Michael Roston / Raw Story April 9, 2007
A top Constitutional scholar from Princeton who gave a televised speech that slammed President George W. Bush's executive overreach recently learned that he had been added to the Transportation Security Administration's terrorist watch list. He shared his experience this weekend at the law blog Balkinization.
Walter F. Murphy, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Emeritus, at Princeton University, attempted to check his luggage at the curbside in Albuquerque before boarding a plane to Newark, New Jersey. Murphy was told he could not use the service.
"I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list," he said.
When inquiring with a clerk why he was on the list, Murphy was asked if he had participated in any peace marches.
"We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," a clerk said.
Murphy then explained that he had not marched, but had "in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution."
The clerk responded, "That'll do it."
Murphy was allowed to board the plane, but was warned that his luggage would be "ransacked." On his return trip, his luggage was lost.
Murphy is a decorated Marine who served in the Korean War and was a reservist for 19 years. Mark Graber, who presented the blog post, adds that there were other reasons that Murphy was an unlikely terror suspect.
"While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination," he wrote.
The blog post on Murphy's experience can be accessed at this link.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
CHEMTRAILS
There’s a treaty in the United Nations people can look up. It was signed in 1978 and it’s an international agreement where the major powers agreed not to use HAARP type technology on each other in wartime and the effects they said in the treaty were that the HAARP could use weather manipulation causing either drought or flooding. It could cause hurricanes, tornadoes. It could cause earthquakes. The whole gambit was there plus manipulation of the minds of the public by carrying a secondary signal that can actually affect the minds of the general population. So this does exist. It’s documented. The CBC in Canada the major television network which is government run did a documentary a few years ago. I think you can find that in CBC archives in fact where they went to the HAARP facility. They show you the facility with all the antennas and talk about the affects which it can cause. So this is real. They are using it.
Open Skies Treaty
AEROSOL CRIMES/ALEX JONES INTERVIEW WITH CLIFFORD CARNICOM
PROOF OF WEATHER MANIPULATION WEAPONS
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Article VIII Article IX Article X
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS
UNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING THE CONVENTION Understanding Relating to Article I Understanding Relating to Article II Understanding Relating to Article III Understanding Relating to Article VIII
____________________________
Owning the Weather
Open Skies Treaty
See Fact Sheet: Open Skies Treaty: First Russian Observation in the United States
Origin and Purpose
The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 30 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities. The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955; the Treaty itself was an initiative of President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. The United States ratified it in 1993. This Treaty is not related to civil-aviation open skies agreements.
Membership
The 30 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.
The Treaty is of unlimited duration and open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union that have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Four states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The OSCC has also approved applications for accession by Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, and Croatia. Croatia ratified the Treaty but has not yet deposited its instrument of ratification. Cyprus’s application for accession is pending before the OSCC.
Basic Elements of the Treaty
Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.
Aircraft. Observation aircraft may be provided by either the observing Party or (the "taxi option") by the observed Party, at the latter's choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Treaty standards. The official certified U.S. Open Skies aircraft is the OC-135B (a military version of the Boeing 707).
Sensors. Open Skies aircraft may have video, optical, panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night, all weather capability. Photographic image quality will permit recognition of major military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to distinguish between a tank and a truck), thus allowing significant transparency of military forces and activities. Sensor categories may be added and capabilities improved by agreement among States Parties. All equipment used in Open Skies must be commercially available to all participants in the regime.
Quotas. Each State Party is obligated to receive observation flights per its passive quota allocation. Each State Party may conduct as many observation flights -- its active quota -- as its passive quota. During the first 3 years after EIF, each State will be obliged to accept no more than 75% of its passive quota. Since the overall annual passive quota for the United States is 42, this means that it will be obligated to accept no more than 31 observation flights a year during this 3-year period. Only two flights were requested over the United States during 2004, by the Russian Federation and Republic of Belarus Group of States Parties (which functions as a single entity for quota allocation purposes). The United States is entitled to 8 of the 31 annual flights available over Russia/Belarus. Additionally, the United States is entitled to one flight over Ukraine, which we share with Canada.
Data Sharing/Availability. Imagery collected from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request for the cost of reproduction. As a result, the data available to each State Party is much greater than that which it can collect itself under the Treaty quota system.
Implementation of the Treaty
Provisional application of portions of the Treaty took place from signature in 1992 until entry into force in 2002. During that period, participants conducted joint trial flights for the purpose of training flight crews and testing equipment and sensors. With entry into force of the Treaty, formal observation flights began in August 2002. During the first Treaty year, States Parties conducted 67 observation flights. For 2004, States Parties have planned 82 missions. The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues.
Since the signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute toward European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties. For further information please see www.state.gov/t/ac.AEROSOL CRIMES/ALEX JONES INTERVIEW WITH CLIFFORD CARNICOM
PROOF OF WEATHER MANIPULATION WEAPONS
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977
Entered into force October 5, 1978
Entered into force October 5, 1978
[Go to: Treaty Text, Annex, Understandings, Signatory List]
Narrative
Use of environmental modification techniques for hostile purposes does not play a major role in military planning at the present time. Such techniques might be developed in the future, however, and would pose a threat of serious damage unless action was taken to prohibit their use. In July 1972 the U.S. Government renounced the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, even if their development were proved to be feasible in the future.
Both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives held hearings, beginning in 1972, and the Senate adopted a resolution in 1973 calling for an international agreement "prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war...." In response to this resolution, the President ordered the Department of Defense to undertake an in-depth review of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques. The results of this study and a subsequent interagency study led to the U.S. Governments decision to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement.
During the summit meeting in Moscow in July 1974, President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev formally agreed to hold bilateral discussions on how to bring about "the most effective measures possible to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes." Three sets of discussions were held in 1974 and 1975, resulting in agreement on a common approach and common language.
In August 1975, the chief representatives of the U.S. and the Soviet delegations to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) tabled, in parallel, identical draft texts of a "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques."
The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydro-sphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space. Changes in weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmental modification techniques.
Intensive negotiations held in the CCD during the spring and summer of 1976 resulted in a modified text and, in addition, to understandings regarding four of the Treaty articles. These were transmitted to the U.N. General Assembly for consideration during the fall session.
Article I sets forth the basic commitment: "Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party." An understanding defines the terms "widespread, long-lasting or severe." "Widespread" is defined as "encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers"; "long-lasting" is defined as "lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season"; and "severe" is defined as "involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets."
With regard to peaceful uses of environmental modification techniques, the convention provides that the parties shall have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information.
In addition to the provision for mutual consultation regarding complaints and for resource to the Security Council, the revised draft establishes the framework for a Consultative Committee of Experts, which would meet on an ad hoc basis when so requested by a party, in order to clarify the nature of activities suspected to be in violation of the convention. Responding to the suggestion of many delegations, the revised text incorporates a provision for periodic conferences to review the Conventions operation.
During the 1976 fall session, the U.N. General Assembly held extensive debate on the draft Convention, including several resolutions relating thereto. On December 10, the General Assembly adopted a resolution by a vote of 96 to 8, with 30 abstentions, which referred the Convention to all member nations for their consideration, signature, and ratification, and requested the U.N. Secretary-General to open the Convention for signature.
The U.N. Secretary-General officiated at the signing ceremony in Geneva on May 18. The United States joined 33 other nations in signing the Convention. The Convention entered into force on October 5, 1978, when the 20th state to sign the Convention deposited its instrument of ratification. President Carter transmitted the Convention to the Senate on September 22, 1978.
The Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on November 28, 1979, by a vote of 98-0. The President ratified the Convention December 13, 1979. The Convention entered into force for the United States on January 17, 1980, when the U.S. instrument of ratification was deposited in New York.
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977
Entered into force October 5, 1978
Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979
U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980
The States Parties to this Convention,
Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,
Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,
Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,
Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,
Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,
Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,
Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,
Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Have agreed as follows:
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.
2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organiza-tion to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.
As used in Article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.
1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.
2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.
1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.
2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall, within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex, which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.
3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting its validity.
4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.
5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.
1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.
2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.
This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.
1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.
2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to the Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.
3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to the Convention, concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.
1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.
2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.
4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.
5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.
6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
This Convention, of which the English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, have signed this Convention, opened for signature at Geneva on the eighteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven.
DONE at Geneva on May 18, 1977.
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS
1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.
2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.
3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.
4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.
5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committees work.
It is the understanding of the Committee that, for the purposes of this Convention, the terms, "widespread", "long-lasting" and "severe" shall be interpreted as follows:
- (a) "widespread": encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometres;
(b) "long-lasting": lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season;
(c) "severe": involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.
It is further understood that the interpretation set forth above is intended exclusively for this Convention and is not intended to prejudice the interpretation of the same or similar terms if used in connexion with any other international agreement.
It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.
It is further understood that all the phenomena listed above, when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury. Thus, military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II, so as to cause those phenomena as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited.
It is recognized, moreover, that the list of examples set out above is not exhaustive. Other phenomena which could result from the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II could also be appropriately included. The absence of such phenomena from the list does not in any way imply that the undertaking contained in Article I would not be applicable to those phenomena, provided the criteria set out in that article were met.
It is the understanding of the Committee that this Convention does not deal with the question whether or not a given use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes is in accordance with generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law.
It is the understanding of the Committee that a proposal to amend the Convention may also be considered at any conference of Parties held pursuant to Article VIII. It is further understood that any proposed amendment that is intended for such consideration should, if possible, be submitted to the Depositary no less than 90 days before the commencement of the conference.
__________________
1 These are not incorporated into the Convention but are part of the negotiating record and were included in the report transmitted by the CCD to the U.N. General Assembly in September 1976.
1 Dates given are the earliest dates on which countries signed the agreements or deposited their ratifications or accessions -- whether in Washington, London, Moscow, or New York. In the case of a country that was a dependent territory which became a party through succession, the date given is the date on which the country gave notice that it would continue to be bound by the terms of the agreement.
2 The United States regards the signature and ratification by the Byelorussian S.S.R. and the Ukrainian S.S.R. as already included under the signature and ratification of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
3 This total does not include actions by the Byelorussian S.S.R. and the Ukrainian S.S.R. (See footnote 2.)
4 Effective January 1, 1979, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China.
Owning the Weather
Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation
MoD dossier outlines nightmare vision of new world order, ethnic cleansing, class warfare, brain chips by 2035 Prison Planet April 9, 2007 Paul Joseph Watson
A British government Ministry of Defence report outlines a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.
The MoD's Development, Concepts & Doctrine Center drew up the document to crystallize the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces, according to a report in the London Guardian today.
Since every deliberate action of government and industry is working to realize this future, we should look at this as a strategy plan rather than a warning of things to come.
The report hypothesizes what the world will be like in under 30 years and is an "analysis of the key risks and shocks" the planet is likely to face. It's predictions include;
- The development of neutron weapons that destroy living organs but not buildings and "make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world." Such weapons would be dispersed by means of unmanned vehicles, leading to "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues."
- Within 30 years implanted brain chips as standard for all citizens in developed nations.
- A mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes of the developed world in opposition to rampant immigration, an urban under-class and the deterioration of social order.
- The revival of Marxism as a replacement for religion in an increasingly morally relativist age.
- Unchecked globalization that effectively ends the nation state and leads to wars based on territorial belief systems rather than country against country.
- A sharp decline in the population of white Europeans but an 81% increase in the population of sub-Saharan Africa and that of Middle Eastern countries by 132%.
- Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order as a result of population increase.
- The emergence of a "terrorist coalition," an alliance of belief systems that oppose the state, from environmentalists to "ultra-nationalists" and remnants of religious groups.
The clear implication from this report is that any political or religious group that expresses opposition to the atheistic and dictatorial agenda of the state will be collectively demonized as terroriThis is the very new world order that the establishment have sought to create by allowing rampant immigration, using the progress of technology to enslave us, launching endless war and shaping the course of history to construct a prison planet.
The elite are deliberately steering world events and engaging in psychological warfare to achieve this self-fulfilling apocalypse. They are hell-bent on manufacturing an end-times scenario similar to that described in Revelations, and whether you believe in the Bible or not, our future is being decided by maniacal psychopaths sworn to destroy humanity.
Every time we study government white papers and strategy documents, whether it be RAND, PNAC or any other major think tank, we come across an obsession with thinning the population by means of horrific acts of ethnic cleansing. In this instance, the plan isn't even veiled under the umbrella of terrorism, it clearly implies that states will deploy weapons of mass destruction to wipe out huge swathes of the population, and particularly those who express opposition to government. sts and targeted for elimination and ethnic cleansing.
The MoD's Development, Concepts & Doctrine Center drew up the document to crystallize the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces, according to a report in the London Guardian today.
Since every deliberate action of government and industry is working to realize this future, we should look at this as a strategy plan rather than a warning of things to come.
The report hypothesizes what the world will be like in under 30 years and is an "analysis of the key risks and shocks" the planet is likely to face. It's predictions include;
- The development of neutron weapons that destroy living organs but not buildings and "make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world." Such weapons would be dispersed by means of unmanned vehicles, leading to "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues."
- Within 30 years implanted brain chips as standard for all citizens in developed nations.
- A mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes of the developed world in opposition to rampant immigration, an urban under-class and the deterioration of social order.
- The revival of Marxism as a replacement for religion in an increasingly morally relativist age.
- Unchecked globalization that effectively ends the nation state and leads to wars based on territorial belief systems rather than country against country.
- A sharp decline in the population of white Europeans but an 81% increase in the population of sub-Saharan Africa and that of Middle Eastern countries by 132%.
- Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order as a result of population increase.
- The emergence of a "terrorist coalition," an alliance of belief systems that oppose the state, from environmentalists to "ultra-nationalists" and remnants of religious groups.
The clear implication from this report is that any political or religious group that expresses opposition to the atheistic and dictatorial agenda of the state will be collectively demonized as terroriThis is the very new world order that the establishment have sought to create by allowing rampant immigration, using the progress of technology to enslave us, launching endless war and shaping the course of history to construct a prison planet.
The elite are deliberately steering world events and engaging in psychological warfare to achieve this self-fulfilling apocalypse. They are hell-bent on manufacturing an end-times scenario similar to that described in Revelations, and whether you believe in the Bible or not, our future is being decided by maniacal psychopaths sworn to destroy humanity.
Every time we study government white papers and strategy documents, whether it be RAND, PNAC or any other major think tank, we come across an obsession with thinning the population by means of horrific acts of ethnic cleansing. In this instance, the plan isn't even veiled under the umbrella of terrorism, it clearly implies that states will deploy weapons of mass destruction to wipe out huge swathes of the population, and particularly those who express opposition to government. sts and targeted for elimination and ethnic cleansing.
This is the very new world order that the establishment have sought to create by allowing rampant immigration, using the progress of technology to enslave us, launching endless war and shaping the course of history to construct a prison planet.
