Archive | September 10th, 2012

UK Islamophobic Racist Channel 4 wages war against Islam



He saw what he wanted to see and rejected recklessly what he didn’t like. His exclusion of established academic positions and material facts points to the only conclusion of justifying his own prejudices and ignorance of Islamic tradition.”

The Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA)

UK Channel 4 has engaged in a direct war against Islam by airing a documentary which distorts the reality of the glorious Faith.

Over 1000 complaints have been made to the channel and another 200 to the UK media regulator Ofcom over a documentary about the origins of Islam.

By way of avoiding an investigation into the matter, an Ofcom spokesman has said, “We will assess them and if we believe there has been a possible breach of the broadcasting code, we would hold an investigation, but no decision to that effect has been taken.”

Islam: The Untold Story, presented by Tom Holland, claims there is little written contemporary evidence about the origin of Islam and the life of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

As another politically-motivated attempt by followers of the English Defence League (EDL) to misrepresent the realities of Islam, the production is a mere distortion of history presented by someone with no background of religious knowledge.

Holland’s works mostly comprise vampire and adventure stories, and his non-fiction books are nothing related to religious issues or Islam.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the 44-year-old writer became the target of many criticisms by Muslim viewers who took to Twitter to vent their fury at his inaccurate claims and imaginative lies about the true divine religion.

The Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) also said Holland was making “baseless assumptions” and engaging in “selective scholarship”.

“Holland has cherry picked from evidence as well as scholarship to take an unsubstantiated and marginalized view on the origins of Islam,” the IERA said.

“He saw what he wanted to see and rejected recklessly what he didn’t like. His exclusion of established academic positions and material facts points to the only conclusion of justifying his own prejudices and ignorance of Islamic tradition.”

Posted in UKComments Off on UK Islamophobic Racist Channel 4 wages war against Islam

Syrian Christians ‘targeted’ by rebels


The Christian community is one of the oldest in Syria but increasingly one that feels threatened.

Thousands are said to have left Homs after the rebels took over.

Speaking to Today’s reporter Zubeida Malik, Reverend Nadim Nassar, a Syrian anglican priest, says he is worried “the influence from outside Syria” will affect the good relationship between Christians and Muslims.

Georgette, a Syrian Christian in Damscus, said her cousin’s home was broken into in Homs and she and her husband were threatened and asked to leave within 24 hours, or risk being killed.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrian Christians ‘targeted’ by rebels

That Villaraigosa Moment


Debunking the myth of American democracy

No one believed the vote on the “God and Jerusalem” wording in the Democratic platform was conducted fairly or democratically: a two-thirds vote was required to restore the deleted words and that clearly — and audibly — didn’t happen. Neither the audience nor the news media was convinced by Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s ruling that the amendment passed. But no matter. As he told the Los Angeles Times, the Mayor has the good opinion of those who really count:

I can tell you this — the president of the United States said, ‘Wow.’ The president said, ‘You showed why you were speaker of the California Assembly. The president, the vice president, Mrs. Obama, all of them acknowledged the decisive way I handled that.’”

Democracy shemocracy! Who cares when the Supreme Leader claps you on the back and congratulates you for a job well done? In that Villaraigosa moment, the true contours of power in the world’s greatest democracy were revealed.

The little people — i.e. the delegates, the voters, and those who have stopped voting for precisely this reason — are irrelevant pawns, to be moved about the chessboard by these giants.

“It was a lot of ado about nothing,” said Villaraigosa, misquoting and well as misusing Shakespeare:

When reporters told him after the vote that they did not clearly hear two-thirds support, he responded, ‘That’s nice to know. I was the chairman and I did, and that was the prerogative of the chair.’”

This is the face of our political class: arrogantauthoritarian, and on the level of somebanana republic south of the border. Welcome to the New America, where leader-worship has taken the place of politics, Team Red and Team Blue battle it out to see who gets to be El Supremo for the next four years, and politics resembles a prolonged soccer game.

At least the Republicans ran their operation with a modicum of formal “democracy.” It wasn’t their fault the bus driver bringing Morton Blackwell, chief opponent of the controversial rules change, to the convention somehow got “lost.” The Paul delegates were a minority, albeit a vocal and well-organized one, and they got voted down squarely if not fairly.

Villaraigosa didn’t bother with such old-fashioned formalities: he simply asserted his “prerogative” and declared the amendment passed. One dictionary defines prerogativeas follows:

1. An exclusive right or privilege held by a person or group, especially a hereditary or official right.

2. The exclusive right and power to command, decide, rule, or judgethe principal’s prerogative to suspend a student.

3. A special quality that confers superiority.”

His Honor’s choice of words reflects the mindset of his class — an increasingly assertive political class which views itself as a justly privileged elite. These paladins of the New Order are brazen because they know they can get away with it:

Villaraigosa noted that any delegate who objected to the process could have made a formal challenge within 10 minutes of the vote. ‘Not one person objected. It’s more a media concern than a delegate concern.’”

I don’t know whether this is true, and I certainly wouldn’t take Villaraigosa’s word for it. If there are any antiwar Democratic delegates to that convention, who might be in a position to know, please write me — because it’s an important point. If indee d no one rose to object and register a formal challenge to the decision of the chair, then what passes for the “left” today is truly as dead as I’ve long maintained. I’m not talking about the Marxist left, which has too extensive a history to be uprooted even by the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Adlai Stevenson type liberals and the plentiful peaceniks-for-Obama who put the old Bush-is-Hitler antiwar coalition in mothballs when Obama took the oath of office.

As the third vote was taken, with the same audibly fifty-fifty results, Villaraigosa didn’t have to worry about what to do: the decision had already been made for him. As Fox News caught on camera, the teleprompter telegraphed the results before the vote was even taken.

As low as my opinion is of the Democratic party, that this happened in America, rather than North Korea, is hard to believe.

The platform revisions reflect two important facts about the rising political class; its insularity and its subservience to foreign interests. The God business was indeed a simple oversight: what happened is that the secularists who wrote the draft were given a free hand and their superiors never noticed the omission. To these people there is no god but the government: political rallies, and perhaps union meetings, are their equivalent of church. They don’t know or care that the vast majority of Americans are professed believers, Christians for the most part — especially outside the party’s urban fortresses.

The Jerusalem business was more serious, reflecting a real ideological rift between the party leadership and the grassroots — and an ongoing conundrum for the Obama administration, which is under increasing pressure from the Israel lobby. In tandem with this, the President faces additional pressure from some very big donors to the party coffers, whose fealty to the Democrats, as Wesley Clark pointed out, is predicated on the party’s unconditional support for the state of Israel.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and recognize that city as the “undivided capital of Israel,” as the revised platform now states. So did the Republicans. So has every candidate, Democrat and Republican, since Ronald Reagan. Even Ron Paul — wrongly, in my view — concurs. Yet no matter which party wins, the embassy stays in Tel Aviv. The whole “controversy” was manufactured, from beginning to end — and wound up being just another way for the Israel lobby to display its power.

