U.S. Funding Terror Attacks In Iran

WTF, I thought that they were the ones that were...............

By Sherwood Ross

The recent surge of terrorist violence in Iran likely is being funded in part by the Bush administration with the support of Congress.
According to a report in the July 7-14 issue of The New Yorker magazine, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says the U.S. reportedly has been funding the Iranian dissident terrorist group Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or M.E.K.; the Kurdish separatist Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK; and, according to some sources, the Jundallah, or Iranian People’s Resistance Movement.

“Hardly a day goes by now we don’t see a clash somewhere,” retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner is quoted by Hersh as stating. “There were three or four incidents over a recent weekend, and the Iranians are even naming the Revolutionary Guard officers who have been killed.” Gardiner has taught strategy at the National War College and is monitoring the violence in Iran.
The bloodshed in Iran likely has been underwritten by the U.S. Congress which last year acceded to a request from Bush “to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran,” Hersh writes, “designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.” Bush asked for $400 million for the work.
“The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Ara and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations,” Hersh added, noting that “Clandestine operations against Iran are not new” and U.S. Special Operations Forces “have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year.”
Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, Hersh noted, and the Iranian government conceded an explosion in the southern city of Shiraz had been a terrorist act. That blast killed a dozen people and injured more than 200. Hersh said it could not be learned if there was any specific U.S. involvement in that incident.
However, the M.E.K., which has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, in recent years “has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States,” Hersh writes, and some of the newly authorized covert fund money may well flow into their coffers. A Pentagon consultant who was not named told Hersh, “The (Bush) Administration is desperate for results.”
As for the Kurdish PJAK, reportedly getting U.S. covert funding, Hersh quotes Gardiner as noting there has been a marked increase in the number of their armed engagements with Iranians and terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. PJAK fighters last May attacked Revolutionary Guards and in June attacked Iranian border guards.
A former senior intelligence official indicated to Hersh that Vice President Cheney’s office “set up priorities for categories of targets (in Iran) and now he’s getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But it takes a long time to get the right guys in place.”
The official added, “There is huge opposition inside the intelligence community to the idea of waging a covert war inside Iran, and using Baluchis and Ahwazis as surrogates.”
The official was also quoted as saying there had been a meeting in Cheney’s office and “The subject was how to create a casus belli (an event to justify a declaration of war) between Tehran and Washington.”
Hersh also wrote that Admiral William Fallon, who until recently headed the U.S. Central Command with oversight for Iraq and Afghanistan, “resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran.”
Retired Marine General John Sheehan, formerly commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, told Hersh that when Fallon “tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”
Hersh quoted a Pentagon consultant as stating, “Fallon went down because, in his own way, he was trying to prevent a war with Iran, and you have to admire him for that.”
In sum, while the Bush regime claims the Iranians are behind attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, (an assertion fraught with what the New York Times delicately called “significant uncertainties,”) there is no longer any question Bush is doing just that inside Iran; that Cheney is looking for a cause to start a war; and that the White House will fire any flag officer that dares to stand in its way. #

(Sherwood Ross is a resident of Miami, Fla., who writes on military and political subjects. He has worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and for wire services. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com).Authors Bio: Sherwood Ross has worked as a publicist for the City of Chicago and as a public relations consultant to New York City. He worked as news director for the National Urban League; as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and a workplace columnist for Reuters. He has also been a media consultant to colleges, universities, law schools and more than 100 national magazines including The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Business Week, and Foreign Policy. Ross also was a talk show host at WOL Radio, Washington, D.C., and holds an award for "best spot news coverage" for Chicago radio stations. He is the author "Gruening of Alaska,"(Best)and several plays, including "Baron Jiro," produced at Live Arts Theatre, Charlottesville, Va., and "Yamamoto's Decision," read at the National Press Club, where he is a member. His favorite quotations are from the Sermon on The Mount.

Fighting Mind Control

by pete chamberlin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:46 pm

David Rockefeller writes on page 405 of his memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it," http://lonelantern.org/site/index.php?o ... iew&id=356
“The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” http://www.constitutionforum.net/main_g ... nment.html
Rockefeller and his elite partners in genocidal plans to commit crimes against humanity laugh it off whenever these charges surface – that he is one of the masters of an elite intellectual planning group that is carrying-out an elaborate plot to eliminate nations and subjugate the world with a new world order. The American and Western media dutifully parrots Rockefeller’s sarcastic denials to every available consciousness that is feeding on the IV drip of the addictive TV brainwashing unit. He is a principle financier for most of the research being done into forced behavioral modification techniques in the United States and Europe. The corporately owned media are an indispensable component of this plot against all nations.
The power elite plan for world dictatorship rests on the ability of psycho/social scientists to brainwash the human race into submission. It is believed that a “scientific dictatorship” can be constructed using these techniques on a global scale. The main key to their plans is our ignorance as a people. By their secret estimates, whenever the dumbing-down of America reaches a determined saturation point, resistance to their plans will crumble and Americans will voluntarily lie-down under the marching boots.

It is either purposeful misleading or simple foolishness on the part of those who suggest that there is no elite plan for world domination, based on total human subjugation, because there is a very real paper trail of evidence that documents its creation. A small portion consists of leaked documents, but the bulk of it is found in quotations from the elite themselves and in the documents that they have released into the world (persuaded by their own egos that it was safe to do so.) They are available to anyone who cares to look for them, or knows the keywords to finding them. I intend to present some of them for you here.

The spokesmen for the international elitists (who call themselves “futurists”) boldly proclaim the controllers’ goals to the world. They have boasted of their plans for destroying the free will of humankind, in order to domesticate us into suitable beasts for the new world order. Skeptics seek to discredit those who try to warn about the impending plans for a new world order, calling us “conspiracy theorists” (as if that was a bad thing). Here are some select quotes by a few of those spokesmen that highlight exactly what these futurists had in mind for us all; skeptics should check-out the research being offered for themselves:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."- Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) in his 1928 book Propaganda.

“The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953

“Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953, pg 49-50
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=22599

[Russell’s observation echoes that of another futurist predecessor, international socialist-transformed into popular icon, H. G. Wells, as expressed in his SciFi classic, Time Machine. His “Eloi” and “Morlocks” represent the anticipated end result of mankind’s tampering with nature through abominations like “eugenics” and psychological/pharmacological manipulation.]

"In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."

"On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him...before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931

Aldous Huxley announced: "There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Government efforts and privately funded research have launched an intensive effort to do the nasty things outlined by these intellectuals. The program to create a scientific methodology for altering human nature began in experiments in mass terror conducted at the end of World War II, in the Operations Research project, which advocated and then studied the fire-bombings of Germany. The Strategic Bombing Survey was a plan for the Royal Air Force to concentrate on bombing German worker housing while leaving military targets alone, to break the morale of the German worker...FEMA is a natural successor to the Strategic Bombing Survey of WW II. Dr. Kurt Lewin, theoretician for what the Tavistock conspirators called crisis management, was deeply involved in the study... Lewin incorporated the Strategic Bombing Survey into FEMA.” – Dr. John Coleman. http://www.barefootsworld.net/tavistok.html
The behavioral control methods developed by Dr. Lewin’s group have been implemented over decades, through the controlled corporate media, the corrupted educational system, and the addicting medical industry/drug culture (Which government drug operation is most profitable, “legal” pharmaceuticals or the illegal drug pipeline?). The bulk of the scientists involved with Lewin and the formulating of this new “friendly fascism” (as the process has been described in the Changing Images of Man produced by the brain-stormers at Stanford Research Institute) are Russian and German Jewish psychologists and social scientists of the secular persuasion, who fled European anti-Semitism, before the war, to work in England and the United States.