The elite are deliberately steering world events and engaging in psychological warfare to achieve this self-fulfilling apocalypse. They are hell-bent on manufacturing an end-times scenario similar to that described in Revelations, and whether you believe in the Bible or not, our future is being decided by maniacal psychopaths sworn to destroy humanity.
Every time we study government white papers and strategy documents, whether it be RAND, PNAC or any other major think tank, we come across an obsession with thinning the population by means of horrific acts of ethnic cleansing. In this instance, the plan isn't even veiled under the umbrella of terrorism, it clearly implies that states will deploy weapons of mass destruction to wipe out huge swathes of the population, and particularly those who express opposition to government. "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Who wrote these words in their own strategy document? The Nazis? The regime of Pol Pot?
No, it was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration.
Armed Forces Journal, a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, last year carried a strategy plan for completely redrawing the borders of the Middle East written by retired Major Ralph Peters.
The document cites peak oil, an economic crash in 2008 and global warming as reasons for a chaotic convergence that will require harsh action on behalf of government.
"Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history," writes Peters, "Ethnic cleansing works."
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
Ethnic cleansing is also popular amongst the establishment scientific community who advocate mass scale eugenics programs to "cull" humanity down to manageable levels. One such example is Dr. Erik Pianka, who made headlines last year when he gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. The vast majority of his audience, students, scientists and professors alike, stood and cheered when Pianka labeled humanity a bacteria that had to be eliminated.
Similar sentiments are echoed by people like Prince Philip, who in the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now," media mogul Ted Turner told E Magazine, an environmentalist publication.
Turner went even further in an interview with Audubon Magazine.
"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
In a 1991 interview with the UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer who went on to be a kingpin of the environmental movement said,
"It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."
The global elite and the military-industrial complex have already sworn to inflict genocide to ethnically cleanse world population down to levels that are more easy to control and enslave. This is the ultimate end game of the New World Order - giving birth to the apocalypse and manufacturing hell on earth.
No longer can this be dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory when the very architects of this horror are openly discussing it on a regular basis in their own planning documents.
The elite are deliberately steering world events and engaging in psychological warfare to achieve this self-fulfilling apocalypse. They are hell-bent on manufacturing an end-times scenario similar to that described in Revelations, and whether you believe in the Bible or not, our future is being decided by maniacal psychopaths sworn to destroy humanity.
Every time we study government white papers and strategy documents, whether it be RAND, PNAC or any other major think tank, we come across an obsession with thinning the population by means of horrific acts of ethnic cleansing. In this instance, the plan isn't even veiled under the umbrella of terrorism, it clearly implies that states will deploy weapons of mass destruction to wipe out huge swathes of the population, and particularly those who express opposition to government. "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Who wrote these words in their own strategy document? The Nazis? The regime of Pol Pot?
No, it was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration.
Armed Forces Journal, a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, last year carried a strategy plan for completely redrawing the borders of the Middle East written by retired Major Ralph Peters.
The document cites peak oil, an economic crash in 2008 and global warming as reasons for a chaotic convergence that will require harsh action on behalf of government.
"Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history," writes Peters, "Ethnic cleansing works."
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
Ethnic cleansing is also popular amongst the establishment scientific community who advocate mass scale eugenics programs to "cull" humanity down to manageable levels. One such example is Dr. Erik Pianka, who made headlines last year when he gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. The vast majority of his audience, students, scientists and professors alike, stood and cheered when Pianka labeled humanity a bacteria that had to be eliminated.
Similar sentiments are echoed by people like Prince Philip, who in the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now," media mogul Ted Turner told E Magazine, an environmentalist publication.
Turner went even further in an interview with Audubon Magazine.
"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
In a 1991 interview with the UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer who went on to be a kingpin of the environmental movement said,
"It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."
The global elite and the military-industrial complex have already sworn to inflict genocide to ethnically cleanse world population down to levels that are more easy to control and enslave. This is the ultimate end game of the New World Order - giving birth to the apocalypse and manufacturing hell on earth.
No longer can this be dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory when the very architects of this horror are openly discussing it on a regular basis in their own planning documents.
U.S. military develops Robocop armour for soldiers
UK Daily Mail April 10, 2007 MATTHEW HICKLEY
We may have seen it all before in science-fiction films. But the bionic warrior is in fact a vision of real-life warfare in the 21st century. U.S. defence chiefs hope to have their troops kitted out in the outlandish combat gear as soon as 2020.
Included in the Pentagon's Future Warrior Concept are a powerful exoskeleton, a self-camouflaging outer layer that adapts to changing environments and a helmet which translates a soldier's voice into any foreign language
and flexible until it senses an approaching bullet, then tenses to become bulletproof.
Perhaps worryingly, several of the planned enhancements seem to owe more than a little to Hollywood blockbusters such as Robocop, Aliens and Predator.
But officials are quick to point out that many of these systems are already working in prototype form, or are refinements of proven technologies.
Some of the blueprints will be unworkable without eagerly awaited advances in nanotechnology, but researchers remain confident. And perhaps with good reason.
The sheer scale of U.S. military research spending and the pace of recent advances in aircraft stealth technology and guided precision bombs are staggering.
Project specialist Jean-Louis DeGay, a former captain in 75th Ranger Regiment, said: "We're already trialling equipment and technologies that did not exist a few years ago.
"The air force has just debuted its new stun gun and five years after the concept of an exoskeleton was first discussed, we have fully functioning prototypes."
He told Soldier magazine: "Five years ago, nobody thought we'd have a portable hydrogen fuel cell, but we've got them now.
"They're functioning, and we're just trying to make them smaller. And if I'm honest, nothing speeds up the development of technology like war."
If the U.S. military's vision of the future is even half-right, Britain's armed forces will have their work cut out trying to keep up.
Even comparatively understated attempts to improve our troops' battlefield technology, such as the Bowman digital battlefield radio system, have been blighted by years of delays and embarrassing technical blunders.
We may have seen it all before in science-fiction films. But the bionic warrior is in fact a vision of real-life warfare in the 21st century. U.S. defence chiefs hope to have their troops kitted out in the outlandish combat gear as soon as 2020.
Included in the Pentagon's Future Warrior Concept are a powerful exoskeleton, a self-camouflaging outer layer that adapts to changing environments and a helmet which translates a soldier's voice into any foreign language
and flexible until it senses an approaching bullet, then tenses to become bulletproof.
Perhaps worryingly, several of the planned enhancements seem to owe more than a little to Hollywood blockbusters such as Robocop, Aliens and Predator.
But officials are quick to point out that many of these systems are already working in prototype form, or are refinements of proven technologies.
Some of the blueprints will be unworkable without eagerly awaited advances in nanotechnology, but researchers remain confident. And perhaps with good reason.
The sheer scale of U.S. military research spending and the pace of recent advances in aircraft stealth technology and guided precision bombs are staggering.
Project specialist Jean-Louis DeGay, a former captain in 75th Ranger Regiment, said: "We're already trialling equipment and technologies that did not exist a few years ago.
"The air force has just debuted its new stun gun and five years after the concept of an exoskeleton was first discussed, we have fully functioning prototypes."
He told Soldier magazine: "Five years ago, nobody thought we'd have a portable hydrogen fuel cell, but we've got them now.
"They're functioning, and we're just trying to make them smaller. And if I'm honest, nothing speeds up the development of technology like war."
If the U.S. military's vision of the future is even half-right, Britain's armed forces will have their work cut out trying to keep up.
Even comparatively understated attempts to improve our troops' battlefield technology, such as the Bowman digital battlefield radio system, have been blighted by years of delays and embarrassing technical blunders.