The elaborate farce surrounding the platform “debate” underscores the great distance between political actors and those in the audience, the voters, who are increasingly just observers of a process — a narrative — over which they have no control. The narrative is being written for them, as it appears on the teleprompter, and hacks like Villaraigosa just have to mouth the required phrases, all the while exercising their vaunted “prerogatives” to the hilt.

If every country gets the ruling class it deserves, as a roughly accurate reflection of the national ethos, then we are saddled with one that rivals the Bourbons in their arrogance, the Stalinists in their instincts, and the late Roman aristocracy in their decadence and hubris. That Villaraigosa moment was a close up snapshot of American “democracy,” which clearly showed the brazen effrontery of our rulers in action.

The myth of American democracy is like a great tree, standing upright against the winds for as long as anyone can remember: its hollowness is only revealed when one day it is struck by lightning.

No one can predict when lightning will strike, but when it does we’re bound to have another Villaraigosa Moment, albeit on a much larger scale.


To those libertarians who take the Paulian view — which is, in essence, that it’s none of our business where the Israelis want to have their capital — I ask them to imagine the following scenario:

Country A invades Country B, conquers it, and declares the former capital city — which just happens to be sacred ground to the world’s three great religions — to be the capital of the newly formed conquistador state. It’s as if Canada invaded the US, took DC, and declared Washington the new capital of the United States of North America.

The United States has shipped billions in “aid” to Israel and stood by the Jewish state through thick and thin. Israeli and US interests are so intimately intertwined in the region that the President had to assure the Iranians we would have no part in an Israeli first strike — and ask them to please not blow up our Iraqi embassy.

The essence of the “special relationship” is that we must bear ultimate responsibility for Israel’s actions. We have been not just their sugar daddy but also their advocate in the court of world opinion, even when they’ve been clearly and brazenly in the wrong. For us to cap off this record with a declaration clearly meant to offend the expropriated Palestinian people, even while officially declaring our support for a Palestinian state, would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. If the words of the revised Democratic platform were ever implemented, the interests of the US would be seriously and irrevocably damaged in the region. Which is why no President has ever done it, why it’s one of the few mistakes the Bush administration didn’t make, and why Obama isn’t going to break that tradition.

Posted in USAComments Off on That Villaraigosa Moment

Gaza in 2020 – A liveable place?



By the year 2020 the population of Gaza will increase to around 2.1 million, from an estimated 1.6 million people today. The substantial population growth rate will thus add some 500,000 people to a living area which is restricted and already heavily urbanized. Fundamental infrastructure in electricity, water and sanitation, municipal and social services, is struggling to keep pace with the needs of the growing population. By 2020, electricity provision will need to double to meet demand, damage to the coastal aquifer will be irreversible without immediate remedial action, and hundreds of new schools and expanded health services will be needed for an overwhelmingly young population.
Tens of thousands of housing units are needed today.

Gaza is an urban economy, heavily reliant on intensive trade, communication and movement of people. The area has been essentially isolated since 2005, meaning that, in the longer term, its economy is fundamentally unviable under present circumstances. Gaza is currently kept alive through external funding and the illegal tunnel economy.
The people of Gaza remain worse off than they were in the 1990s, despite increases in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita over the past three years.

Unemployment is high and affects women and youth in particular. Gaza’s GDP per capita is expected to grow only modestly in the coming years, making it ever more difficult for Gazans to secure a decent living. The challenges will only become more acute, particularly if the current political status quo continues. Even if the political situation were to improve dramatically over the next years, the issues identified in this study would still need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

While recognizing recent progress, demographic pressure and the deterioration of Gazan infrastructure demand durable and broad-based economic growth based on trade of goods and services. It will be essential to ensure the provision of basic infrastructure (particularly water/sanitation and electricity) and improved social services (particularly health and education). As a heavily urbanized environment with little room for further growth, Gaza needs to be open and accessible to the world. The viability of a future Palestinian state depends on a proper connection between the West Bank and Gaza, providing access to the Mediterranean for the entire occupied Palestinian territory.

This document focuses on a range of the most important issues affecting the daily lives of the people in Gaza, which will only intensify in the coming years – even more so should the political situation (the divide between Gaza and the West Bank, the occupation and closure, and continued violent conflict) not improve. These challenges are described in the six-monthly UN report to the Ad hoc Liaison Committee, and more routinely in the UN’s monthly briefing to the Security Council. In short, an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip in the context of Security Council resolution 1860, and Gaza’s recovery and long-term economic development remain fundamental objectives of the United Nations.

Posted in GazaComments Off on Gaza in 2020 – A liveable place?

Statement on Syria


09 September 2012

The Peace Commission of the International Association for Religious Freedom has noted with great concern that in the pursuit of geostrategic policies, ill-considered military and material support of ‘popular’ revolutions with poorly-defined aims and structures has led to situations where human rights have been systematically abused, religious freedom has been denied, and transnational violence exacerbated.

Amongst the consequences of such support has been the inability of affected countries to sustain democratic governance; the destruction of sites of international cultural or religious importance; large-scale military intervention; and the spread of conflict to neighbouring democratic states.

The growing conflict in Syria has seen the development of terrorist organisations with ideologies of religious and ethnic hatred which threaten the peace and security of all nations in the region. They are funded and supported by non-democratic states with sectarian rulers who are known to promote enmity towards Christians, Jews * and various denominations of Islam within their own national territories.

It is therefore essential for the long-term peace and stability of the region, and for the safety of countless citizens of Syria’s neighbours, that the international community applies diplomatic pressure to ensure that aid from any state is not intended or diverted to support sectarian or racially motivated terror.


* Ed Note ” The Syrian terror group’s are supported by Zio-Jewish regime so i don’t think they have any enmity towards the Jews.” Shoah

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Statement on Syria

Two New Wars for Us



By Philip Giraldi

 Normally Washington bureaucracies shut down in August, but this year the intelligence community was working flat out to develop information on two crises in the Middle East. One official describes a deep sense of foreboding, recalling NSC Counter Terrorism Security Group chairman Richard Clarke’s description of walking around the West Wing in August 2001 with his “hair on fire.”

Syria is on the frontburner as a shooting war in which the U.S. is already clandestinely involved. The attempt to come up with a consensus National Intelligence Estimate on the crisis has been put on hold, both because the situation is too volatile and because new intelligence paints an increasingly dark picture of the insurgency. A number of atrocities against civilians previously attributed to the Assad government are now known to be the work of the rebels, who are becoming less reticent about their plans to eliminate all regime supporters, which would include most Alawites as well as many in the Christian community. U.S. intelligence has also come to the conclusion that rebel militias are heavily infiltrated and frequently commanded by jihadis linked to al-Qaeda.