The research which grew out of this work later blossomed at the secretive Tavistock Institute, before spreading across the Atlantic into a network of American foundations, think tanks and institutes. These institutes have served as the vanguard for the elitist forces, carrying-out the campaign to destroy America from within.

The Zionist neoconservatives who hijacked American foreign policy for Israel were a product of the corruption these Jewish social scientists and psychological theorists had sown through the elitist foundations and think tanks. This is the path that brought them into the seats of government power and placed Israel indirectly in the shepherd’s seat, watching over and misleading the American sheeple.


The following is all from the “Zionist brainwashing of America” - http://rense.com/general78/antisem.htm

“The method of operation chosen by the movement has been to seize the ‘conservative’ cause and to mutate it into a new racist form of fascism, modeled after National Socialism. Their anti-Muslim beliefs provided the foundation for their ‘master class’ theories. Their aim was to prove that only the strong deserved to be treated as human beings, using the new ideology of American ‘exceptionalism’ and manifest destiny. With their rise to power, America became a tool for digging up the Middle East and rebuilding ‘Zion.’

The Zionist neocons had inherited the corporate/government machinery that had been taken over by previous Zionist agents, incorporating the brainwashing techniques developed from the psychiatric methods created by mostly Jewish psychologists. http://www.jinfo.org/Psychologists.html They had developed their theories of psychotherapy and social engineering through their study of deviant human nature and anti-Semitism in Nazi psychological indoctrination in the heart of fascist Europe. The Zionist social scientists studied the world which had been distorted by fascist nationalism, seeking to create a science to manipulate personalities, hoping to change the fascist mindset, so that it might truly happen ‘never again.’

The corporate government propagandists who had studied their work on the aberrant psychology of the worst of all human beings developed highly coercive manipulative group psychotherapy techniques. The therapeutic conditioning which had been created by Sigmund Freud and his associates became the foundation for brainwashing techniques and a reverse conditioning process, intended to produce a new generation of fascists here in America and wherever else it was to be used. Now variants of these psy-ops techniques are being used in every strata of society, to control and to manipulate large groups of people, most notably through advertising, government disinformation and the ‘entertainment’ industry.

Intellectual Jewish refugees, who had fled to America and England from Nazi Germany and Austria, brought different elements of the new Nazism with them, which they later formulated into their specialized sciences by interpreting their own personal experiences and research. The neoconservative students of those scholars fashioned their research into a science of political indoctrination, based on their combined knowledge of fascist tactics of deception and intimidation. The Zionist neoconservatives didn’t build the government machinery; they merely inserted themselves into the driving seats and forced the American people to line-up quietly behind them. Through fear and terrorist intimidation, they forced the people to accept a fascist/racist ideology that they would never willingly accept otherwise.

They had inherited a government of self-seeking ‘public servants’ who had stopped serving the public long ago, most of which had been indoctrinated with the new ideology at foundations (mostly associated with the Tavistock Institute). Their mentors, the Jewish psychologists and social scientists who were key players in the history of Tavistock, had done their preparatory work very well, from their seats on the thousands of think tanks and foundations. The Tavistock Institute is a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., consisting of ten major institutions, 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks. It is funded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. From these positions of power, they applied the manipulative psychological techniques that had been developed by Sigmund Freud and his students. http://www.barefootsworld.net/tavistok.html (source for all quotes on Tavistock)

The psychologists and social scientists associated with Tavistock have woven the degenerate ideas of Freud into the neoconservative ideology. There they have implemented their mass-conditioning techniques as part of the plan to create a fascist Zionist America and a fascist world. The plans for us are almost completed.

“The individual is essentially an enemy of society and has instinctual urges that must be restrained to help society function. ‘Among these instinctual wishes are those of incest, cannibalism, and lust for killing...
‘For masses are lazy and unintelligent...So destructive is human nature, he claims, that ‘it is only through the influence of individuals who can set an example and whom masses recognize as their leaders that they can be induced to perform the work and undergo the renunciations on which the existence of civilization depends.’ All this sets a terribly hostile society that could implode if it were not for civilizing forces and developing government...”
From The Future Of An Illusion, by Sigmund Freud. http://www.adolphus.nl/xcrpts/xcfreudill.html

At Tavistock, Alexandre Kojève’s studies of Hegelian dialectics provided the final pieces of the puzzle for the Zionist plotters seeking to force the new fascist ideology on to the unsuspecting American people. It was Kojève’s interpretations of ‘Hegel through the lens of Marx,’ in his ‘End of History’ thesis that produced the ‘clash of civilization’ theory of Francis Fukuyama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Koj%C3%A8ve
Using the dialectic method, they constructed a credible ‘bogeyman,’ in the form of Islamic terrorism, with which to herd the frightened American sheeple right into Israel’s open arms, since the Zionist state would logically appear to be the antithesis of the Islamists.

Since the 9/11 attacks the Islamists have been inflated into an almost supernatural menace. A dark whisper campaign has nearly succeeded in equating all Islam with terrorism. The echo chamber of the corporate media has amplified their reputations as terrorists by focusing on their former exploits against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The coining of the deceptive term ‘Islamofascists’ linked Islamic ideology to the Nazis, providing the propagandistic ammunition needed for the brainwashing campaign. In the indoctrinated neo-fascist ideology, modeled after National Socialism, liberals are traitors, the enemies of the growing police state, while anti-liberals (conservatives) are the new anti-Semitic super-patriot agitators.

Their mind-numbing campaign of fear and intimidation created a state of dissonance within the minds of the targeted American populace, making the people susceptible to suggestion. Utilizing the brainwashing methods of group dynamics, they made this new paradigm the new national ‘consensus.’ Hyper-patriotism became a guilt weapon, used to bludgeon the new fascist group identity into the scrambled conscious of post 9/11 America. The historical lessons taught by Jewish refugee George Mosse (mentor of neoconservative agitator Michael Ledeen) on the psychological and political indoctrination skills used by the Nazi propagandists, showed the way to the fascist transformation of American political parties, using the new mythology of Islamofascism.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fasci ... aquer.html

According to another Jewish psychologist, Martin Seligman, the author of ‘Learned Optimism’ (the alleged psychological antidote to learned helplessness), human minds can be trained to passively accept unpleasant situations. http://www.jinfo.org/Psychologists.html
“...nullifying the natural reactions, which normally cause attempts to escape or to control the situation. It is a state of deep depression, brought on by prolonged immersion in a reality of learned helplessness...A person with learned helplessness easily gives in her/his goals if s/he failed few times in achieving them. Such persons show apathy, no motivation, depression and pessimism.”
http://www.see-ran.org/expanded/?id=00069

The American military is now developing virtual reality computer simulations, based on the theory of learned helplessness, to help it plan psy-ops operations to help it manipulate the populations of entire nations.
“The intent is to ‘...test multiple courses of action to anticipate and shape behaviors of adversaries, neutrals, and partners. By applying theories of economics and human psychology, its developers believe they can predict how individuals and mobs will respond to various stressors... They try to anticipate how stressed-out populations can be manipulated by increasing the fear and anxiety-induced helplessness, through the introduction of panic-causing events.