Shopping list could make you 'a terror suspect'
London Telegraph April 9, 2007 Bruno Waterfield
The European Union's privacy watchdog has given warning that new access for Europol to personal data could lead to individuals being labelled as terror suspects based on hearsay or records of their shopping habits.
The warning, from the head of the European Data Protection supervisor, comes amid moves to allow the EU police agency to process so-called "soft data" in search of relevant information for its criminal investigations.
Peter Hustinx said that moves to give Europol the power to gather intelligence on "people who have not (yet) committed a crime" are without privacy safeguards.
advertisement He told The Daily Telegraph: "The proposal does not specify what data could be used in criminal investigations. It could be everything. It could be a vital detail such as an insurance company about a stolen car. But it could also be soft data, behavioural data."
The information could include statements of hearsay given to a local police force or data on personal shopping habits from a supermarket loyalty card, he said.
Under the new Europol rules, expected to be agreed by governments later this year, people will be unable to find out what information is held on them unless all 27 EU police forces unanimously grant permission.
Sayed Kamall, the Conservative Euro-MP, shares the watchdog's fears and is concerned that "behavioural data" will lead to ethnic profiling.
"For example, someone who purchases kosher meat and never shops on the sabbath, or who buys halal meat but not alcohol, can easily be
categorised and every purchase scrutinised, no matter how innocent it may be," he said.
Mr Hustinx, a Dutchman with decades of experience as a national privacy watchdog and data protection at the European level, is worried at the absence of proper safeguards to ensure the reliability of "soft data".
He said that individuals could easily be identified as suspects, giving the example of someone seen standing next to a terror suspect at a bus stop and becoming labelled "a facilitator for terrorism".
Max-Peter Ratzel, Europol's director, said that European law enforcers needed to update and extend the scope of intelligence gathering - which is unchanged since the EU police agency was set up in the early 1990s.
"Our databases are on organised or serious international crime so I would assume that ordinary citizens would not have any possibility of being there," he said.
The European Union's privacy watchdog has given warning that new access for Europol to personal data could lead to individuals being labelled as terror suspects based on hearsay or records of their shopping habits.
The warning, from the head of the European Data Protection supervisor, comes amid moves to allow the EU police agency to process so-called "soft data" in search of relevant information for its criminal investigations.
Peter Hustinx said that moves to give Europol the power to gather intelligence on "people who have not (yet) committed a crime" are without privacy safeguards.
advertisement He told The Daily Telegraph: "The proposal does not specify what data could be used in criminal investigations. It could be everything. It could be a vital detail such as an insurance company about a stolen car. But it could also be soft data, behavioural data."
The information could include statements of hearsay given to a local police force or data on personal shopping habits from a supermarket loyalty card, he said.
Under the new Europol rules, expected to be agreed by governments later this year, people will be unable to find out what information is held on them unless all 27 EU police forces unanimously grant permission.
Sayed Kamall, the Conservative Euro-MP, shares the watchdog's fears and is concerned that "behavioural data" will lead to ethnic profiling.
"For example, someone who purchases kosher meat and never shops on the sabbath, or who buys halal meat but not alcohol, can easily be
categorised and every purchase scrutinised, no matter how innocent it may be," he said.
Mr Hustinx, a Dutchman with decades of experience as a national privacy watchdog and data protection at the European level, is worried at the absence of proper safeguards to ensure the reliability of "soft data".
He said that individuals could easily be identified as suspects, giving the example of someone seen standing next to a terror suspect at a bus stop and becoming labelled "a facilitator for terrorism".
Max-Peter Ratzel, Europol's director, said that European law enforcers needed to update and extend the scope of intelligence gathering - which is unchanged since the EU police agency was set up in the early 1990s.
"Our databases are on organised or serious international crime so I would assume that ordinary citizens would not have any possibility of being there," he said.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
The Few. The Proud. The Disillusioned
Conflict in Iraq: Some active duty troops, while proud to serve, are speaking out and signing a petition against the war
Joe Garofoli
SF Chronicle
Saturday April 7, 2007
Mike Ergo is a 23-year-old honorably discharged Marine who fought in Fallujah. A tattoo on the inside of his left forearm depicts the first insurgent he killed in Iraq. A tattoo on his right arm reads: "Born to Fight." He loves the Marines, is proud of what he and his colleagues did overseas and is on inactive ready reserve through July 2009.
Yet a few weeks ago, the Walnut Creek native marched near the front of the anti-war demonstration that rolled through San Francisco. Yeah, he said, it felt odd to march among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and socialists. Still, Ergo said he'd march again to underscore his opposition to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and would try to bring more than the handful of Iraq War veterans who demonstrated with him last month.
But Ergo knows that the number of soldiers who publicly oppose the war is likely to remain small for now. A chief reason: Unlike the men drafted into military service during the Vietnam War, those fighting in Iraq are volunteers and feel obligated to be patriotic defenders of post-9/11 soil.
Yet a few signs of dissent are appearing in the military aside from conscientious objectors and newly realized pacificists. Last month, a career chief master sergeant in the Air Force wrote an opinion piece in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes opposing the war, and a busload of retired veterans and civilian activists toured military bases in the South, hoping to coax more support from active duty soldiers. Over the past month, more than 1,700 soldiers have signed an online Appeal for Redress -- www.appealforredress.org -- a legally sanctioned way for members of the military to oppose the war.
A couple of underground publications like GI Special at www.militaryproject.org, have sprung up online, and supportive troops have clandestinely dropped hard copies inside military barracks.
Last week, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, who served in the Persian Gulf two years ago, rebutted President Bush's weekly radio address.
Said Horne: "The commander-in-chief has failed to properly lead the troops, and previous Congresses didn't ask the tough questions or demand accountability. The result is the mess we are in today."
These inside-the-fortress expressions of opposition are almost always prefaced with words of respect for the military, of their comrades' patriotic service to their country.
This rhetorical approach is far different from the widespread protests and defiant sloganeering of the '60s and '70s. By the Vietnam War's end, more than 100 underground newspapers were published by anti-war soldiers, and thousands of soldiers had participated in peace demonstrations. Peaceniks established a network of off-base coffeehouses in military towns, giving GIs and peace activists a place to interact casually and foment more opposition to the war.
While opinion polls today show that a majority of Americans oppose the war, "95 percent of Americans haven't been touched by the war. It's not that they don't care," said Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum, who wrote the Stars and Stripes opinion column supporting the online petition against the war.
But few uniformed opponents have surfaced. Iraq Veterans Against the War, an organization for uniformed opposition, gets only 10 new members a week. The 1,700-plus vets who signed the online petition are a fraction of the 1.5 million who have been deployed in the war on terrorism.
"It would be a tremendous boost to have more active duty demonstrating," said Cherie Eichholz, a veteran and an organizer with Veterans for Peace, "because they have firsthand knowledge of what's going on over there on the ground, and they have a credibility with the public because of their service."
Eichholz, who volunteered for the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks and was discharged after being injured in training, said some vets' peace groups are changing their strategy.
Last month, she was part of a convoy of 25 activists and retired vets who toured military bases in the South as part of a trial effort to aggressively court uniformed opponents. They handed out 5,000 copies of the Appeal for Redress and got a few dozen returned in days. The document states: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price." The numbers might seem minuscule, Eichholz said, but she is encouraged by the hundreds of off-duty conversations she has had with young soldiers -- so much so that her organization is planning four similar caravans to tour towns near U.S. militaryinstallations this summer.