Attempts by CIA officers to discuss the issue with the rebels’ political representatives in Lebanon and Turkey have been blown off or deferred, suggesting that the movement’s leadership might be fully complicit. There is also increasing concern about a domino effect spreading unrest to Lebanon. Even the Turks are backing away from more direct involvement, worried that major refugee and Kurdish-based terrorism problems are developing.

The Iran crisis is more troublesome because the possible consequences are graver. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta traveled to Israel at the end of July to get a commitment from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran before America’s elections. A commitment was not forthcoming, with Netanyahu demanding as quid pro quo that Washington publicly break off negotiations with Iran. Intelligence analysts in Washington are split 50-50 over whether Netanyahu is bluffing.

Some analysts are convinced that an attack will come in October when the weather is still good in the region and at a point when President Obama will have no choice politically but to support the Israelis. There has been some intelligence suggesting that Israel has already made the decision, fearing that Obama will ratchet down his tolerance for a military option whether he wins or loses. Reports suggest that Israeli leaders privately view Mitt Romney as useful but cautious, even timid, and do not trust his overblown and politically motivated assurances of support if war were to break out.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

This article was originally posted at The American Conservative

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Two New Wars for Us

Council on Foreign Relations Marshals Public Opinion to Tout Syrian Destabilization

By Prof. James F. Tracy
Global Research
In a recent article the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) declares Americans are “appalled by the depredations of the [Bashar al-]Assad regime and seek its removal from power.” Short of committing troops, the US “[p]ublic wants tough action … including the imposition of tougher sanctions, and the creation of safe havens to protect civilians,” the CFR’s Stewart M. Patrick writes.
There are two underlying problems with this claim. First, the CFR is furtively exerting its own policy objectives by pointing to opinion polls the body has had a direct hand in creating. Second, the CFR is gauging the sentiment of a vastly disinformed public on a Syrian destabilization policy the organization vigorously advocates.
The more authoritative polling of US and international opinion cited in the piece was conducted by the CFR, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CFR’s Chicago affiliate), and the University of Maryland’sProgram on Policy Attitudes (PIPA). Despite its scholarly veneer, PIPA director Steven Kull and half of the research group’s board of advisers are CFR members. In addition, PIPA receives financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.[1]
Since its inception in 1921 the CFR has claimed to be “an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher.” Yet over the years the entity has recruited political and corporate leaders closest to the levers of institutional power, exerted decisive influence on US foreign policy throughout the twentieth century, was a central proponent of the postwar national security state, and “believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established,” according to CFR historian Carroll Quigley.[2]
The CFR’s efforts to measure and tout public opinion regarding Syria is of particular concern since it has been a strong advocate of destabilizing the Assad regime through recruitment and support of death squads comprised of foreign Al Qaeda and Libyan Islamic Fighting Group mercenaries. “The influx of jihadis,” the CFR recently gloated, “brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results.”
This strategy has continued ceaselessly since February 2011 when the so-called “Arab Spring” began throughout the Middle East. An almost identical strategy was carried out concurrently in Libya, resulting in the August 2011 overthrow of the Muammar Qaddafi regime and its replacement with a fundamentalist Islamic state.
The CFR’s use and interpretation of opinion polling to justify continued terrorism against the Syrian people is illustrative of the psychological and rhetorical trickery employed by Anglo American power elites and their intellectual mouthpieces. Such efforts are intended to muddy the issues, confuse journalists, and thereby disorient the broader public—the same public the organization now solicits to endorse even more widescale bloodshed and destruction. For example, the CFR’s Patrick claimsAmericans and their European counterparts are strangely “ambivalent” over what the next steps in Syria should be.  “Americans support a no-fly zone in theory, though oppose bombing air defenses—a necessary component of establishing a no-fly zone.”
A much more honest and forthright line of questioning might include, “Do you believe the US and its allies should be providing the bulk of material and logistical support to Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups so they may carry out grievous atrocities against the Syrian civilian population en route to establishing a nightmarish theocratic state in Syria and throughout the Middle East?”
[1] As James Petras observes, “The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source.” Given that the CIA is actively supporting Syria’s rebels, it is not unreasonable to surmise that interpretations of American public opinion may also be incrementally introduced into the public mind to eventually justify overt military action.
[2] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, GSG and Associates, 1966/1975, 955.

Posted in Syria1 Comment

Orwell’s 1984 Solution to Criminalize War: “If There was Hope, it must Lie in the Proles”

By Prof. James F. Tracy

Global Research

“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance-it is the illusion of knowledge.”-Daniel Boorstin

In George Orwell’s 1984 the Outer Party comprised a mere thirteen percent of the population and was subject to the ideological filters in play at the Ministry of Truth and the broader bureaucratic structure. A specific language and way of thinking were closely adhered to. Given their political import, Outer Party members were the most heavily indoctrinated and controlled inhabitants of Oceania. The majority Proles who constituted the remainder of the population was of little consequence so long as their political awareness remained underdeveloped.
While its members withstood more austere conditions, 1984‘s Outer Party is roughly tantamount to those who in our society are the well-informed, college-educated professionals; those whose duty it is to adhere to the ready-made opinion available in the major agenda setting journalistic outlets such as the New York TimesWashington Post, and National Public Radio, where news is carefully selected, crafted, and presented. Such information is then disseminated to the masses via actors in summary capsule form on cable and broadcast television platforms.

Mystified by its own credentials, surrounded by peers who conceive of reality along similar lines, and underscored by the corporate media’s overwhelming tide of disinformation, much of today’s professional class is impervious to “rumors” and “conspiracy theories” that all too often captivate the sordid masses—from unreasonable suspicion over mysterious terrorist attacks to the poorly-informed questions surrounding their leader’s hidden background. Much like the expert officials and agenda setting outlets they look to for prepared interpretations of the world, the opinion leading class’ constituents understand themselves as above all well informed, similarly disinterested and unmoved by groundless passion.

In fact, the programming necessary to attain such a degree of self-assuredness often tends to distance one from reality. For example, revulsion towards war in the United States has historically tended to run strongest among those who have escaped the heavy indoctrination of the professional class—those members of the non-or semi-skilled, working class majority. As historian Howard Zinn observes,
“[I]n surveys of public opinion during the [Vietnam War], it was inevitably shown that people with the highest education—college graduates—were the most supportive of the war. People who had not graduated from high school were the ones most against the war. This is a surprising figure because most people thought the anti-war movement consisted of intellectuals and students and college professors. While those people were most visible in the anti-war movement, public opinion against the war was concentrated in the least educated classes.”
Recent public opinion indicators point to the enduring nature of antiwar sentiment. For example, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press shows that on March 19, 2011, one week before President Obama announced the NATO bombing of Libya, 77% of the US public opposed the destruction of the country’s air defenses. Polling one year later revealed a 62% majority against NATO “bombing Syrian military forces to protect anti-government groups in Syria,” even though almost the same percentage (64%) admitted to having heard “little” or “nothing at all” on “recent political violence in Syria.”
May we thus safely conclude that a majority of the population despite ceaseless propaganda still recognizes how war remains the supreme crime and the greatest demarcation between master and slave? “If there was hope, it must lie in the Proles,” Orwell wrote, “because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.”