The A. I. thinking of the massive computer simulations used in the program is based upon the theories of Israeli-American cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman.”
http://www.theregister.com/2007/06/23/s ... page3.html



If this rise of the lower classes can be postponed until the public is ripe for surrender and is ready to consent to enslavement and legal encroachment, the elite can achieve energy dominance.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... ooper2.htm

TV represents the perfect subliminal programming mechanism for the human attention cycle, which has been estimated to be 14 seconds, before focus slips. If not for the pervasive influence of television the levels of American resistance would be much higher:

“Experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman reveal that when a person watches television, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is the seat of logical thought. Here, information is broken down into its component parts and critically analyzed. The right brain, however, treats incoming data uncritically, processing information in wholes, leading to emotional, rather than logical responses. The shift from left to right brain activity also causes the release of endorphins, the body's own natural opiates--thus, it is possible to become physically addicted to watching television, a hypothesis borne out by numerous studies which have shown that very few people are able to kick the television habit. It's no longer an overstatement to note that the youth today that are raised and taught through network television are intellectually dead by their early teens...The dumbing down of humanity is represented by another shift which occurs in the brain when we watch television. Activity in the higher brain regions (such as the neo-cortex) is diminished, while activity in the lower brain regions (such as the limbic system) increases.” - “Mind control tv”
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialr ... ntrol.html

If electronic mind control were impossible, then why would the European Union pass the following resolution against it?

“In January 1999, the European Parliament passed a resolution where it calls " for an international convention introducing a global ban on all development and deployment of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings. It is our conviction that this ban can not be implemented without the global pressure of the informed general public on the governments. Our major objective is to get across to the general public the real threat which these weapons represent for human rights and democracy and to apply pressure on the governments and parliaments around the world to enact legislature which would prohibit the use of these devices to both government and private organisations as well as individuals." (Plenary sessions/Europarliament, 1999)” http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/NewCrit-JPSS-CS2.htm

If it is impossible then why have so many mind control devices been patented?

“patent numbered 03951134 on the Internet pages of IBM Intellectual Property Network for a device, described in the patent, as capable of picking up at a distance the brain waves of a person, process them by computer and emit correcting waves which will change the original brain waves.” http://soleilmavis.spaces.live.com/Blog ... 1908.entry

Machines can now read brain waves:

“In the middle of 1992, a sophisticated 122-channel brain research system became operational. This instrument is the culmination of more than ten years of development of the magnetoencephalographic (MEG) technology in the LTL. The magnetic field caused by neural currents flowing in the brain is measured by an array of 122 superconducting sensors which cover the subject's head in a helmetlike fashion.”
122-SQUID neuromagnetometer http://ltl.tkk.fi/triennial/squid.html

Toys respond to brain waves:


http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/newtoysreadb.jpg

Why couldn’t the visual, optical and electromagnetic signals emitted by TVs act as carrier signals, where hidden subliminal signals might be broadcast? Subliminal message generators have also been patented:

“US PAT NO: 5,270,800
TITLE: Subliminal message generator

ABSTRACT:
A combined subliminal and supraliminal message generator for use with
a television receiver permits complete control of subliminal messages
and their manner of presentation.

US PAT NO: 5,170,381
TITLE: Method for mixing audio subliminal recordings

ABSTRACT:
Audio subliminal recordings are made in which in addition to using a
primary carrier, such as music, two audio channels are used to deliver
subliminal messages to the brain.”
http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Mi ... blmnls.txt

The whole mess reads like a script from a b-movie, specifically, this movie:

http://bookarmor.com/wp-content/uploads ... eylive.jpg


From “They Live” script:
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scri ... enter.html

“Our impulses are being redirected
We live in an artificially-induced state of consciousness,
The movement began eight months ago
By a group of scientists.
They accidentally discovered these signals being sent.
The under-class is growing,
Human rights are non-existent.
In their repressive society, we are their unwitting accomplices.
Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness.
We have been lulled into a trance,
They have made us indifferent.
We are focused only on our own gain.
They are safe as long as they are not discovered.
That is their method of survival,
Keep us asleep.
Keep us selfish.
Keep us sedated.
We are their cattle.
We are being bred for slavery.
We cannot break their signal.
The signal must be shut off at the source.
They want benign indifference.
We could be pets or food, but all we really are is livestock.”

In the real world,we also have to shut down the signal at its source, the television. The controlled press has to be shut down. It is the primary threat we face today. This is the singular corrosive force that is empowering the controllers over all other measures, even the economic ones. This invasive degenerative force is welcomed into every living room, where it is embraced like an old friend. A large majority of people trust TV and everything it tells them.

The “nightly news” is the primary programming channel, it must be switched off, if humanity is to survive the final round-up. The object of the programming is to suppress, or if possible, to eliminate the free will. The technocrats who maintain the systems of control believe that the creation of a global dictatorship requires the suppression of free will in all subjects, beginning with Americans who are the unfortunate target nation that has the privilege of being the epicenter of the global wave generator. We have to convince everyone to ignore the news and turn-off all other network programming. Even seemingly innocuous programs like sit-coms and soap operas are used for brainwashing, conveying corrupt immorality to the sheeple as an acceptable new standard.

The second most-important component of brainwashing is children’s tv and video games (Followed closely by the behavioral conditioning dispensed by the educational system.) Anyone who wants to save their kids should seriously consider unplugging their “one-eyed babysitters.”

The pulsating waves of techno-programming radiate outward from American assets, working best when they have a powerful operational field (like here at ground zero), where they can draw capacitance to generate an overwhelming pulse. If America fully submits to the psycho/sensual assault, surrendering our God-given right to resist, then the power of those who lead us is magnified before the world’s eyes, thus reinforcing the sense of inevitability and discouraging any further puny resistance.

Turning people away from the news programmers will require the formation of another news outlet, designed to accommodate people who do not use computers, or like to read. We need radio outlets throughout the country which broadcast daily, compiling program reports from Internet sources, to counter the network wire service subversion. Maybe some of the key sites (such as Crime and Corruption of New World Order or What Really Happened) will join their efforts to produce a common feed, putting out a daily summary on key reports that include all important news determined to be vital to maintaining a vigilant democracy. All we have to do is find sympathetic DJs, willing to use Internet news aggregator services, or newspapers to run a daily list of key reports. In addition to these news outlets, there has to be a way for listeners to read the whole Internet report.