But the limited expression of anti-war support among the military "just shows that the overwhelming majority of guys are in favor of the mission in Iraq," said Navy Lt. Jason Nichols. An information technology specialist stationed in Iraq, Nichols is asking soldiers to sign an online petition called Appeal for Courage, www. appealforcourage.org, that supports the mission and opposes the Redress appeal. "Most of them (who oppose the war) can't answer the question: So what do we do now?"
Speaking out can be costly, especially for career soldiers. Two weeks after he wrote the Stars and Stripes column, Slocum decided to retire in October, long before he had planned.
"I got to thinking that I don't know if I can continue to wear two hats," said Slocum, 41, a veteran of 21 years in the service who is stationed near Fayetteville, N.C. He began opposing the war after disclosures that the United States went to war based on faulty intelligence. His peers told him to find a way to support the war. "That would be OK," he said, "if I didn't know what I already know."
Ergo, the Marine, believes another factor is behind this reticence: Many returning soldiers are still too overwhelmed with the effects of post-traumatic stress syndrome, one of the war's signature wounds -- including him. Ergo was diagnosed with the condition shortly after leaving the service in 2005.
For months after he returned home, a never-ending clip of the men he saw die and of those he killed reeled through his mind. He enrolled in Diablo Valley College, but within months he was missing class. He'd start driving to school, then turn around, afraid of the people he'd have to deal with there.
"It was this impending sense of something big was about to happen," he said. "The feeling I'd got when we were about to go into combat. I was afraid of dealing with people who would say something against the war, or make me angry. I was afraid of flipping out and maybe hurting someone."
He began regularly seeing a counselor last fall and began feeling better. At the same time, he began to read more about the government's reasons for invading Iraq. He started communicating with vets he found on a MySpace page for the Iraq Veterans Against the War.
"It's hard enough to deal with the experiences that went on in Iraq, let alone to have opinions on it," Ergo said. "When people come back, they'd rather just move on and not remember all that stuff. And not try to live in the past.
"And if you don't live by a vet center, you might just sit around, listen to music and drink. It can definitely be a downward spiral," he said.
His opinion of the war changed shortly after November 2004, when he was involved in fierce house-to-house searches for insurgents in Fallujah. He would kick in doors and often see an insurgent shooting at him from close range. Iraqi women and children would walk down the street, and insurgents would maneuver among the citizens, using them as shields.
The tension was emotionally exhausting.
"You're spending your days driving around the highways looking for people who are hiding, and they blow you up from a mile away with a remote detonator," he said. "Or they shoot at you from a building and put their weapon down and walk through the streets. And if you kill someone, you could potentially turn that town against you whether it's justified or not."
He came out publicly against the war after returning home.
"I was turned off by the apathy of all the people in this area, Walnut Creek, and other upper-middle-class communities who thought things were going fine or are so removed from the war," he said. "Like the people I was going to school with (Diablo Valley College) were just worried about what's on "TRL," MTV's "Total Request Live" program.
Ergo plans to talk about his experience in schools and to speak before other organizations. He is not a counter-recruiter; he urges people to "do their research" before they enlist. And he understands that many active duty soldiers won't speak out.
"They don't want to be associated with a movement they see as entirely leftist or irrational or hippies from Berkeley or San Francisco," he said. "But once people see us on the news, maybe they'll say, 'Hey, that guy has a short haircut, he looks like he could still be in. He wears tucked-in shirts. He doesn't have long hair.' "
Ergo doesn't have to look far to see his own wounds from the war. The man whose face flashes in his mind is tattooed on his left forearm. It reminds him how much he and other soldiers -- and Iraqis -- have sacrificed in this war.
"I have to see it," Ergo said. "So I want everyone else to see it, too.
Joe Garofoli
SF Chronicle
Saturday April 7, 2007
Mike Ergo is a 23-year-old honorably discharged Marine who fought in Fallujah. A tattoo on the inside of his left forearm depicts the first insurgent he killed in Iraq. A tattoo on his right arm reads: "Born to Fight." He loves the Marines, is proud of what he and his colleagues did overseas and is on inactive ready reserve through July 2009.
Yet a few weeks ago, the Walnut Creek native marched near the front of the anti-war demonstration that rolled through San Francisco. Yeah, he said, it felt odd to march among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and socialists. Still, Ergo said he'd march again to underscore his opposition to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and would try to bring more than the handful of Iraq War veterans who demonstrated with him last month.
But Ergo knows that the number of soldiers who publicly oppose the war is likely to remain small for now. A chief reason: Unlike the men drafted into military service during the Vietnam War, those fighting in Iraq are volunteers and feel obligated to be patriotic defenders of post-9/11 soil.
Yet a few signs of dissent are appearing in the military aside from conscientious objectors and newly realized pacificists. Last month, a career chief master sergeant in the Air Force wrote an opinion piece in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes opposing the war, and a busload of retired veterans and civilian activists toured military bases in the South, hoping to coax more support from active duty soldiers. Over the past month, more than 1,700 soldiers have signed an online Appeal for Redress -- www.appealforredress.org -- a legally sanctioned way for members of the military to oppose the war.
A couple of underground publications like GI Special at www.militaryproject.org, have sprung up online, and supportive troops have clandestinely dropped hard copies inside military barracks.
Last week, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew Horne, who served in the Persian Gulf two years ago, rebutted President Bush's weekly radio address.
Said Horne: "The commander-in-chief has failed to properly lead the troops, and previous Congresses didn't ask the tough questions or demand accountability. The result is the mess we are in today."
These inside-the-fortress expressions of opposition are almost always prefaced with words of respect for the military, of their comrades' patriotic service to their country.
This rhetorical approach is far different from the widespread protests and defiant sloganeering of the '60s and '70s. By the Vietnam War's end, more than 100 underground newspapers were published by anti-war soldiers, and thousands of soldiers had participated in peace demonstrations. Peaceniks established a network of off-base coffeehouses in military towns, giving GIs and peace activists a place to interact casually and foment more opposition to the war.
While opinion polls today show that a majority of Americans oppose the war, "95 percent of Americans haven't been touched by the war. It's not that they don't care," said Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum, who wrote the Stars and Stripes opinion column supporting the online petition against the war.
But few uniformed opponents have surfaced. Iraq Veterans Against the War, an organization for uniformed opposition, gets only 10 new members a week. The 1,700-plus vets who signed the online petition are a fraction of the 1.5 million who have been deployed in the war on terrorism.
"It would be a tremendous boost to have more active duty demonstrating," said Cherie Eichholz, a veteran and an organizer with Veterans for Peace, "because they have firsthand knowledge of what's going on over there on the ground, and they have a credibility with the public because of their service."
Eichholz, who volunteered for the Army after the Sept. 11 attacks and was discharged after being injured in training, said some vets' peace groups are changing their strategy.
Last month, she was part of a convoy of 25 activists and retired vets who toured military bases in the South as part of a trial effort to aggressively court uniformed opponents. They handed out 5,000 copies of the Appeal for Redress and got a few dozen returned in days. The document states: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price." The numbers might seem minuscule, Eichholz said, but she is encouraged by the hundreds of off-duty conversations she has had with young soldiers -- so much so that her organization is planning four similar caravans to tour towns near U.S. militaryinstallations this summer.
But the limited expression of anti-war support among the military "just shows that the overwhelming majority of guys are in favor of the mission in Iraq," said Navy Lt. Jason Nichols. An information technology specialist stationed in Iraq, Nichols is asking soldiers to sign an online petition called Appeal for Courage, www. appealforcourage.org, that supports the mission and opposes the Redress appeal. "Most of them (who oppose the war) can't answer the question: So what do we do now?"
Speaking out can be costly, especially for career soldiers. Two weeks after he wrote the Stars and Stripes column, Slocum decided to retire in October, long before he had planned.