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Orwell’s 1984 Solution to Criminalize War: “If There was Hope, it must Lie in the Proles”

9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I


Jim Fetzer

“And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” — the motto of the CIA, taken from the Gospel according to St. John, which was inscribed on the facade of its Headquarters Building in 1959.

The array of ongoing attacks on the 9/11 Truth movement has reached astonishing proportions.  A “10th anniversary 9/11 Truth ‘Hit Piece’ Roundup” published on 12 September 2011, a year and a day after 9/11, included excerpts from and links to no less than 32 attacks, where the majority emphasize the psychological needs of those who embrace “conspiracy theories” to give meaning, coherence and security to their lives—as though the belief that your government has perpetrated crimes of such magnitude could enhance your sense of security!  But logic and reason are not their strong suits, where these articles are largely bereft of considerations about photographic, witness and physical proof substantiating the conclusions that many within the movement have drawn, where those who study the evidence tend to become truthers themselves.     

Attacks upon the movement from the outside, however, pale in comparison with those that arise from groups that are within the movement itself.  Richard Gage, head of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, reportedly tried to convince 9/11 Vancouver that it should not support the hearings that would be held thereon 15-17 June 2012.  Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has denounced “No Plane Theory” (NPT), virtually without regard for the evidence that supports it, to which Pilots itself has made major contributions.  And the Judy Wood clique (which displays the behavioral characteristics of a cult), denounces anyone who has even the least doubt of her theory of the destruction of the Twin Towers, while paradoxically denying that she even has “a theory”!

In spite of efforts to undermine them, which even included a death threat directed against those who organized the conference, The Vancouver Hearings have made a powerful contribution to understanding the events of 9/11. The quality of the 19 presentations was uniformly excellent—clearly organized, well-reasoned, and thought-provoking—where the most controversial issues within the 9/11 Truth community were addressed— and effectively settled—in an effort to expose falsehoods and reveal truths.  The most important outcome was the resolution of several of the major 9/11 controversies that have divided the research community, which represents an enormous step forward in bringing these factions within the movement together—provided that reason and rationality are going to prevail in lieu of ego-centric and defensive attempts to save face when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Vancouver Hearings were designed to compensate for perceived weaknesses in The Toronto Hearings, which were held with great fanfare across the continent nine months earlier.  As Joshua Blakeney explained, there was a noticeable failure in Toronto to address who was responsible for 9/11 and why.  And as I accented in my critique of those hearings, alternative theories about the destruction of the Twin Towers, including the possible use of mini or micro nukes, much less directed energy weapons, were not even considered, which meant that no comparative judgments could be rendered about which among the alternative accounts provides the best explanation of the available data because no alternatives were discussed.

That is not a scientific attitude. The desire to avoid controversial questions, such as whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, whether all four of the crash sites had been fabricated or faked, much less who was responsible and why, were not addressed, even though there is a powerful and growing body of evidence that makes their resolution possible.  The Vancouver Hearings were intended to compensate for those shortcomings.

The “Official Account”

One commentator who attended the hearings, Ernst Rodin, has suggested that the difference between these events is that the Toronto Hearings were devoted to establishing that the “official account” of 9/11 cannot be sustained on the basis of the available relevant evidence, while The Vancouver Hearings were focused upon the question of who was responsible and why.  But another student of 9/11, Craig McGee, has come decidedly closer to the heart of the matter by observing that, unlike Toronto, there was no “partly line” in Vancouver, where the presentations were diverse and some speakers openly disagreed with others, which is right on the mark.

The Vancouver Hearings were intended to confront and resolve the issues that divide us, which invited not only their discussion but even, as it turned out, open differences between speakers themselves.  While Ernst Rodin implies the Toronto Hearings were more objective and scientific, frequently talking about what can be “verified” and what cannot, he minimizes the science at the Vancouver and, rather oddly, does not even bother to report our research on “No Plane Theory” (NPT) or to explain our findings about who was responsible and why.  In this part, I am going to address issues related to NPT and, in part II, those related to the destruction of the Twin Towers and who was responsible and why 9/11 was produced.

The “official” 9/11 flight paths

While Rodin contends that he is only going to focus on “a few presentations that provided, at least for [him], new information”, he not only does no more by way of discussing who was responsible and why than to mention in passing“government circles here and/or in Israel” but has nothing to say about NPT, even though several of the speakers, including Nick Kollerstrom, Christopher Holmes, and I, presented extensive, detailed, and scientific evidence in its support.

Moreover, since Israeli complicity in 9/11 and evidence that all four of the 9/11 crash sites appear to have been fabricated had never been addressed during previous 9/11 conferences—with the exception of Morgan Reynolds during the Madison Conference in 2007—it is difficult to believe that this did not come as “new information” for Rodin.  In order to appreciate the historic significance of The Vancouver Hearings, however, it may be appropriate to review the “official account” of what happened on 9/11.  According to The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)—with support from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—the key events were:

* That 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial carriers–Flight AA 11, AA 77, United 93, and United 175–outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of Osama bin Laden, from a cave in Afghanistan.

* That two of those planes, Flights 11 and 175, both Boeing 767s, were flown into the Twin Towers, where the combination of damage from their impacts, the jet-fuel based fires and those that endured, weakened the steel and caused both of them to collapse in about 10 seconds apiece.

* That at 5:20 PM that afternoon, another enormous building in the World Trade Center complex, WTC-7 (also known as “Building 7″, a 47-story skyscraper,  also collapsed due to fires inside the building, even though it had not been hit by any plane and had no jet-fuel-based fires.

* That the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that approached on a northeastern trajectory at around 500 mph and, just skimming the ground and taking out multiple lampposts, created a spectacular fireball and extensive damage, with 125 casualties at the building itself.

* That another Boeing 757, Flight 93, crashed in Shanksville, after the passengers heroically attempted to regain control, which we know from phone calls they made–as others had made from other planes–where this plane virtually completely disappeared into the very soft earth.

* That the government identified the 19 hijackers almost immediately, where 15 were from Saudi Arabia and the number from Iraq was none, where these events were used to justify wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, the passage of the PATRIOT ACT, and the on-going “War on Terror”.

We have long known that every element of this account is riddled with claims that are not only false but even impossible, which I have summarized in “20 reasons the official account of 9/11 is wrong”, where Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never been able to prove that any of those alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes; David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown that all of the alleged “phone calls” from all four flights were faked; and Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, even though there are millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from those four planes, the government has yet to produce even one!