We must encourage independent thought and cultivate a spirit of resistance. Organized resistance to psychological manipulation must focus on finding ways to break through the news filter that keeps independent thought away from the sheeple. New methods must be devised to transmit simple short messages of truth that summarize the dilemma. Education should be aimed at specific target groups, such as veterans and policemen. Specific goals should be set, such as stopping the war on Iran and de-legitimizing American elections through “No Vote” efforts.

We have to prepare to fight the main thrust of the elitist plans next year, whichever Zionist shill gets elected. Either candidate is sure to take-up the Israeli torch to lead the mob against Iran. We must organize a general strike or a one-day national work stoppage to highlight the sorry state of affairs and rally American patriotism against the international elite and the plans for global dictatorship and permanent war. We must prove that we are fighting Israel’s war and organize boycotts of Israeli goods http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... #more22242 and protests at all American Israeli embassies and AIPAC headquarters. http://dailyscare.com/3175/protest-isra ... ac-offices

The principle of the “economic amplifier” outlined in the “Silent Weapons” document http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... ooper2.htm as an instrument of coercion and control also works in other situations where the authority figures are attempting to gain control over people, manipulating them to pre-determined outcomes. We saw it used in the recent incident in Britain of police use of Agents Provocateurs to provoke acts of resistance from the crowd, for the purpose of justifying massive police retaliation.

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/june20 ... police.jpg

The process for amplification by the silent weapon is accurately compared to the actions of electrical components. Police or military figures create “inductance” in the closed system of the protest rally using provocateurs as “amplifiers,” release a burst of kinetic energy into the circuit, causing pent-up energies “capacitance” to be released. The “static” caused by these increased energy levels is then ruthlessly suppressed in a reverse pulse of violence, the purpose for the entire amplification.

In imperial foreign policy, the same principle is followed, for the same reason, to create violent agitation of the targeted population, in order to justify the ruthless suppression of that population. False front groups (terrorists) agitate against inflamed tensions, promoting further violence, thus justifying a cycle of even greater cleansing violence. The idea is to compel targeted populations to force compliance from their government, just like the fire-bombing strategy used to force Hitler’s capitulation. Today, the doctrine has been so refined that much lower levels of terror may be employed to stampede the locals. Small acts of terror are amplified through reaction attacks (feedback), which are echoed back in a closed amplification loop, eventually amplifying the violence to extreme levels, the purpose of the entire process.

We need to reevaluate our definitions of violence, to encompass all the ways that people are being violated by the elitist killers. Forcing unnecessary fuel inflation (price gouging) is another act of “violent” provocation. The process is the same - the inductance is an artificially produced price surge, to measure the public reaction or changes in spending habits, before it is partially backed off. The two steps forward, one step back shock increases both profits and popular reaction, as well as conditioning the public to accept the violation.

The controversial “Silent Weapon” document describes the process below:
“Economic engineers achieve the same result in studying the behavior of the economy and the consumer public by carefully selecting a staple commodity such as beef, coffee, gasoline, or sugar and then causing a sudden change or shock in its price or availability, thus kicking everybody's budget and buying habits out of shape.
They then observe the shock waves which result by monitoring the changes in advertising, prices, and sales of that and other commodities.
The objective of such studies is to acquire know-how to set the public economy into a predictable state of motion or change, even a controlled self-destructive state of motion which will convince the public that certain ‘expert’ people should take control of the money system and reestablish security (rather than liberty and justice) for all. When the subject citizens are rendered unable to control their financial affairs, they of course, become totally enslaved, a source of cheap labor.
Labor strikes deliver excellent test shocks to an economy, especially in the critical service areas of trucking (transportation), communication, public utilities (energy, water, garbage collection), etc.
By shock testing, it is found that there is a direct relationship between the availability of money flowing in an economy and the psychological outlook and response of masses of people dependent upon that availability.
For example, there is a measurable, quantitative relationship between the price of gasoline, and the probability that a person would experience a headache, feel a need to watch a violent movie, smoke a cigarette, or go to a tavern for a mug of beer.
It is most interesting that, by observing and measuring the economic modes by which the public tries to run from their problems and escape from reality, and by applying the mathematical theory of Operations Research, it is possible to program computers to predict the most probable combination of created events (shocks) which will bring about a complete control and subjugation of the public through a subversion of the public economy (by shaking the plum tree).
The following comes from “The Planned Collapse of America.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18857.htm It is taken from a study produced by Stanford Research Institute, Changing Images of Man
http://www.skilluminati.com/research/en ... df_format/

“The government has known for decades that America is on a countdown to self-destruction. Among the elite it is common knowledge that our “global economy” must one day collapse from its own dead weight...The research revealed that there were a multitude of crises that were about to intersect in America’s near future. Not the least of these converging catastrophes was a rapidly approaching breakdown of both American capitalism and democracy...researchers clearly predicted that the American economy was destined to collapse from its own dead weight. The data also showed that that economic collapse was to be accompanied by disastrous social repercussions, such as rioting and upheaval, which would lead us into a ‘garrison state.’

The government was looking forward to a very troubling future, trying to figure out the best path through it. The plan was to find ways to shape and mold mankind into a new cultural image, complete with new ideas and ideologies, even religious ones. The root of the problem was human nature, and solution was to re-shape the competing forces of daily life, in order to forge a new image of a new human nature.” [From Changing Images.]

“The appropriate question may be not so much how to bring about a transformation...but rather how to facilitate a non-catastrophic transformation.” [page 195]

“No doubt existing consciousness-changing, behavior-shaping, subliminal persuasion, and other conditioning techniques could be used to accomplish some sort of transformation of sobering proportions (we ought to be able to be more effective than Nazi Germany).” [After previously citing Nazi re-invigoration of the Germanic icons and ideals.]
In the wisdom of the elite planners, America was put on trial without our knowledge. The verdict was given, that America must be conditioned to “embrace post-industrialism,” in a new political reality that is described as “friendly fascism.” We cannot accept that verdict. The hour of our summary execution in nearly upon us. Will we accept this unjust decision, or will we fight back against our programming and unseat those who have usurped the Constitution and driven us to World War III against our will?

Contact author: peter.chamberlin@yahoo.com

Wasteful Weapons and the Politicians Who Love Them

Posted on Jun 24, 2008
By Robert Scheer

Remember Curtis LeMay, the Air Force general played to chilling effect by Sterling Hayden in the 1964 movie “Dr. Strangelove”? If you’re too young for that reference, you probably don’t recall when the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) dominated our military posture toward our Soviet enemy. I bring this up because the midair refueling tanker that the MAD warrior LeMay commissioned suddenly has become a controversy in the presidential campaign.

MAD was based on a triad of air, land and sea forces that would punish a Soviet first strike, ending all semblance of life on the one-sixth of the planet that composed the old Soviet Union. Toward that end, we needed not only thousands of land-based weapons but thousands of other weapons on ships and on airplanes. It was LeMay’s insistence that nuclear-armed bombers be in the air 24/7 that gave rise to the midair refueling tankers that were in the news this past week. Controversy arose when the Government Accountability Office questioned an Air Force decision to award the contract for a new generation of those “gas stations in the sky” to one defense contractor instead of its rival.

