Monday, June 30, 2008
Explosure and Not Giving Up
Iran is a hot spot and a notorious contention in the Middle East. AFP from Sunday on June 29, 2008 reported on Congress approving of George W. Bush's covert operation in Iran. The cost of this approval from last year is worth 400 million dollars. It's no secret that America is escalating heir clanderstine (or secret) operations in Iran. For example, the U.S. aided Iranian terrorist group called the MEK to formet tensions in Iran. Back in the 1950's, Operation Ajax exists. It was done to control Iran's oil supply that was nationalized by then Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. The Pahlavi dynasty and the dicatator of the Shah was then sponsored by the West (Walter Bedell Smith said that the CIA united with the Qashqai tribal leaders in Southern Iran in order to have a secret safe haven where U.S. funded guerillas and intelligence agents could operate). You can make the case that America is fighting Iran now with its special operations going on in Iran now. . They want to destabilize Iran's religious leadership and prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. Tehran has increased its power in the Middle East especially after the Iraq War. Iran is made up of mostly non-Arabic people, because Iranians are related to the Europeans plus their language etymology is Indo-European. The Indo-European language is the root of Latin and the English language. Although, Arabic tribes readily have intermarriage in Iran. Seymour Hersh wrote about the United States performing secret operations in Iran for years. Hersh cite these methods as including increased U.S. support for minority and dissident groups plus intelligence gathers. These actions have expanded and they involve the the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Under law, The Presidential Firing is to be issued when the President allows covert operations to commence. To this day, many neo cons like Byran York overexaggerate Iran's percieved threat. They act like Iran is about to strike Isreal at any moment, which isn't the case at all. Some like Ray McGovern claim that the governments of America and Israel are seeking a war with Iran. The reality is that the vast majority of Jewish people reject the Iraq War as shouldn't be done and the prospect of fighting in Iran. There are many Jewish organizations other than the pro-neo con in foreign policy affairs AIPAC group that desires a rational approach in handling the issues in the Middle East. Hence, those who want an Iranian war in Israel should be criticized, yet all Americans plus all Israelis aren't monolithic in their thinking about what to do with Iran. American General Fallon left the administration because he adamantly oppose a possible war in Iraq.
Charles Key in Oklahoma is trying to make a difference. He is from the Oklahoma's House of Representatives. He believes that the federal government is acquiring too much power over the state government of Oklahoma. The Joint House Resolution 1089 was passed 92-3. This resolution reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignity under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that any power that isn't specifically outlined in the Constitution dealing with the federal government is reserved for the states and the people of the United States of America. In other words, the federal government is limited in what it can and can't do. Lately, the federal government's power has increased so much that even some liberals have been critical of some new found powers of the federal government like NSA warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act. Key wants all of the federal government to be placed on notice that it can't have super large powers in the mold of a Big Brother police state. Oklahoma is a place where the new world order has a huge history. For example, it's well known now that the FBI infiltrated Elohim City where the white supremacists there had a role in the OKC bombing. Also, the SPLC was caught monitoring Elohim City as well. Tim McVeigh is known to be a military operative. There is tons of evidence of explosive devices in the OKC Building, which would be impossible to have been caused by McVeigh's truck alone. Lately, the federal government has gone too far in their powers. For example, our police and local entities are being federalized in a rapid pace. The government is trying to have eminent domain across the country. This venture into the violation of our privacy and encorporates too much surveillance in our lives. Parental rights are under assault all of the time. World Net Daily wrote about the case of the 8 year old boy. This boy was taken while he was playing outside his Colorado home by the police and social workers. Later, these people informed his parents why they did this. A report from Denver Post columnist Susan Greene documented the case of Josh Raykin. Josh was eventually released and returned to his parents after being held in county custody for a week without communication with his parents. At the resolution, Greene reported that a judge decided that there was no reason to believe the allegations of abuse. In a nutshell, Josh was kidnapped by social workers and the police. Josh Raykin wasn't even allowed to talk to his parents at all. The parents' cousins made the allegation whom the family hadn't seen for months. The cousins were placed into foster care because of abuse allegations in their own immediate family. The ordeal began when Josh was playing outside one day before dinner in April. A neighbor knocked on the door to tell his dad that the police came to take Josh away. Michael and Melanie Rykin are the parents of Josh. Josh was hungry and was hyperventilating. The social worker didn't even tell the parents or the aunt nearby where he was taking Josh. The foster family made Josh wash the toilet and took away his supplies. Of course, the parents didn't molest their son. If authorities can grab innocent children off the street from this family, they can achieve this to any family. It's a must that we should know our rights and get a great lawyer if something like this happens to you. The Supreme Court decision's on the Second Amendment certainly took America by storm. The decision was partly correct that individuals have a right to bear arms, but the decision didn't stop the over regulations against innocent citizens from owning guns if they desire. Juan Williams was angry over the decision, which I didn't understand. Juan William appears weekly at the FOX News Sunday program. That program is hosted by Chris Wallace. Juan is a liberal, but what does Juan want people to do in Washington, D.C. If no one but police officers have guns, only criminals and violent gangs will have them. There is nothing wrong with citizens owning a gun in the privacy of their own homes. The essence of this nation isn't about stripping libery via going around and banning guns. It's about individual liberty. The NRA is trying to place lawsuits in cities like Chicago and San Francisco because of their excessive restrictions on firearm usage. Rachel Parsons is a spokeswoman and is dedicated to targeting these cities and other locations. The NRA rank and file members and sincere, but the leadership of the NRA have been compromised for years now. The NRA once supported a pro-gun control Democrat. Far too often, large urban cities either deprive or unfairly the gun rights of Americans. The battle for real gun rights isn't over. Yet, at least for now no government in America can overtly ban citizens from own firearms unless they violate the Supreme Court decision. If you want to see authentic Second Amendment groups look at the literature of the Gun owners of America and Aaron Zelman's Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Organization or the JFPO.