And while an FBI spokesman explained why the NTSB had not conducted investigations of any of the four plane crashes for the first time in its history on the ground that “it wasn’t necessary because we saw what happened on television”, we did not see what happened in Shanksville on television and the only frame purporting to show what happened at the Pentagon features a plane that is too small by half to have been a Boeing 757.  What we did see on TV of events in New York is laden with anomalies.

Proving False Claims True

The title of Col. Nelson’s study, “Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True”, is relevant here, because falsehoods can mistakenly seem to have been proven true when their premises are false because of suppressed evidence, manufactured evidence, or other forms of fakery and fabrication. A great deal of the proceedings that took place during The Vancouver Hearings, therefore, had the function of a formal certification of the deceit and deception that characterizes the official account of 9/11, not because we did not know that it was riddled with false claims and was based upon fabricated evidence but because of the importance of further certifying that to be the case with qualified experts, who confirmed that:

The 19 9/11 “patsies”

(1) Flights 11 and 77  were not even scheduled that day and the planes corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005;

(2) no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but one appears to have been flown toward the building and swerved over it as explosives were set off to simulate a plane crash;

(3) Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, after its alleged crash in Shanksville, PA, and Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after its alleged hit on the South Tower;

(4) all four of the alleged “crash sites” were fabricated, where different forms of fakery were used in each instance in an effort to conceal how had been done;where,

(5) the Twin Towers appear to have been destroyed by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes exploded in a sequence intended to simulate a collapse;

(6) 9/11 appears to have been a “national security event” approved at the highest levels of the U.S. government and executed with the assistance of the Israeli Mossad.

These conclusions—with the possible exception of how the Twin Towers were destroyed—now appear to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt, because there are no reasonable alternatives. The solitary exception (regarding how the Twin Towers were destroyed) is that the use of nukes may have been complemented by one or another kind of directed energy weapon. But any alternatives that posit the primacy of conventional weapons,

thermite/thermate/nanothermite—which could have been used for limited special purposes—or continue to maintain a collapse of any kind, after The Vancouver Hearings, no longer deserve serious consideration within the 9/11 Truth movement.  Those theories have been defeatedThey are not even physically possible.  Indeed, the “official account” of 9/11 is littered with violations of the laws of aerodynamics, engineering and physics, which means that it is not only false but cannot possibly be true.

An unusual aspect of The Vancouver Hearings is that they were conducted within a quasi-judicial framework in which each of the speakers was sworn in by one of the hearing’s panel of two judges, with the expectation of subsequently submitting evidentiary statements for the panel to use as the foundation for the preparation of formal indictments of those who appear to have been responsible for these atrocities, comparable to the Luala Lumpur Tribunal’s indictments of George W. Bush and Anthony “Tony” Blair. The evidentiary submissions and indictments that are based upon them, some of which have recently appeared on Veterans Today, including Susan Lindauer’s “Confessions of a former CIA Asset”, may well become the most enduring legacy of the hearings.  Let us begin with events at the Pentagon and follow up with the fabrication of the four “crash sites”, then turn to how the Twin Towers were destroyed and who was responsible (including Israeli complicity) and why, which no other 9/11 conference has ever addressed.

(1) What didn’t happen at the Pentagon

According to the “official account” of 9/11, the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 that approached on a northeastern trajectory at around 500 mph and, just skimming the ground and taking out multiple lampposts, created a spectacular fireball and extensive damage, which caused 125 fatalities within the building itself.

The public needs to understand that events that violate the laws of aerodynamics and of physics are scientific impossibilities, where ground effect—the accumulation of a pocket of compressed gas —would make it impossible for a Boeing 757 to fly closer than 60-80′ feet of the ground and that the effects of a plane traveling at 500 mph hitting stationary lampposts would be the same as a stationary plane being hit by lampposts traveling 500 mph:  they would rip through the wing, the fuel stored there would burst into flames, the plane would twist around and its tail would have broken off, while the plane cartwheeled into the ground.  The “official account” is not even aerodynamically or physically possible, where arguments that are based upon scientific laws among their premises properly qualify as “scientific reasoning”.

The first speaker to address the Pentagon was Enver Masud, founder and CEO of The Wisdom Fund, recipient of the 2002 Gold

Award for THE WAR ON ISLAM, now in its 5th edition. An engineer by profession, he was residing near the Pentagon and observed its condition immediately after the hit, which he wrote about in 9/11 UNVEILED (2nd edition), perhaps the best brief introduction to 9/11.  Enver Masud not only explained that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, could not have executed the flight path of “Flight 77″ into the Pentagon, but that the plane itself would have undergone G-forces that would have caused it to crash into the lawn.  He offers the witness testimony of personnel inside the building, including April Gallup, but that other witnesses outside the building, such as CNN’s Jamie McIntrye, also contradict the “official account”.  Among his other important points, he explains that the Pentagon Damage Assessment Report does not comport with the crash of a Boeing 757 and that the Flight Data Recorded provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the NTSB does not show the plane leveling off for its approach to hit the Pentagon.

Barbara Honegger, Former White House Policy Analyst and, for more than a decade, Senior Military Affairs Journalist at DoD’s science, technology and national security affairs graduate university, she authoredOCTOBER SURPRISE (1989) and “The Scarlet A: Anthrax Links to 9/11″, presents compelling evidence that the central fact of the Pentagon attack on 11 September 2001 is the same as at the World Trade Center: inside-the-building explosives, which no foreign terrorists could have had the access to plant, which, by itself, makes the “official account” of the Pentagon attack a fabrication on its face.

Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony converge to show that internal as well as external explosions went off just after 9:30 a.m., when the official narrative maintains that Flight 77 was still miles from Washington and did not approach the building until 9:37:46, where these primary explosions went off at locations far removed from the official “plane penetration path” in Wedge One, including in Wedge Two, and in the innermost rings well beyond the alleged C Ring “exit” hole.  Honegger’s study thus confirms and reinforces the presentation by Enver Masud.

Dennis Cimino, who spoke on Sunday morning, addressed issues related to the FDR data, which, according to the NTSB, was from Flight 77.  With an A.A. in electrical engineering, 35-years in EMI/EMC testing and field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer, his presentation fit with others about the Pentagon.

As Rodin accurately reports, “the most interesting aspect was his analysis of the AA77 FDR. It revealed that there could not have been a struggle in the cockpit because at no time was the autopilot disengaged which would have inevitably happened under those circumstances. Furthermore, the preamble of the FDR file, which normally carries identifying information of the plane it came from, had 000. This indicated that the file did not originate from AA77.” Dennis and I co-authored a study, ‘The ‘official account’ of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy”, which he asked me to move to my blog after it unexpectedly disappeared from Veterans Today.  Here is what Dennis had to say:


Dean Hartwell, who holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, Masters in Public Administration, and law degree, J.D., is also the author of DEAD MEN TALKING: CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENT LIES (2009) on JFK, RFK and 9/11 and of PLANES WITHOUT PASSENGERS: THE FAKED HIJACKINGS OF 9/11 (2011).  If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, after all, then what became of its passengers?  As Dean observes, Bureau of Transportation Statistics records, which were first discovered by Gerard Holmgren, reveal that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 were scheduled to fly that day.  But if those flights were phantoms, then the passengers were imaginary, too.  As he illustrates in his evidentiary submission, the most famous passenger alleged to have been killed that day was the popular right-wing political commentator, Barbara Olson.