The news was presented in a Wall Street Journal front-page story focusing on the profit potential rather than the military significance of the tanker. So, too, the account that led the New York Times business section, which detailed the good news in Boeing’s revived chances to secure the refueling tanker contract. This deal would initially cost $35 billion, but, as the Times pointed out, “The tanker contract, which could eventually grow to $100 billion to build a fleet of 179 refueling planes, is one of the most lucrative ever awarded by the Pentagon.”

Neither newspaper indicated why we needed $100 billion in tankers, other than in a revealing photo in the Times showing one of the airplanes refueling a B-2 bomber, which brings us back to Gen. LeMay and his MAD doctrine. The B-2 was designed to be the modern bomber in the triad confronting the Soviets. Its very expensive stealth cover would be able to penetrate a sophisticated Soviet radar system—which was never built. That also assumes that the B-2’s stealthy cover would stop deteriorating in the rain, as it was wont to do, but the test for this technology never occurred because of the untimely fall of the Soviet menace.

Despite having lost its purpose, production of the B-2 continued for a while as a jobs and profit program supported by key legislators from both parties, as has been the case with the tanker designed to fuel the planes. Woe to the legislator who dares take on any weapons program, and that is why John McCain has become the subject of criticism from the Democrats.

In one of his better performances as a senator, McCain distinguished himself by challenging a swindle that would have rewarded the Boeing company with a contract worth $100 billion for leasing Boeing aircraft that were converted to refueling tankers from a model that was not selling in a depressed market. Thanks to McCain’s insistence on a criminal investigation, the chief financial officer of Boeing and the top procurement officer in the Air Force wing of the Pentagon were sent to serve time in federal prison. The contract was canceled, and a new contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman and a European partner.

The Democratic National Committee now has criticized McCain for having opposed the Boeing deal, charging that McCain had “sent American jobs abroad.” The DNC’s attack on McCain speaks volumes to the bipartisan gut-checking in favor of military waste that has led us to squander trillions of taxpayer dollars since 9/11.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers responded to the scurrilous attack from the DNC, saying:

“Let’s get this straight: John McCain led the charge to uncover the biggest boondoggle in Pentagon history, saved the taxpayers over $6 billion, helped send corrupt execs and government officials to jail, and the Democrats say he’s the bad guy? It’s absurd. Apparently to Barack Obama and the Democrats, corruption is OK, so long as it helps them politically. That’s not change we can believe in.”

Now, of course, McCain has done his bit to waste egregious amounts of taxpayer money by cheerleading for an Iraq war that has already burdened us with trillions in future debt, but that hardly exonerated the Democrats in once again attempting to one-up the Republicans in throwing money at defense contractors.

Mc Cain Brings the Forces Home

US-Led Capitalist System Headed for Collapse?

Syed Rashid Husain, Arab News —

Oil prices continue to rise and rise, with no end in sight. Virtually all other commodities seem to be following to be the same suit. Some now say a new economic system is emerging from the ashes of the old and now crumbling financial structure. Failing to meet even the basic needs of the common man, the current economic system is facing its worst crisis and appears in doldrums. It has miserably failed the underprivileged of this world.

Markets appear divorced from the fundamentals. F. William Engdahl strongly says in a recent write up that the oil markets (and other markets too) today are controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60 percent of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price.

And the end-result is growing deprivation to a large number of people across geographical boundaries!

In the 90’s, with the war in Afghanistan taking its toll, the Soviet empire virtually melted before our eyes under its own weight. The number of deprived, form Moscow to Siberia and Grozny started to grow and grow rapidly. And as the number of have-nots in then USSR rose, the system could not cope with the pressures, and failed to provide even the basic needs to the common man in the streets. And within years the mighty and the powerful USSR was assigned into the annals of history.

Analysts today point to the Afghan war as one of the major causes for the disintegration of the USSR. Many then rejoiced over the demise of the USSR, claiming the capitalist system has won the war — finally. Many in the West, including the Regan Administration claimed supremacy of the capitalist system over the Marxist ideals. The victory of the West was described in terms of ideologies.

Current developments also point to a new emerging reality. The capitalist economy now seem to be failing its underprivileged, the have-nots of the world. With the number of people below the poverty line growing rapidly all over the globe, the common man on the streets today appear more and more desperate today.

In sharp contrast to this grim reality, it is only a few, the haves of the world, controlling the capital, benefiting from the current scenario. The vast majority is now being deprived of two square meals a day too. The old Malthusian theory, which has been lying dormant in the shelves for quite sometime, seem to be back and people have started to look at it closely once again. And this is happening in this 21st century, when the world claims to have taken tremendous strides in the fields of science and technology. What a growth indeed!

The people to benefit out of this imbroglio are the money vendors, the rich of the world. Real estate and property boom has been the engine of growth all around. Conservative economists do not accept investments in real estate as really contributing toward the growth of the economy. Terming it as stagnant investment, these conservative economists continue to claim, growth in the real estate sector does not contribute significantly to the over all GDP of an economy. And secondly it is only the fortunate few who could benefit out of this boom — and at the cost of poor many.

Unable to come up to the expectations of the vast majority of the common man, many seem asking the question today, is the capitalist economy also passing through its last phases? The situation is grim for a vast majority. Global food prices, based on United Nations records, rose 35 percent in the year to the end of January, markedly accelerating an upturn that began, gently at first, in 2002.

Since then, prices have risen 65 percent. In 2007 alone, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s world food index, dairy prices rose nearly 80 percent and grain 42 percent. The World Bank estimates that 33 countries around the world face potential political and social unrest because of the acute hike in food and energy prices.

And this has resulted in disastrous social consequences for the billions below the poverty line in the impoverished, underdeveloped world. The scenario is so bleak for the common man on street that the world is witnessing food riots virtually all across the globe. People of the world are hungry in this era of growth and emancipation!

Where are we being led? We are living in a different world with a new era seeming to dawn upon us. In the 21st century, when the world was supposed to be at the click of a mouse, the number of hungry population, those who can’t afford proper food three times a day has increased. It seems, the age of scarcity, of shortages, of rising prices, of food riots, of ration cards, is finally upon us, all around the globe.

What is happening, that with the weakening of the ruling currency of the world, the US dollar, the moneyed class of the world — sans frontiers in this age of freedom and liberty- is moving their capital into commodities — from oil to gold and grains.

This paper transaction, at times termed as speculation, is taking place even without the physical transfer of the goods and is making a mockery of the conservative economic models. And this is contributing to the current imbroglio. Unfortunately only the moneyed class has the capacity to participate and benefit from this entire game — at the cost of the poor.

Religious scholars tell that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not permit transactions in which physical transaction of the goods under question did not take place. And in the current situation, rarely is the physical transaction taking place.

This paper circulation is contributing to this rise of virtually all commodities — oil included. If it continues the same way, it may not be too wrong to point out that like the Marxist ideals, the current era of capitalism may also not last long. It may already be in its final throes, some hence deduce.

If a system cannot meet the basic idea of having some sort of equity within the society, where the have-nots could not have at least three meals a day, then it is bound to fizzle out, proponents of the theory underline.