"I got to thinking that I don't know if I can continue to wear two hats," said Slocum, 41, a veteran of 21 years in the service who is stationed near Fayetteville, N.C. He began opposing the war after disclosures that the United States went to war based on faulty intelligence. His peers told him to find a way to support the war. "That would be OK," he said, "if I didn't know what I already know."
Ergo, the Marine, believes another factor is behind this reticence: Many returning soldiers are still too overwhelmed with the effects of post-traumatic stress syndrome, one of the war's signature wounds -- including him. Ergo was diagnosed with the condition shortly after leaving the service in 2005.
For months after he returned home, a never-ending clip of the men he saw die and of those he killed reeled through his mind. He enrolled in Diablo Valley College, but within months he was missing class. He'd start driving to school, then turn around, afraid of the people he'd have to deal with there.
"It was this impending sense of something big was about to happen," he said. "The feeling I'd got when we were about to go into combat. I was afraid of dealing with people who would say something against the war, or make me angry. I was afraid of flipping out and maybe hurting someone."
He began regularly seeing a counselor last fall and began feeling better. At the same time, he began to read more about the government's reasons for invading Iraq. He started communicating with vets he found on a MySpace page for the Iraq Veterans Against the War.
"It's hard enough to deal with the experiences that went on in Iraq, let alone to have opinions on it," Ergo said. "When people come back, they'd rather just move on and not remember all that stuff. And not try to live in the past.
"And if you don't live by a vet center, you might just sit around, listen to music and drink. It can definitely be a downward spiral," he said.
His opinion of the war changed shortly after November 2004, when he was involved in fierce house-to-house searches for insurgents in Fallujah. He would kick in doors and often see an insurgent shooting at him from close range. Iraqi women and children would walk down the street, and insurgents would maneuver among the citizens, using them as shields.
The tension was emotionally exhausting.
"You're spending your days driving around the highways looking for people who are hiding, and they blow you up from a mile away with a remote detonator," he said. "Or they shoot at you from a building and put their weapon down and walk through the streets. And if you kill someone, you could potentially turn that town against you whether it's justified or not."
He came out publicly against the war after returning home.
"I was turned off by the apathy of all the people in this area, Walnut Creek, and other upper-middle-class communities who thought things were going fine or are so removed from the war," he said. "Like the people I was going to school with (Diablo Valley College) were just worried about what's on "TRL," MTV's "Total Request Live" program.
Ergo plans to talk about his experience in schools and to speak before other organizations. He is not a counter-recruiter; he urges people to "do their research" before they enlist. And he understands that many active duty soldiers won't speak out.
"They don't want to be associated with a movement they see as entirely leftist or irrational or hippies from Berkeley or San Francisco," he said. "But once people see us on the news, maybe they'll say, 'Hey, that guy has a short haircut, he looks like he could still be in. He wears tucked-in shirts. He doesn't have long hair.' "
Ergo doesn't have to look far to see his own wounds from the war. The man whose face flashes in his mind is tattooed on his left forearm. It reminds him how much he and other soldiers -- and Iraqis -- have sacrificed in this war.
"I have to see it," Ergo said. "So I want everyone else to see it, too.
Iranian Diplomat Alleges CIA Torture
ALI AKBAR DAREINI
AP
Saturday April 7, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran -- An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being abducted in Iraq accused the CIA of torturing him during his detention, state television reported Saturday. The United States immediately denied any involvement in the Iranian's disappearance or release.
Jalal Sharafi, who was freed on Tuesday, said the CIA questioned him about Iran's relations with Iraq and assistance to various Iraqi groups, according to state television.
"Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures and tortured me through different methods days and nights," he said.
Sharafi's comments came a day after 15 British sailors released by Iran said they had been subject to psychological pressure and coercion in captivity. The sailors were captured in the Persian Gulf on March 23 for allegedly entering Iranian waters and released Wednesday.
At the time of his disappearance, Iran alleged Sharafi had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by American forces -- a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.
"The United States had nothing to do with Mr. Sharafi's detention and we welcome his return to Iran," said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman who was with President Bush in Texas on Saturday.
"The Iranian propaganda machine has been in overdrive since they paraded the British sailors around on TV. This is just the latest theatrics of a government trying to deflect attention away from its own unacceptable actions," Johndroe added.
A U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the CIA vehemently denies any role in the capture or release of Sharafi. The official dismissed any claims of torture, saying "the CIA does not conduct or condone torture."
In the report Saturday read by a newscaster, Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, said he was kidnapped by agents of an Iraqi organization operating under CIA supervision and was badly tortured.
State television said signs of torture were still visible on Sharafi, who is being treated at an Iranian hospital. Images of Sharafi were not shown.
The television quoted Sharafi as saying he was approached by agents while shopping in Baghdad. The agents allegedly showed him Iraqi Defense Ministry identification papers and were driving U.S. coalition vehicles.
He said they took him to a base near Baghdad airport and interrogated him in both Arabic and English, questioning him mainly about Iran's influence in Iraq and assistance to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and Iraqi groups. Sharafi did not provide additional details about his captors or their nationalities.
U.S. officials allege that Iran provides money and weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias.
After the initial interrogation, Sharafi said that his captors "softened their behavior and showed leniency to encourage" him to cooperate.
"I explained I was unable to do anything outside my legal responsibilities," Sharafi was quoted as saying. "Later, they released me under pressure from Iraqi government officials. They dropped me near the back of the airport."
Several of the British crew members said Friday that they had been blindfolded, bound, kept in solitary confinement and subjected to psychological pressure during their captivity. They said they were coerced into saying they had been in Iranian waters when they were detained, and one said he believed one of his colleagues had been executed on the second day of the ordeal.
Iran dismissed the crew members' news conference as propaganda -- just as Britain had condemned the crew members' frequent appearances on Iranian TV during their captivity.
AP
Saturday April 7, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran -- An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being abducted in Iraq accused the CIA of torturing him during his detention, state television reported Saturday. The United States immediately denied any involvement in the Iranian's disappearance or release.
Jalal Sharafi, who was freed on Tuesday, said the CIA questioned him about Iran's relations with Iraq and assistance to various Iraqi groups, according to state television.
"Once they heard my response that Iran merely has official relations with the Iraqi government and officials, they intensified tortures and tortured me through different methods days and nights," he said.
Sharafi's comments came a day after 15 British sailors released by Iran said they had been subject to psychological pressure and coercion in captivity. The sailors were captured in the Persian Gulf on March 23 for allegedly entering Iranian waters and released Wednesday.
At the time of his disappearance, Iran alleged Sharafi had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by American forces -- a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.
"The United States had nothing to do with Mr. Sharafi's detention and we welcome his return to Iran," said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman who was with President Bush in Texas on Saturday.
"The Iranian propaganda machine has been in overdrive since they paraded the British sailors around on TV. This is just the latest theatrics of a government trying to deflect attention away from its own unacceptable actions," Johndroe added.
A U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the CIA vehemently denies any role in the capture or release of Sharafi. The official dismissed any claims of torture, saying "the CIA does not conduct or condone torture."
In the report Saturday read by a newscaster, Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, said he was kidnapped by agents of an Iraqi organization operating under CIA supervision and was badly tortured.
State television said signs of torture were still visible on Sharafi, who is being treated at an Iranian hospital. Images of Sharafi were not shown.
The television quoted Sharafi as saying he was approached by agents while shopping in Baghdad. The agents allegedly showed him Iraqi Defense Ministry identification papers and were driving U.S. coalition vehicles.