Her husband, Ted, then the Solicitor General of the United States, gave three different versions of his claim that she had called him twice from the airplane, even though we know from the research of A.K. Dewdney and David Ray Griffin that calls from those planes would have been impossible in 2001.  Even the FBI would eventually confirm that Barbara Olson had not had any conversation with her husband during 9/11.  Dean’s study removes a psychological obstacle to concluding that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that the “official account” is a fraud.

(2) The fabrication of all four crash sites

Since the presentations by Nick Kollerstrom (on Saturday morning) and by Christoper Holmes (on Sunday morning) can perhaps be best appreciated within the more general framework of how we know that all four of the “official crash sites” were fabrication, I shall begin with my own presentation, “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″.  As Dean observed, BTS records show neither Flight 11 (which officially hit the North Tower) nor Flight 77 (the Pentagon) was scheduled to fly that day.

FAA Registration records, which I also display, show that the planes associated with Flights 93 (the Shanksville crash) and Flight 175 (the South Tower hit) were not de-registered (or formally taken out of service) until 28 September 2005.  Which raise the following questions:  How could planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11?  and how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?  In addition, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established (on the basis of studies of air/ground communications) that Flight 93 was in the air but was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, after its alleged crash in Shanksville and that Flight 175 was also in the air but, long after its alleged hit on the South Tower, was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA.  All four crash sites involved forms of fakery.

This is such stunning information, which completely pulls the rug out from under the “official account” of 9/11, that I am in a state of disbelief that Ernst Rodin does not even mention, much less discuss, these findings.   It also clarifies and establishes the position known as “No Planes Theory” (NPT), which might be better described as “No ‘official plane crashes’ theory” or, as Morgan Reynolds has proposed, “No Big Boeing’s Theory”.  Properly understood, NPT consists of the conjunction of the following four propositions:

(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;

(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;

(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;

(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.

NPT does not mean that no planes were involved in 9/11, since Pilots’ study of the FDR data suggests and CIT’s witness research has confirmed that a large plane—presumably, a Boeing 757—flew toward the Pentagon on a due east trajectory (as opposed to the acute northeast trajectory of the “official account”), far too high to have hit any lampposts and, instead of hitting the building, swooped over it, as the trucker buddy of a friend of mine from JFK research had told him, while explosives were set off to simulate the crash of a plane.  They appear to have left nothing to chance, where 125 casualties died when these events took place in the West Wing.

Shanksville is a relatively trivial case, but New York is another story.  Christopher Holmes, Ph.D., who is a clinical and forensic psychologist, the director of the Zero Point Institute and author of THE MADNESS OF HUMANITY (2011), gave a presentation inspired by a psychological and forensic examination of Simon Shack’s “September Clues” studies, which he elaborates upon in “Fabled Airplanes”.  Christopher began with a searching exploration of a blow-up of the alleged entry hole in the facade of the South Tower, observing that features are present that should not be present and that other features are absent that should have been present if a real plane had entered the building.

It was a stunning and effective discussion.  He amplified with an analysis of other indications of video fakery — which could include fake videos of real or fake planes but also real footage of fake planes — which provided powerful proof that no real plane had actually entered the building on 9/11.  In fact, given the laws of physics, that would have been an impossible event.

This is such a remarkable situation—where many, even within the 9/11 Truth community, remain convinced that violations of the laws of physics occurred on 9/11—it may be worth expanding upon this issue.  As Pilots has confirmed, the plane was traveling faster than a standard Boeing 767 could fly.  That has inspired some to infer that it must have been a “special plane”.  But no plane, no matter how “special”, could have made the effortless entry shown in these videos, especially when it was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external steel support columns, where each floor was filled with 4-8″ of concrete and, at 208′ on a side, represented an acre of concrete apiece.  Imagine the effects were a commercial carrier to encounter just one of those floors in flight!

A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground.  Instead, it effortlessly passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air.  Its jet fuel should have exploded during its collision with the facade.  How could a 160′ plane traveling over 500 mph have possibly come to a screeching halt within 48′ and not blown out the other side?  The answer is, “It could not!”, which is one more indication that we are viewing videos that record a fantasy encounter.

The question thus becomes not whether we are witnessing some kind of video fakery but how it was done.  Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science, who has published on Sir Isaac Newton, and Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, founding member of the UK’s 9/11 Truth movement, member of the New York Academy of Sciences and author of 7/7: TERROR ON THE TUBE (3rd edition, 2012), in his presentation, “Did a Phantom Plane hit the 2nd Tower?”, may have answered that question. Consistent with the BTS and FAA records that I have cited, Kollerstrom discusses the research of Richard Hall, who conducted a 3-D study of the flight path found in the videos of the plane, where he was able to establish locations and times for its approach toward the South Tower.

He subsequently discovered the existence of a RADES military radar track of (what he presumed to be) the same plane, except that its trajectory was 1,400′ to the right of the video image.  He discovered that the same phenomenon occurred in relation to the Naudet Brothers film of the North Tower hit, where the RADES radar track was again 1,400′ to the right and, as in the first instance, missed the tower.  His account, which I believe to be correct, is that a real plane (probably cloaked) was used to project a holographic image of “the plane”, where the sound of the real plane was taken to be coming from the projected image, which could be flown faster than a Boeing 767, could enter the towers in violation of Newton’s laws and without exploding and come to a screeching halt, virtually instantaneously.

9/11 Truth Will Out

Ernst Rodin’s repeated insinuations that The Toronto Hearings were objective and scientific, while The Vancouver Hearings were not, is palpably false.  The difference is we were willing to consider the alternative theories that have caused so much division and distress within the 9/11 community and they were not.  The Toronto Hearings were less scientific and objective precisely on that basis, since it is logically impossible to establish what happened in cases of these kinds without comparing alternatives.  While it is entirely appropriate for Rodin to compare and contrast the backgrounds of David Ray Griffin and me, where David is a theologian and philosopher of religion, he could not find the words to report that I had earned my Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, in which I have published more than 20 books and 100 articles, that I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years or that I was selected to be a Distinguished McKnight University Professor by the University of Minnesota in 1996.  That he places so much emphasis on science but suppresses my qualifications with regard to scientific methods suggests he was not on the up-and-up but was performing a subtle smear of The Vancouver Hearings by minimizing both its science (with regard to faking the crash sites) and its politics (by barely mentioning Israel’s role in 9/11).  Reasoning that is based upon laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics is scientific reasoning.  And that is the kind of reasoning that was pervasive at The Vancouver Hearings.