The war in Afghanistan turned out to be the Achilles heel of the Russian empire and who knows the two concurrent wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, is leading the US-led capitalist economic system toward the same fate? Only time has the answer to this trillion dollar question.

Taking a Stand Against War

Posted on May 11, 2008
By Scott Ritter

As someone who has been urging focused citizen activism for some time now, I find it heartening that there are those in the United States who put action to words and seek to lead by example. This is the case with Chicago Alderman Joe Moore, who, together with seven of his 49 colleagues (Toni Preckwinkle, Sandi Jackson, Eugene Schulter, Robert Fioretti, Freddrenna Lyle, Ricardo Munoz and Mary Ann Smith), has prepared a resolution for the Chicago City Council opposing war on Iran. By itself, this resolution most probably will not serve to alter the policies currently being pursued by the Bush administration. But when a great American city such as Chicago takes the lead in expressing its rejection of irresponsible national policy, other cities should, and will, take notice.

I have been asked to be a witness, together with other experts on Iran and U.S. Middle East policy, before the City Council as it considers this resolution. I think it is of great importance that the representatives of the people of Chicago vote to adopt it in its entirety. I would also encourage other municipalities to consider similar resolutions opposing war on Iran, and to express their concern through the adoption of resolutions which, collectively, might serve as a notice to the United States Congress, as well as the administration of President Bush, that a war with Iran would not be supported by the citizens of this land.

In preparing for my role as witness, I carefully considered the Chicago resolution in its entirety, and offer my analysis of its content as a primer for interested parties. I sincerely hope that the leadership and courage exhibited by the Chicago council members can be replicated across America in a timely fashion, and that the resultant will of the people is recognized by the Congress in time for effective legislation to be drafted and passed which reduces the threat of U.S.-Iranian conflict.

“WHEREAS, The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies are engaging in a systematic campaign to convince the American people that the Islamic Republic of Iran poses an imminent threat to the American nation, American troops in the Middle East and U.S. allies.”

The propaganda war being waged by the Bush administration in this regard has been as intense and relentless as any in recent memory. Either directly or through proxy, the administration has painted a one-sided portrait of Iran which is inaccurate and misleading in the extreme. To have a nation of nearly 80 million people, possessing a history and culture several thousands of years old, suddenly personified in the image of a single individual, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a gross misrepresentation. Imagine if one tried to characterize the entire American people in the form of George W. Bush. Iran is a diverse nation, with numerous political and social constituencies which compete across a broad spectrum of forums, governmental and nongovernmental alike. To take the words and deeds of one man, out of context in some cases and inaccurately in others, and use them to paint a picture of national policy is as wrong as it is deceitful.

Iran today poses no threat to the American nation, its allies (including Israel) or American troops in the region. To the extent that U.S. service members are threatened in Iraq, one must consider the reality of a genuine popular resistance by Iraqis to a brutal and illegitimate occupation. It should also be noted that Iran is primarily interested in securing a stable Iraq in the post-Saddam period, a policy requiring Iran to back the current Iraqi government, a Shiite-dominated government which the United States helped empower and which the United States currently supports.

The fact that the current Iraqi government is drawn primarily from two political entities (the Da’wa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) that are closely allied with the Iranians not only belies the U.S. claim that Iran seeks to undermine security in Iraq (since to accept this proposition one would have to embrace the premise that Iran is fighting itself), but also illustrates the inherent inconsistency of the U.S. position in Iraq, which is to oppose the one regional power which supports the stated U.S. objective of empowering the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. The reality is that it is bad U.S. policy, not any concerted action on the part of Iran, which serves as the greatest threat to U.S. forces in the Middle East.

“WHEREAS, This campaign bears a strong resemblance to that waged during the lead-up to the Iraq War and occupation, with the use of unreliable sources, exaggerated threat assessments, the selective use of information, unsubstantiated accusations about Iran’s nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of their case to the American people for aggressive action against Iran.”

If the current war in Iraq has taught the American people anything, it is that we can never again have our nation led to war based upon unsubstantiated data, rumor and speculation. Effective congressional oversight could have retarded the Bush propaganda on Iraq, especially concerning the WMD issue and the allegations of ties between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida. The fact that Congress accepted, without question, every negative story produced by the Bush administration, and that the product of this abrogation of constitutional mandate was parroted as fact by a too-compliant media, should serve as a wake-up call that past patterns of behavior are repeating themselves today, this time in the case of Iran.

If one replaces Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress with Alireza Jafazadeh and the Mujahedeen Khalq, and “Curveball” (the disgraced INC-planted intelligence source cited by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in his infamous February 2003 presentation before the U.N. Security Council) with the “magic laptop computer” (provided by the MEK to U.S. intelligence, and cited by the U.S. as the sole source for many of its claims concerning an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program), it is clear that there is much to be suspicious of regarding the Bush administration case against Iran.

When the United States cites the capture of alleged Iranian “Quds Force” officials as proof of Iranian perfidy inside Iraq, and then releases these same individuals months later, citing a lack of intelligence value and the fact that these prisoners pose no security threat, it becomes clear that the U.S. case against Iran is built primarily upon ideologically motivated smoke and mirrors. The Congress must never again allow itself to be used as a rubber stamp for unnecessary war, but it will act only when pushed to do so by an alarmed and awakened constituency.

“WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack.”

In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that Iran, rather than conspiring against the U.S. in the Middle East, has actively reached out to Washington in an effort to normalize relations. Iran was the first Islamic nation to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack on the United States, and Iran coordinated with the U.S. military on certain aspects of the American military response in Afghanistan. Likewise, Iran was supportive of the U.S. drive to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

In May of 2003, Iran made a bold diplomatic approach to the United States which sought to resolve outstanding issues such as the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s relationship with Israel. It was the United States which rejected this outreach, not Iran. The fact is that it is the unilateral policy objectives of the Bush administration, which revolve around regime change in Iran, which serve as the principal threat to regional peace and security in the Middle East today. Iran poses a threat to no nation, least of all the United States.

“WHEREAS, We support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be construed as supportive of their government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, but a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy in that country.”

We should never forget that while Iran functions as a theocracy in terms of ultimate constitutional authority, both its legislative and executive branches are a product of democratic processes. The best course of action American policy could take would be to create the conditions inside Iran where the genuine will of the people can be expressed through the existing democratic structures. This is best accomplished by creating increased opportunities for interaction between Iran and the rest of the world. Such interaction would go far to moderate the theocratic structures inside Iran. The current policies of economic sanctions and political isolation of Iran are counterproductive in this regard, and serve to strengthen the political power of those conservative institutions that Americans hope would be undermined by an Iranian population moderated by international interaction.

“WHEREAS, A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view [of] all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran’s involvement in Iraq “is not likely to be a major driver of violence there.”