He said they took him to a base near Baghdad airport and interrogated him in both Arabic and English, questioning him mainly about Iran's influence in Iraq and assistance to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and Iraqi groups. Sharafi did not provide additional details about his captors or their nationalities.
U.S. officials allege that Iran provides money and weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias.
After the initial interrogation, Sharafi said that his captors "softened their behavior and showed leniency to encourage" him to cooperate.
"I explained I was unable to do anything outside my legal responsibilities," Sharafi was quoted as saying. "Later, they released me under pressure from Iraqi government officials. They dropped me near the back of the airport."
Several of the British crew members said Friday that they had been blindfolded, bound, kept in solitary confinement and subjected to psychological pressure during their captivity. They said they were coerced into saying they had been in Iranian waters when they were detained, and one said he believed one of his colleagues had been executed on the second day of the ordeal.
Iran dismissed the crew members' news conference as propaganda -- just as Britain had condemned the crew members' frequent appearances on Iranian TV during their captivity.
Eating Chinese: Sweet & Sour Human Infant
Etherzone April 6, 2007 Alan Stang
George W. Bush is the moral equivalent of a bestial psychopath, a serial killer who specializes in dismemberment. He is a monster and whatever else like it you can say. And the latest proof of that comes out of China. Regular readers know that, like most of the threats we face today, Red China was created by the United States. Without the intervention of the District of Criminals and our Communist media, Red China would have never been born.
Soviet tool George C. Marshall boasted that with a “stroke of the pen” he had disarmed 39 Republic of China divisions, refusing to send arms to those divisions voted for them by the Congress, the same thing Washington did to South Vietnam and now is trying to do to our own military in Iraq. Media here constantly characterized Mao Tse-tung as an avuncular Chinese version of Abraham Lincoln. The Chinese government, our longest, most loyal ally in the Far East, fell. Mao became the biggest mass murderer in the history of the planet. See America's Retreat From Victory, by Senator Joe McCarthy.
It was Socialist con man Richard Nixon who “opened the door” to Communist-occupied China. Socialist con man Bill Clinton took the door off its hinges. Red China says the United States is the “main enemy,” but Clinton committed treason by doing everything he could to build its military and nuclear capability.
And Communist world government traitor Jorge W. Boosh has continued Clinton's policy. Do you not need to look long and hard today to find things not made in Red China, from shoes to clothing to light bulbs? Are not companies closing here and reopening in Red China?
All that is the result of the Bush/Clinton policy. General Motors used to be an American company with foreign branches. Now it is a Red Chinese company with American branches. Federal tax and fiscal policy is driving American companies out of this country and into Red China.
There are other results. The Bush/Clinton policy has given Red Chinese mob bosses the idea that they can get away with just about anything, because they can. Early in the Bush regime, Red China committed a literal act of war against the United States, by attacking a U.S. Navy plane, forcing it down and imprisoning its crew. Jorge W. Boosh did absolutely nothing. The recent kidnapping of British marines in Iran was just a replay of what Red China did.
The Red Chinese have threatened to nuke Los Angeles. They were caught smuggling hundreds of automatic weapons to American traitors for use in a violent revolution. Remember, there never would have been a Red Chinese threat had the Conspiracy for world government not duplicitously created it in the first place.
Communist-occupied China is of course one of the world's biggest Christian countries. Before long, it could be the biggest. There are more Christians in Red China than there are in the United Kingdom. They meet in home churches. The Reds routinely torture and lock them up. It is Red China and the continuing Soviet Union that are the real international threat to the United States. Iran is an annoying pimple.
And in a scenario that smells like Dr. Mengele and his Nazis, the Red Chinese now harvest organs—from living human beings in political prisons—for lucrative transplant surgery. Do you need a kidney or a liver? Get on the plane to Red China. You know all that. You also know that el presidente Jorge W. Boosh, who loves to cross-dress as a tough guy, has never done diddledy squat about any of it.
But now comes the latest occasion for these comments. Next Magazine, a weekly out of Hong Kong, reports that the latest delicacy in Communist-occupied China is the expertly prepared corpse of a baby. No, you're not going crazy; you did read what you thought I just said. People in Red China now are cannibalizing humans. In China, you can even buy choice body parts from the hospitals.
The story appears in the Epoch Times, which says that Next Magazine got wind of it in Taiwan, where a businessman hosted a banquet. There, a servant named Liu from Liaoning Province on the mainland inadvertently revealed the cannibalistic practice and her intention to return to participate in it for health reasons. The Taiwanese women present at the banquet were horrified.
The magazine asked the servant to escort a reporter to a location where he could see a baby being prepared and she did so. The reporter saw a woman chopping up a male “fetus” and making soup from the placenta. The butcher told observers, “Don't be afraid, this is just the flesh of a higher animal.”
Epoch Times says that on March 22, 2003, police in Bingyan, Guangxi Province seized 28 female babies smuggled in a truck from Yulin, Guangxi Province going to Houzhou in Anhui Province. The oldest baby was only three months old. The babies were packed three or four to a bag and many of them were near death No one claimed them.
On the morning of October 9, 2004, someone rifling through the garbage on the outskirts of Jiuquan city in the Suzhou region, found dismembered babies in a dumpster. There were two heads, two torsos, four arms, and six legs. According to the investigation, the corpses were no more than a week old and they had been dismembered after cooking.
Red China does have laws that prohibit the eating of human flesh, but it also has a law that limits each couple to only one child. The law is strictly enforced, and it motivates couples to kill girl babies until they get a boy. Second babies and so on are forcibly aborted. The result is many baby corpses that can be cooked and eaten.
Is this story from the mainland true? Or is it a concoction? In modern warfare, one side routinely accuses the other of doing something like this. In the first Gulf War, Kuwait accused the invading Iraqis of throwing babies in hospital incubators on the floor, which turned out to be utterly false.
But, remember that Mao Tse-tung killed more people than anyone else in history, even more than Stalin. Hitler was in power for only 12 years; he did not have the time to kill anywhere near as many as did Mao. Organ harvesting is a logical part of his legacy, and we know that Red China does it.
So, the possibility that infant cannibalism is widespread on the Chinese mainland also is a possible element of the monstrous legacy of Mao. And we have nothing to boast about. Remember that because Jorge W. Boosh is bringing Muslims here from Africa, Islamic clitorectomy – female genital mutilation – is a growing practice in New York, along with polygamy, as we saw last week.
What does all this have to do with Boosh? Again, Boosh has not voiced a peep about the crimes of Red China. In fact, he sometimes calls it an “ally.” He visits Red China and makes generalized comments for the record about the benefits of “freedom.” Then he climbs back into Air Force One and flies home. He thereby collaborates in those crimes he fails to mention.
Too much is enough! We have long since passed the point at which continued collaboration makes Boosh an accessory. We are talking about something akin to the Nazi Holocaust. What could Boosh do short of nuclear war? Remember what the West did to Rhodesia and South Africa?
When the decision was made that those countries would be the next to fall to the Communists, the West, with Washington heading the pack, turned them into international pariahs. The District of Criminals focused every conceivable pressure on them, from financial to military to agricultural, etc. Everything that could be cut off was cut off. World government forces expressed animus for Gary Player, because the champion golfer inconveniently came from South Africa. Washington kept up the pressure until those countries fell.
Yes, but those countries are relatively small. Could such tactics work against a behemoth the size of Red China? I don't know. I do know that Red China exists only because of the United States and is as big and powerful as it is only because of the United States. I do know that we have not passed the so-called point of no return – the point at which we no longer could do something to take it down – because when and if we do reach that point the Reds will launch a nuclear attack against us. The fact that they have not means that they are not yet able to do so.