A few lesser bones to pick with Ernst Rodin:  he belittles Splitting the Sky, who is one of Canada’s most famous and admired human beings.  When I read his comparison of this magnificent Native American to “a somewhat elderly rather agitated hippie on the stage addressing the audience in what is best described as a rant”, I became concerned that this man was not going to give The Vancouver Hearings a fair shake.  In my opinion, STS has more integrity in his least digit than Ernst Rodin in his whole being.

For all of his deference toThe Toronto Hearings as adopting the better strategy of staying with less encompassing and (what he takes to be) more firmly supported positions, implying that they were “empirically based” while our hearings were “speculative”, he went out of his way to minimize the scientific findings that prevailed during The Vancouver Hearings, not only with respect to alternative theories of how the Twin Tower were destroyed but meticulous and detailed studies of what didn’t happen at the Pentagon and extensive and scientific documentation of the fabrication of all four “crash sites”, which anyone can judge for themselves.  The closest that I can come to a charitable interpretation of his remarks is that Rodin understands the nature of scientific reasoning no better than those who ran The Toronto Hearings, who displayed their disposition for controlling debate and by restricting the discussion of alternatives.

Since reasoning involving laws of aerodynamics, of engineering and of physics qualifies as “scientific” and these studies were chock full of empirical data with observations and measurements as well as thought experiments, there appears to be no good reason for Ernst Rodin to have completely ignored these historic findings.  If the four crash sites were fabricated or faked (albeit each in its own different way), where two planes were not even in the air and the other two remained in the air four years later, then not only the American people but the nations of the world have been subjected to an enormous scam.  And we demonstrated that all four crash sites were fabricated or faked.

The dimensions of the hoax are almost impossible to exaggerate, where Hollywood-style special effects were combined with pseudo-flights and imaginary passengers.  Bear in mind:  if none of these planes crashed, then there were no dead passengers; and if there were no dead passengers, then there were no Islamic terrorists to hijack the planes; and if there were no Islamic terrorists to hijack the planes, then there was no justification for the “war on terror”, the invasion of Afghanistan, the destruction of Iraq, or the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency.  They are part and parcel of the massive scamming of the world that is known as “9/11″.

NOTE:  The destruction of the Twin Towers and who was responsible and why will be addressed in Part II.

Posted in USA1 Comment

Sunday Morning, September 9th, 2012


Catching Up On What May Be Real

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

If we have news this week, it involves Russia.  Putin drives me crazy.  He is hard to understand, one week, he is surrounded by Israeli oligarchs, doing the full “Obama” and the next week, his backbone and sanity has returned.

This week Putin, despite pronouncements about non-existent nukes in Iran, almost defended them when the west asked for new sanctions against both Iran and Syria.

Increasingly Iran, Syria and quite secretly, Iraq are beginning to realize, despite the intrigues I see part of and will not outline as most of you haven’t done anything really bad, that they will survive together or die.

Pakistan is sitting at the edge of this and watched the Haqqani Networks go on the terror list despite the fact they are CIA assets, something you can consider a leak.

This is election insanity.  Pakistan now thinks we are nuts.  To keep up on Pakistan, go to  It is a highly reliable site, not everything is correct but their founder, Raja Mujtaba, is miles beyond any other news source anywhere.  He is a brilliant  analyst and a close friend.

Secretary Clinton is asking Russia to become an American puppet and we will drop sanctions on Russia that should have disappeared decades ago.

Russia provides the world’s fertilizer, much of its iron, oil, gas, drowns in money and is capable of building weapons systems better than we are.  They do not, however, have a massive army and navy and see no reason to.


We, on the other hand, have built a massive and largely privatized special operations capability of which one of our companies is actually not a minor part.  It has been a clear path to employment and profits, something any corporation is answerable for but has ended up building a very complex war lobby that effects how all of Washington thinks and has infected many in the Pentagon and think tanks by paying people, not cash but promises in many cases, to be totally nuts.

Russia is responding to the highly successful Non-Aligned Nations meeting in Tehran that ended a week ago.  It is obvious that 120 nations are, to varying degrees, willing to follow Iran, not to war, but to an independent path that, if anything, the US should join.

Russia sent an observer, saw what was going on, listened to the speakers and heard their complaints.  They are sick and tired of the UN being what it is, a leftover of World War II, where 5 nations and whoever is capable of buying them, as the US and Britain have a history of obscene corruption, running the planet.

UN sanctions, their choice of enemies, whoever is attacked is usually picked out by oil companies and/or gangsters.

The UN is an embarrassment as it sits and Putin and the Non-Aligned Nations are right, it has become a threat to the world.  In saying this, I worked for the UN, I work on UN projects and they still do much to aid the world but not the Security Council.

It has to go though it is the basis for American power and the veto that gives that power is continually exercised by the US and Russia to protect friends from needed butt kicking.


The Japanese, though to be a debtor nation, have taken much of the world in hand and are propping up the Euro.  They are drowning in debt but owe the money to themselves, a unique situation.

Their actions have been almost heroic.  Our fear, initially, is banking collapse in Spain (a project I am working on) and Greece, which is even more difficult.

A wider rethinking of human values, African development, the use of transitory labor, a kind way of saying “human trafficking” and the demilitarization of Central Asia is a start.

This year, India alone has contracted for $47 billion in weapons from Israel.

The NAM (described above) has suggested Israel be restructured.  I am willing to do this:

  • Advocate nations recognize Israel
  • Demand Israel write a constitution giving equal rights to all
  • That the UN with the US, Russia, Egypt and Israel settle the Gaza issue, take down the wall and set up a large peacekeeping force, international, to end all Israeli responsibility in the area. 
  • I don’t believe the return to the 1949 borders is reasonable but filling Israel with politically extremist Russian immigrants, most now non-Jews, is a con. 
  • Israel should be able to claim to be a Jewish homeland but should be required to consolidate Jewish settlement, return lands and a general regional effort, based on the restructuring of the Middle East, should offer realistic hope to the Palestinian people.
  • I think Israel will survive just fine with more than just the 800,000 remaining Palestinians, that “returns” should begin.

Currently, we have expanded to full civil war in Syria.  There is a legitimate aspect and much foreign interference.  There has to be political restructuring in Syria as it was needed in Libya and the current war isn’t going to do it.

Syria is militarily strong, too many are dying and it has become old “east/west” rhetoric with ignorant anti-imperialists making things worse.

Assad is capable of ruling the country but his form of government must go.  This is a dictatorship that denies key freedoms and Syria has, through machinations I can barely describe involving Kurdistan, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel, with Russian backing, gotten into this problem.