While the United States has been plagued by the increasing politicization of intelligence—prime examples being the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the creation within the Pentagon of a special intelligence entity (the Office of Special Programs, under the guidance of Douglas Feith) whose sole purpose was to introduce into the policymaking body data and information which had been rejected by the intelligence community as unfounded—the entire work of the intelligence community cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially when it publishes a major finding which clashes with the position held by an activist administration. The fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the Bush administration do not agree on the specifics of how Iran constitutes a threat to America in and of itself begs intervention in the form of congressional oversight. It is not unpatriotic for Congress to hold hearings for the purpose of discerning the facts surrounding a given policy. When such policies involve war or the threat of war, the need is even more imperative, and the failure of Congress to act accordingly represents a dereliction of duty which must not be ignored by the American people, whom Congress purports to represent.

“WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten a much wider and more disastrous war in the Middle East.”

While it is currently in vogue for ideologues and proponents of neoconservative ideology to promote a “limited airstrike” against Iran, anyone with any military experience will point out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. The Iranian government will have a say in how it will choose to respond in case of an unprovoked American military strike, however limited it might be. Any Iranian retaliation might prompt an American counter-retaliation, and one might find a limited strike quickly spiraling out of control and threatening full-scale conflagration. The American economy has been bankrupted by the war in Iraq, and the American military, especially the Army and Marines, is stretched to its breaking point. While an argument can be made that any limited strike would rely primarily on the resources of the Air Force and Navy, if the conflict escalates, this will no longer be the case. Given the fact that any attack on Iran would represent an elective war rather than a war of national security, there is no compelling reasoning which cites the so-called national interest for the United States to consider any military action against Iran, either now or in the future.

“WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world.”

Most Americans remain ignorant of the laws which govern our nation, and the document which serves as the foundation of these laws. The United States Constitution, in Article 6, declares that international treaties and agreements ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate become the supreme law of the land. The United States is a signatory to the charter of the United Nations, and the charter has been ratified by the U.S. Senate. As such, the United States is bound by international law and its own Constitution to not only reject pre-emptive warfare (a notion cited by the Nuremburg tribunals as the greatest of all war crimes, since it is from pre-emptive war of aggression that all other war crimes are born), but note that the United States can justify going to war only as a result of legitimate self-defense (i.e., in response to an attack), per Article 51 of the U.N. charter, or as a result of a Chapter VII resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing the use of military force.

The Bush administration violated every legal principle the United States claims to represent, internationally and domestically, when it pre-emptively invaded Iraq in 2003, without provocation and void of any Chapter VII authorization. Two wrongs do not make a right, and it is imperative that the Congress take action to make sure that the administration is not permitted to embark on a similarly illegal and illegitimate course of action regarding Iran.

“WHEREAS, An attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans in Chicago and worldwide.”

The reputation of the United States has been severely harmed by the irresponsible actions of the Bush administration in Iraq. Without condoning the actions of groups such as al-Qaida, it is important to understand that irresponsible American action abroad does manifest itself in a backlash, and that often this backlash comes in the form of terrorism. Any U.S. attack on Iran would only reinforce the opinions of those in the world already disposed against the United States, and draw many more into their ranks. The only way to truly win the war on terror is to identify the point at which an individual decides to embrace terror as a means of achieving an objective, along with the means for which such a decision was made, and then to take actions to prevent that point from ever being reached. To operate as if American policy and actions in Iraq, and the potential of similar actions and activities in Iran, do not influence this equation is simply to ignore reality and embrace ignorance.

“WHEREAS, The Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, the maiming and wounding of over 38,000 American soldiers, the death and maiming of over one million Iraqi civilians.”

The war in Iraq has already killed far too many people, American and Iraqi alike. This war is widely recognized as being unsustainable. The key question that must be answered by those who champion a “stay the course” approach is, “How big do you want the Iraqi War Memorial to be?” It is already 4,070-plus names too big. Expanding the conflict to include Iran would not only extend this unwinnable (and unjustified) war, but it would also expand the size of whatever memorial is eventually built to commemorate this national folly. And while America will probably never construct a memorial to the Iraqi people we are responsible for killing and wounding, it should be understood that these people will never be forgotten by their fellow Iraqis, and indeed the rest of the world. To extend this human suffering and tragedy into Iran would be to create a level of suffering for which America can never, and should never, be forgiven.

“WHEREAS, According to the nonpartisan National Priorities Project, the Iraq War and occupation has cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion, the citizens of Chicago nearly $5.2 billion, and the citizens of each of Chicago’s 50 wards an average of $104 million, and

“WHEREAS, Any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs in Chicago and its 50 wards.”

As the American economy continues to suffer under the strains of the second most expensive war in U.S. history (after World War II), and as the Pentagon continues to consume national treasure which is sorely needed for domestic programs involving the health, education and general welfare of the people, it must be recognized that, in going to war against Iraq, President Bush actually declared war on the American people. Any military action against Iran would only magnify the economic consequences of this criminal folly.

“BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Council of the City of Chicago does hereby urge the Illinois Congressional delegation to clearly express the will of the people of Chicago in opposing any U.S. attack on Iran, and urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with that nation, and

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That suitable copies of the resolution be forwarded to President George W. Bush and all members of the Chicago Congressional delegation.”

America claims to be the greatest functioning democracy in the world today. While our system is in reality a democratic republic, the will of the people is in fact expressed through those whom they elect to represent them in higher office. The resolution of the Chicago City Council opposing war on Iran is as strong a statement as can be made by a free people outside of an election. For this resolution to have any real meaning, it must be made clear to those in the Illinois congressional delegation, especially those representing the people of Chicago, that this resolution is not simply a collection of words, but rather a collection of political will, and that any representative who fails to act in a manner reflective of the serious intent of this resolution will be held to account. Such accountability is what completes the cycle of representative democracy, and if those whom the citizens of Chicago elect to represent them in Congress fail to respond to the collective resolve of their constituencies, then they must do so at their own political peril if this resolution is to have any meaning.

I am proud of the City Council members for standing up in defense of the ideals and values of not only the citizens of the great city of Chicago but also for setting an example that all cities, towns and villages across America should follow in the coming weeks so that the collective will of the people can resonate within the halls of Congress, and a senseless and illegal war with Iran can be averted. I have always believed that the true strength of America is best measured by the principled action of its people. Chicago is leading the way by taking a principled stand. It is now up to the rest of America to follow suit.

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM:

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a cross and wrapped in an American flag. -Sinclair Lewis-

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM:
-Powerful and continuing nationalism
-Disdain for human rights
-Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
-Supremacy of the military
-Rampant sexism
-Controlled mass media
-Obsession with national security
-Religion and government intertwined
-Corporate power protected
-Labor power suppressed
-Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
-Obsession with crime and punishment
-Rampant cronyism and corruption
-Fraudulent elections

Sound familiar?

John Hagee: deviant theology, dangerous foreign policy

By John Taylor
Online Journal Contributing Writer

May 7, 2008, 00:21

Pastor John Hagee gleefully anticipates the death of hundreds of millions of people in a series of wars preparing the world for the second coming of Christ: “The end of the world is rapidly approaching . . . Rejoice and be exceeding glad.”

Worse, Hagee wants to jump start what he sees as the inevitable battle between Israel and the US and an alliance of the Islamic states and Russia: “The United States must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West.” Hagee’s bizarre interpretation of the Bible sees war with Iran as a “biblically prophesized End Time confrontation . . . which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation and the Second Coming.”