So, we have nothing to lose by giving Red China the Rhodesia treatment. Whatever we do would make such an attack correspondingly less likely than the suicidal policy we are implementing now. But that change could only happen were Americans miraculously running our government.
I recognize that I am merely hypothesizing ineffectually; there is as much chance that Washington will reverse our policy on Red China as there is that Boosh will convert to Christianity. He is a monster. Yes, it is not your fault, but, meanwhile, consider what your purchase is financing the next time you buy something made in Red China.
George W. Bush is the moral equivalent of a bestial psychopath, a serial killer who specializes in dismemberment. He is a monster and whatever else like it you can say. And the latest proof of that comes out of China. Regular readers know that, like most of the threats we face today, Red China was created by the United States. Without the intervention of the District of Criminals and our Communist media, Red China would have never been born.
Soviet tool George C. Marshall boasted that with a “stroke of the pen” he had disarmed 39 Republic of China divisions, refusing to send arms to those divisions voted for them by the Congress, the same thing Washington did to South Vietnam and now is trying to do to our own military in Iraq. Media here constantly characterized Mao Tse-tung as an avuncular Chinese version of Abraham Lincoln. The Chinese government, our longest, most loyal ally in the Far East, fell. Mao became the biggest mass murderer in the history of the planet. See America's Retreat From Victory, by Senator Joe McCarthy.
It was Socialist con man Richard Nixon who “opened the door” to Communist-occupied China. Socialist con man Bill Clinton took the door off its hinges. Red China says the United States is the “main enemy,” but Clinton committed treason by doing everything he could to build its military and nuclear capability.
And Communist world government traitor Jorge W. Boosh has continued Clinton's policy. Do you not need to look long and hard today to find things not made in Red China, from shoes to clothing to light bulbs? Are not companies closing here and reopening in Red China?
All that is the result of the Bush/Clinton policy. General Motors used to be an American company with foreign branches. Now it is a Red Chinese company with American branches. Federal tax and fiscal policy is driving American companies out of this country and into Red China.
There are other results. The Bush/Clinton policy has given Red Chinese mob bosses the idea that they can get away with just about anything, because they can. Early in the Bush regime, Red China committed a literal act of war against the United States, by attacking a U.S. Navy plane, forcing it down and imprisoning its crew. Jorge W. Boosh did absolutely nothing. The recent kidnapping of British marines in Iran was just a replay of what Red China did.
The Red Chinese have threatened to nuke Los Angeles. They were caught smuggling hundreds of automatic weapons to American traitors for use in a violent revolution. Remember, there never would have been a Red Chinese threat had the Conspiracy for world government not duplicitously created it in the first place.
Communist-occupied China is of course one of the world's biggest Christian countries. Before long, it could be the biggest. There are more Christians in Red China than there are in the United Kingdom. They meet in home churches. The Reds routinely torture and lock them up. It is Red China and the continuing Soviet Union that are the real international threat to the United States. Iran is an annoying pimple.
And in a scenario that smells like Dr. Mengele and his Nazis, the Red Chinese now harvest organs—from living human beings in political prisons—for lucrative transplant surgery. Do you need a kidney or a liver? Get on the plane to Red China. You know all that. You also know that el presidente Jorge W. Boosh, who loves to cross-dress as a tough guy, has never done diddledy squat about any of it.
But now comes the latest occasion for these comments. Next Magazine, a weekly out of Hong Kong, reports that the latest delicacy in Communist-occupied China is the expertly prepared corpse of a baby. No, you're not going crazy; you did read what you thought I just said. People in Red China now are cannibalizing humans. In China, you can even buy choice body parts from the hospitals.
The story appears in the Epoch Times, which says that Next Magazine got wind of it in Taiwan, where a businessman hosted a banquet. There, a servant named Liu from Liaoning Province on the mainland inadvertently revealed the cannibalistic practice and her intention to return to participate in it for health reasons. The Taiwanese women present at the banquet were horrified.
The magazine asked the servant to escort a reporter to a location where he could see a baby being prepared and she did so. The reporter saw a woman chopping up a male “fetus” and making soup from the placenta. The butcher told observers, “Don't be afraid, this is just the flesh of a higher animal.”
Epoch Times says that on March 22, 2003, police in Bingyan, Guangxi Province seized 28 female babies smuggled in a truck from Yulin, Guangxi Province going to Houzhou in Anhui Province. The oldest baby was only three months old. The babies were packed three or four to a bag and many of them were near death No one claimed them.
On the morning of October 9, 2004, someone rifling through the garbage on the outskirts of Jiuquan city in the Suzhou region, found dismembered babies in a dumpster. There were two heads, two torsos, four arms, and six legs. According to the investigation, the corpses were no more than a week old and they had been dismembered after cooking.
Red China does have laws that prohibit the eating of human flesh, but it also has a law that limits each couple to only one child. The law is strictly enforced, and it motivates couples to kill girl babies until they get a boy. Second babies and so on are forcibly aborted. The result is many baby corpses that can be cooked and eaten.
Is this story from the mainland true? Or is it a concoction? In modern warfare, one side routinely accuses the other of doing something like this. In the first Gulf War, Kuwait accused the invading Iraqis of throwing babies in hospital incubators on the floor, which turned out to be utterly false.
But, remember that Mao Tse-tung killed more people than anyone else in history, even more than Stalin. Hitler was in power for only 12 years; he did not have the time to kill anywhere near as many as did Mao. Organ harvesting is a logical part of his legacy, and we know that Red China does it.
So, the possibility that infant cannibalism is widespread on the Chinese mainland also is a possible element of the monstrous legacy of Mao. And we have nothing to boast about. Remember that because Jorge W. Boosh is bringing Muslims here from Africa, Islamic clitorectomy – female genital mutilation – is a growing practice in New York, along with polygamy, as we saw last week.
What does all this have to do with Boosh? Again, Boosh has not voiced a peep about the crimes of Red China. In fact, he sometimes calls it an “ally.” He visits Red China and makes generalized comments for the record about the benefits of “freedom.” Then he climbs back into Air Force One and flies home. He thereby collaborates in those crimes he fails to mention.
Too much is enough! We have long since passed the point at which continued collaboration makes Boosh an accessory. We are talking about something akin to the Nazi Holocaust. What could Boosh do short of nuclear war? Remember what the West did to Rhodesia and South Africa?
When the decision was made that those countries would be the next to fall to the Communists, the West, with Washington heading the pack, turned them into international pariahs. The District of Criminals focused every conceivable pressure on them, from financial to military to agricultural, etc. Everything that could be cut off was cut off. World government forces expressed animus for Gary Player, because the champion golfer inconveniently came from South Africa. Washington kept up the pressure until those countries fell.
Yes, but those countries are relatively small. Could such tactics work against a behemoth the size of Red China? I don't know. I do know that Red China exists only because of the United States and is as big and powerful as it is only because of the United States. I do know that we have not passed the so-called point of no return – the point at which we no longer could do something to take it down – because when and if we do reach that point the Reds will launch a nuclear attack against us. The fact that they have not means that they are not yet able to do so.
So, we have nothing to lose by giving Red China the Rhodesia treatment. Whatever we do would make such an attack correspondingly less likely than the suicidal policy we are implementing now. But that change could only happen were Americans miraculously running our government.
I recognize that I am merely hypothesizing ineffectually; there is as much chance that Washington will reverse our policy on Red China as there is that Boosh will convert to Christianity. He is a monster. Yes, it is not your fault, but, meanwhile, consider what your purchase is financing the next time you buy something made in Red China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