Bombing and sanctions aren’t going to help and need to be ended as UN policy,not just Syria but Iran as well.  Russia has failed in leadership but, with its requests, recently rebuffed by the US which is “Israel minded” is making things worse.

The Middle East as we know it is gone.  Americans have to be educated, they have to know who Arabs are and aren’t, to understand Islam, to understand real terrorism from false terrorism and the real roots of extremism.

America has been stupid and has made things worse.  Bush was a nightmare and I oppose Romney because he has tied himself to criminal elements that plan on profiting from broad warfare in the Middle East.

He is a very shallow individual.

Iran has to be engaged, Biden has to go there.  The IAEA, the “atomic inspectors” are total idiots, bribed and playing games.  Those stupid enough to parrot their silliness, even Putin, have to stop.

Additionally, however, Iran is talking too much about nuclear power and not alternative energy.  They are concerned about electricity from nuclear power and the guarantee of a supply of fuel rods from the west when there are other directions.

We, the US and others, need to move our own nations and Iran to energy independence using advanced fusion technologies, I have been briefed and we are being lied to and sandbagged as to why we no longer need nuclear and coal by bribes paid by lobbyists.

Every nuclear power plant, especially the dangerous GE plants in the US and elsewhere have to be removed and replaced with green energy quickly and, as Obama continually says in political commercials, the industry that will save America involves green energy technology.

America has to make things and use science.

America and the world is being paralyzed and impoverished by lobbyists working for the “radiation and smoke”  lobby and some of those involved are friends.  I love seeing them working and being paid but the “tree huggers” are right as Germany and Japan will gladly tell you.

France and Britain are hopelessly tied to nuclear power.  It is going to be a disaster, beyond that.

My next issue is Africa where I will be spending some time working on development projects.

The US has to restructure its Africa Command and, though it is doing so and has brought in some qualified people, I can’t discuss more, does not show it has a cohesive plan based on the broad committment the US has toward taking over as the leading power in Africa.

If you didn’t know, in 5 years, the US will own Africa with help from a few others, France and Britain.

China has to rethink its strategies.  Unless China realistically retools for lower growth, takes a lead in stabilizing the world by demanding controls on currency and equity markets, it will suffer serious setbacks.

Protecting China by stopping Romney and his gangster friends, by including them in a broader and more responsible way and by helping stabilize the issues in Asia between the Koreas, Japan and China, issues our papers seem to ignore, we may face disaster.

Key to all of this is broad demilitarization, starting in the US, then Central Asia, Israel and elsewhere.

Military spending, most of which is American, worldwide, has to be halved and replaced with industries that will create wealth, jobs and build a functioning middle class.

Toward that end, some criminal issues need to be addressed.

World banking and financial controls, bond markets, derivatives, gold markets, blood diamonds, all have to come under effective control.

The worlds drug trafficking has to end.  Major nations claiming to be progressive are helping fund illicit economies with drugs including the United States, Russia, Pakistan, India, Switzerland, Israel, Mexico, Canada, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and others.


America has to totally restructure its criminal justice system.  Racketeering has taken over running prisons, courts and police.  So many organizations are being controlled by drug gangs it is frightening.

This is a war.

America can no longer afford narcotics other than marijuana, has to develop a non-judicial method of control and has to declare total war on eradication of others and totally block all borders even if it involves, as GeneralOdierno so often asks for, “bringing home the troops to police America.”

Prisons have to be emptied.

Our legal system is in shambles.  Entire states are mob run, Utah, Arizona, half of California, Nevada, Colorado and I am only naming a few.

Police must be “detrained” and “demilitarized.”

For America, individual responsibility as to health maintenance and life style needs government support.  Obama care and Medicare must be supplemented with a low cost program of health maintenance which includes use of highly trained nurses and other professionals.

Every school system should offer a dental program for those who economically can’t afford care.

This is never spoken of and vital.  It will require the training and employment of thousands of new workers, tax payers and help guarantee the health of a generation.

As a people, we must control information. Currently our media is not free but controlled.

Following the “Newsroom/HBO” model, freedom of information must return.  The “anti-imperialists” I often find so irritating are right about one thing, we lie about our history.  We can’t build a responsible electorate if they are lied to every day and educated to be morons.

We have to reform education and eliminate rule by money, wild rumors and be willing to sift through the “conspiracy theories,” admit which are true and keep secret the few we must.

Secrecy and “security clearances” are not democratic and have to be cut back 80%.

Individual freedom based on the real constitution, which falls short in many areas, has to be restored.

When terrorism starts, we will fight it.  What if we find our own government involved or friendly governments or industries that profit from terrorism are involved in terrorism?

We are going to find that.

We have a time of “settlement” coming, and some “bloodletting.”  America has been conned, played for suckers and those involved are going to be sacrificed.  They cannot live in a free society.

Money in politics is at an end, not just Citizens United but the Super PACs and the Romney foreign cash, already a felony we are ignoring.

Toward that end, term limits, end to the committee system, and, especially, reapportionment based on geography and not denying Americans the right to fair government.

If you don’t know what I am talking about, learn.  Your rights have disappeared and lawyers and sneaks have done it over the past two decades.  It has to be “undone” immediately.

A constitutional amendment has to be written to protect gun ownership once and for all.  Existing language involving “militias” is too vague and leaves open a political game that is hurting America.

Criminals will always have guns, free Americans should have unrestricted gun ownership.

The cost of education has to be examined.  Colleges have taken on a disease of greed.

We need total reform of education to build a working America, where everyone is expected to hold a job, can expect to work all their lives and also expect a secure future for themselves and their children.

This is paramount.

This year it was likely that Ron Paul could have been president.  Congress would have paralyzed everything he wanted to do and he was choked out by political parties, both of which are highly corrupt as those who really watched the conventions saw.

Both parties were hopelessly unAmerican.

That Paul, one person, for so many years, sat nearly alone when he should have been one person in a majority party saying what most Americans want is a clear demonstration of the failure of our political system.

The whole thing has to go and nobody wants the “gravy train” to stop.

We can’t start killing each other though many Americans advocate it and they aren’t crazy.

We do have to deconstruct our political system from the ground up, start petitions in each state to eliminate state constitution’s, the rules systems, the courts as they exist, the civil and criminal law systems and every American has to be educated to do this.

For this we need a national media owned and run by “elites,” those who love and believe in this country and the world and are willing to give their lives like our Founding Fathers really were, not those who wrote our flawed constitution, but those who, for a very short time, freed America from foreign tyranny.

Foreign tyranny is back, and in a big way.

We should talk of nothing else, allow talk of nothing else.

Everything else is a lie and liars need to be tarred and feathered even if we need to do some “house cleaning” in every county seat, state capitol or newsroom in America.

Posted in USAComments Off on Sunday Morning, September 9th, 2012

Shoah’s pages


September 2012
« Aug   Oct »