If Hagee were just another kook, walking around Times Square carrying a sign saying “The End is Near,” there would be no need to worry. In fact, Hagee is senior pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, with a congregation of 18,000, appears weekly on 150 TV stations around the world and is the head of Christians United For Israel (CUFI), a lobbying group founded to advance the interests of the State of Israel in the U.S. Congress. Not only does Hagee advocate aggressive war against Iran, he is a strong supporter of our continuing misadventure in Iraq and he opposes any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, arguing that God has given all of Palestine to the Israelis.

John Hagee’s end time theology transmogrifies Christianity into little more than a death cult in which the State of Israel is worshipped like a latter day Golden Calf. Despite his weird views, Hagee has access to senior politicians in the US and Israel; he likes to brag that he has met every Israeli prime minister since Menachem Begin.

President Bush praised Hagee’s CUFI for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom.” How to square “spreading . . . God’s love” and the “gift of freedom” with bombing the Iranians is hard to fathom, but, in any event, evangelicals like Hagee have been among President Bush’s strongest supporters and the president is not about to abandon them now.

Senator Joe Lieberman is also a Hagee fan and praised him at last year’s CUFI meeting in Washington, likening him to Moses, “a man of God . . . leading a mighty multitude.” If comparing Hagee to Moses seems over the top, remember Hagee and Lieberman have a lot in common. Both men were keen to see the US invade Iraq and both would like to have Uncle Sam attack Syria and Iran, a wish shared by many in Washington, especially arms makers, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and neocons in the White House and the Pentagon.

John McCain recently thanked Pastor Hagee for endorsing his run for the presidency. Eight years ago, McCain made a point of denouncing Hagee’s fellow evangelical Jerry Falwell as an “agent of intolerance” and an “evil influence on the Republican party.” Clearly times have changed.

Hagee’s distorted view of Christianity, his hatred of Islam (Hagee once said "those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews”) and his toxic criticism of American Middle East policy have all become part of American political discourse. For example, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma believes “We are Israel’s best friend . . . because of the character we have as a nation . . . This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey opined, “I am content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank . . . I happen to believe the Palestinians should leave.” And just a few months ago, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, an ex-evangelical preacher himself, said he favored the establishment of a Palestinian state, but not in Palestine, rather in Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

Many people, some influential, some not, think religious belief should guide American Middle East policy. Others would say that that the Bible and foreign policy ought to remain entirely separate and that a discussion of Hagee’s religious doctrine is about as meaningful as trying to decide how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. What individuals on both sides of this debate don’t realize is that Hagee’s highly selective reading and strange interpretation of the Bible put him well outside mainstream Christian belief.

Hagee regards God’s covenant with Abraham in the book of Genesis as granting the Patriarch and his descendents unconditional title to the Holy Land. He concludes, therefore, that no territorial compromise with the Palestinians is desirable or necessary. Hagee preaches that those who bless Israel will themselves be blessed (Genesis 12:3) and that a close military and political alliance between the United States and Israel is mandated in scripture. Further, Hagee sees the 1948 emergence of an independent Israel as a sign of the second coming of Christ. Finally, and most controversial of all for an evangelical preacher, Hagee claims that God’s covenant with the ancient Hebrews allows Jews to be saved without belief in Christ.

Did God grant Abraham and his offspring unconditional and eternal possession of the Holy Land? Many scholars would argue that remaining in the land required the Israelites to keep God’s laws. Failure to do so would bring divine punishment. Moses warned in Deuteronomy 28, “If you are not careful to do all the words of this law . . . you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of.” The Hebrews’ captivity in Babylon and the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD demonstrate to many scholars that God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents was conditional and their right to the Holy Land by no means absolute.

When Hagee advocates unqualified American support for the State of Israel as a means of obtaining the Almighty’s blessing, he assumes the modern State of Israel is a linear and worthy successor to Abraham. Does blessing Israel mean giving the government of the State of Israel unconditional political, financial and military support? One could argue that Israel’s efforts to colonize the lands captured in 1967 and to dispossess the Palestinians violate the Old Testament commandments against theft and killing. Furthermore, Hagee’s callous disregard for the suffering of indigenous Christians and Muslims is certainly contrary to the New Testament injunctions to “love thy neighbor as thy self” (Matt. 19:19) and to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (Matt. 7:12), to say nothing of “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). Hagee’s bizarre theology has hijacked the messages of the Old and New Testaments to sanctify the injustices done in the Holy Land.

The second coming of Christ is a difficult issue because the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. In his book, Jerusalem Countdown, Hagee enumerates 10 “signs” which he claims “prove” that Christ’s return to earth is imminent. But Luke’s gospel (17: 20) gives a diametrically opposing view: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed.” Furthermore, Pastor Hagee may say he knows when Christ is returning but his confidence is inconsistent with the parable of the bridegroom (Matt. 25): “you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”

Most people who have studied the Christian religion, believers or not, would assert that the New Testament requires belief in Christ for salvation: that is, after all, what makes Christians Christians and the New Testament new. Hagee’s interpretation of scripture posits that salvation for Jews is also possible in Christianity because of God’s covenant with Abraham. Pastor Hagee’s view is obviously erroneous: the gospel of John states, “I (Christ) am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

It is easy to understand why Hagee preaches what he does. If you make the State of Israel an object of veneration and at the same time insist that its inhabitants convert to Christianity, you are not going to make many friends in Israel or among Israel’s supporters in the US. And for similar reasons Hagee asserts the Bible favors the Israelis over the Palestinians: Pastor Hagee obviously enjoys meeting Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, speaking in front of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and having Malcolm Hoenlein, the head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, visit him in San Antonio. Hagee bartered his faith for power and fame, money and notoriety. An advocate of unjust war, Hagee has put down the Bible and taken up the sword. His kingdom is very much of this world.

The Founding Fathers were wise to forbid in the Constitution the establishment of a religion in the US. Although morality, often finding its roots in religion, will always influence government and election of public officials, the specifics of religious belief and practice have been kept, for the most part, in private life, to the nation’s great benefit. Making decisions about war and peace based on strange interpretations of arcane End Time prophecy is dangerous and absurd. That Hagee is a serious political player in 21st Century America shows we have truly entered a post Enlightenment era.

John Taylor, a lifelong Republican, received an AB in Near Eastern Languages from The University of Chicago. He is a US Army veteran. As a young man he served in the Middle East as a civil servant, archaeologist and banker. Prior to retirement he worked in the energy business in Texas for 20 years.

Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran

By Robert Scheer

How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist—to a fault—opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.

On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.

Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.

Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran’s developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?

If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.

The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region’s key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.

To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States—which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and “usable” nuclear weapons)—as both their enemy and an example to emulate.

What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

Although this is not sourced, it is worrisome, considering the degree to which Iraqi appears to be in meltdown.

There's a question the article doesn't address, and it is, absolutely,
one of the "6,000 lb gorillas in the room" in this situation.

Precisely what will Russia do if the US attacks Iran? Will its government just sit back and do nothing for one of its primary strategic partners in the region?

I think not. Read below

Thomas



MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.