considerable if not unprecedented, however hard to precisely quantify and predict. The human cost to Iraq has already been incalculable.
The 'Big War' Ahead - Israelis Prepare for Killing and Expulsion - When it finally happens, and the logic of events as well as the pointers in history show in this direction as never before, no one will be able to say this time that they didn't know, they weren't aware, how could it happen... And there will be so much blame to be distributed starting of course with the Israelis but extending quickly and fairly to the United States, world Jewry, the United Nations, et. al. A 'war of civilizations' has been provoked, brewed and stirred for quite some time now by those dominant in the 'modern world'. The victor may vanquish but it is likely not only to be at considerable cost but only for a temporary period of fleeting historical moment. The memory of these events of our time will not quickly fade; and the conscience of the world is being disrupted and fractured by these events of our time in ways likely to bring about still more chaos, devastation, and potentially the very Armageddon the Christian Fundamentalist zealots now leading the way so self-righteously prophesize. Comment: Indeed. See our article: Nostradamus, Revelation, Edgar Cayce and The False Prophet
Want a Cover-Up Expert? Kissinger's Your Man - History puts his credibility at zero in the 9/11 probe - The president clearly does not want to know the truth about Sept. 11. Otherwise he would not have appointed Henry Kissinger to head an inquiry into the origins of arguably the most successful terrorist attack in history. Long an unabashed advocate of concealing and distorting the truth in the name of national security, he is the last guy who has the right to ask someone in government, "What did you know and when did you know it?" Comment: Actually, the president clearly does NOT want the American people to know the truth about Sept. 11. He already knows it... See: The Secret Cult
Kissinger Declassified - I recently got hold of a declassified memorandum about Henry Kissinger's only meeting with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The meeting occurred on June 8, 1976, in Santiago, and the internal State Department memorandum shows how hard Kissinger tried to shield the Chilean general from criticism and assure him that his human rights violations were not a serious problem as far as the U.S. government was concerned. [ MORE...]
Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler. The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all. What if Scott Ritter, a onetime U.N. weapons inspector and former U.S. Marine who recently visited Baghdad, is right in arguing that Hussein's arsenal is a pale shadow of its former self? The creation of that original arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was greatly facilitated by the sale of hardware by U.S. companies to Iraq, sales that were approved during the 1980s when the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both sided with Iraq in its war with Iran.
How George Bush Stole Christmas - On Dec. 28, three days after the celebration of a man famous for helping the downtrodden, Republican scrooges and Democratic stooges in Congress will hand 800,000 Americans something far worse than a lump of coal: an end to unemployment benefits the Senate had earlier voted to extend. Affected parents are now likely to spend the holidays putting on a brave face for the kids, wondering how they're going to pay the rent come New Year's Day. An additional 90,000 unemployed workers will lose their benefits in each subsequent week of 2003 because the Republican leadership of the House refused to back an extension. This was too much even for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who said: "It's unconscionable for us to leave town without fixing unemployment compensation. The political symbolism of it is just horrendous."
"Aftermath: The Remnants of War" is a piercing critique of war's by-products, and, by extension, war itself. - Co-produced by the National Film Board of Canada and based on Donovan Webster's book, docu bolsters no particular political agenda but instead coolly observes what has happened in four former hot spots around the world after peace has supposedly broken out. For all of its sobriety, pic contains what may be the single most horrific image in recent film history, as well as a frequent sense of imminent danger to the risk-taking subjects and filmmakers. A long trek through the docu fest circuit could lead to a commercial run, especially with the recent box office strength of such topical works as "The Trials of Henry Kissinger." -
Pic's bitterest note is struck in the third section, reporting on the effects of spraying of Agent Orange by airborne U.S. forces during the Vietnam war. Sekulich focuses on the central Viet valley of Aluoi, where the dioxin-based agent was sprayed twice daily for three years in the mid-'60s, saturating the countryside with poisons and causing genetic defects in villagers' children. Most disturbingly, these defects continue to this day, as exemplified in an unforgettable shot of an Aloui baby whose deformed head appears to be at least 15 times larger than the rest of its tiny body. Shot crystallizes, in a jaw-dropping moment, pic's larger idea that the worst aspects of war often happen years after the main event.
Special Bulletin: The DC Snipers - * Clearly there was someone, or some entity, bankrolling Muhammad's activities. Who were his hidden benefactors? The media will likely either avoid the issue entirely, or will attempt to link Muhammad to some sort of 'terrorist' organization, though it isn't likely that many fingers will be pointed at his most likely benefactor -- that world-wide terrorist organization that we all know and love as the CIA. Comment: Again, ya'll rent and watch Oliver Stone'sJFK again... lots of clues there that mean a LOT more NOW than they ever did!
The London Connection - In 1949, while I was visiting Ezra Pound who was a political prisoner at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane), Dr. Pound asked me if I had ever heard of the Federal Reserve System. I replied that I had not, as of the age of 25. He then showed me a ten dollar bill marked "Federal Reserve Note" and asked me if I would do some research at the Library of Congress on the Federal Reserve System which had issued this bill. Pound was unable to go to the Library himself, as he was being held without trial as a political prisoner by the United States government. After he was denied broadcasting time in the U.S., Dr. Pound broadcast from Italy in an effort to persuade people of the United States not to enter World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had personally ordered Pound’s indictment, spurred by the demands of his three personal assistants, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and Alger Hiss, all of whom were subsequently identified as being connected with Communist espionage.
For a few years, since I have been writing for Viewzone, I have wanted to tell a story - perhaps the most important story I have ever been a part of - but the staff here have resisted. Viewzone is run on a shoestring budget, mostly on sweat and old fashioned journalistic zeal, but that kind of equity is vulnerable, especially when it is confronted by the most powerful forces on the planet. - So what I am going to write about is something that happened here at Viewzone about four years ago. We have all known about it and it has been eating away inside our guts like an undigested bean burrito. Comment: Dunno about this one... feedback?
Smallpox - It is claimed by medical historians that the vaccination process wiped out smallpox throughout the world. However, the truth is that compulsory vaccination was abandoned because more deaths were caused by the vaccinations than there were cases of smallpox. A slight of the hand trick was used to foster the claim that smallpox was eradicated by the vaccination practice. Everyone who had been vaccinated and who developed smallpox was diagnosed as having chicken pox! - Not too long ago Fox News showed us a picture of a man who was covered with smallpox pustules on his arms, face, legs and abdomen. The pustules were big, black, ugly, scaby and closely compacted. He looked like he was a monster from some other world. It was enough to scare me, were it not for the fact that I know that it was drug treatment that caused that ugly picture and not the disease at all. The cause of those ugly marks was carbolic acid that had been used to kill the supposed germ that caused the eruptive rash. -
Edward Jenner, a notorious fake and quack, is credited with having "discovered" vaccination. However, it was a practice of many ancient peoples long before his time. Savage and barbaric tribes in various parts of the world practiced inoculation even before Jenner's time. It is conjectured to have begun in India and then spread to Africa and Europe. Lady Mary Wortley Montague, wife of the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Court in l7l7 introduced the practice to Europe. But, due to its proven evils, one of which was an increase in smallpox in England, the practice was abolished in l840. It is pertinent that James Phipps, the eight year old boy vaccinated by Jenner in l896, died at the age of 20. He had been re-vaccinated twenty times. Jenner's own son who had also been vaccinated more than once died at the young age of twenty-one. Both succumbed to tuberculosis, a condition that some researchers have linked to the smallpox vaccine. (Eleanor Mc Bean, The Poisoned Needle, 28,29,66 ).
Fair Use Policy
Contact Webmaster at signs-of-the-times.org