TBN or the Trinity Broadcasting Network is one of the biggest networks in favor of the Ecumencial Movement and the World Faith Movement. I soon learned it had many deceptive preachers. They include Paul Crouch who called himself a little god, Benny Hinn who said that the Godhead had nine parts, and Kenneth Copeland. Copeland outlined a belief that God had the same size as Adam (he also outlined God as the biggest failure in the Universe, which is blasphemy). Therefore, it doesn't suprise me that pagan imagery are in TBN and many of the preachers supporting that network are members of Secret Societies. Paul Crouch is known to have yolked with the Papacy in their goal of ecumencialism (The Jesuits have a huge role in Ecumencialism). There is even a picture of Matt Crouch shaking hands with then Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square in Rome. Crouch is known to support false doctrine by promoting sites made by John Hampsch and Michael Dubruiel. This apostacy isn't immune to TBN. Many churches are witnessing apostacy and the One World Religion agenda. For example, the Rockefellers and the WCC are at the forefront of trying to develop a one world religious framework. Even groups like some Baptists and some Presbyterians have caught wind of compromise like accepting the prosperity gospel and refusing to preach about real, serious issues. Unitarians who embrace Universialism and Hindu like beliefs have infiltrated once Christian invented Universities like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. That's why many seminaries and Bible schools today constantly attack the word of God's authenticity and accuracy. The good news is that many preachers and church members are waking up. Some are taking action in their own communities like preaching, assisting those who are poor, showing literature to people, educating citizens, and a wide sprectrum of things.
The Presidential race is heating up. Jesuit trained Georgetown University member Bill Clinton still possesses some tensions with Barack Obama. Reports according to the London Telegraph show that Bill Clinton is so bitter about Obama's victory over his wife that he wants Barack to beg for his wholehearted support. Recently, Hillary Clinton met with Barack Obama in a huge rally. They praise each other and seek to attempt to make Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America. Hillary seems more meek and conciliatory to Obama than Bill is. The Telegraph commented that Bill Clinton's anger is so great that some of his allies are shoked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama. They feel that Bill is risking damaging his reputation. According to a senior Democrat who worked for Bill Clinton he said that he told friends that Barack Obama will have to suck up to him in a profane way in order to strongly support him. Another source says that Bill has kept his distance with Obama because he believes that Barack Obama will not win the election. News media like those in MSNBC say that Bill is angry that Obama protrayed him as a racist. It's a known fact that Bill Clinton said the N word as late as the late 1990's in a hurtful manner. CNN reported that Bill Clinton had a "terrific" meeting with Barack Obama. Witnesses including security and other associates recall these incidents of Bill saying degoratory language. That's how many elitists are behind closed doors. Many of them may front some "tolerant" image, but they want depopulation (like Ted Turner), global taxes, and other anti-liberty perspectives. As for John McCain, it will be a long race with him. Many are legitimately exposing his pro-war rhetoric which in some ways in more extreme than Bush, especially in terms of Iran. Bush and McCain are trying to target battleground states in the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West for the election. Third parties are still fighting as well. Both McCain and Obama have been caught flip flopping on many issues.
Pro Life News are a common occurence in American society. Adult stem cells have created many treatments and cures under their belt. This is beyond what embryonic stem cels have done. Embryonic stem cells involves the killing of human life and it can cause tumors and immune system rejection. There are tons of examples of treatments from adult stem cells. For example, Dr. Richard Burt with a team of Brazilian doctors led a groundbreaking study that used adult stem cell to reverse Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes in patients. It was reported in JAMA at March 11, 2007. Amy Daniels was treated with adult stem cells for Systemic Scleroderma. Jill Rosen was treated with adult stem cells for a lupus like disorder. Barry Goudy was successfully treated with adult stem cells for Multiple Sclerosis. Still after all of the benefits, some still want to kill human beings in order to try to "help" human beings like Sharon Begley. Begley just obsess with bashing Bush. It's true that legtimate criticism against George W. Bush is fine. Yet, if you only do that and continue obfuscating the truth about vital issues in this country, then you are no better than the neo-conservatives proposing a preemptive strike against Iran. Begley was false to say that all iPs cells cause tumors. The truth is that some new iPS cells can be without using a virus at all. Now, scientists at Scripps Research Institute in California and the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in Germany have been able to use drugs instead of viruses to turn brain cells from an adult back into embryonic-like stem cells. iPs cells are adult stem cells that researchers have been able to convert to an embryonic state without the destruction of human life. In February, Yamanaka announced his team found a way to grow the cells without inducing tumors. Therefore, in my mind, there is no excuse to support embryonic stem cell research because alternatives already exist that you don't need ESCs for health improvement of human beings.
Propaganda, Mind Control, and the Truth should be known among the populace. For thousands of years, elites tried mind control and propaganda to get the people into line. 2 easy modern examples of this are popular culture and the Iraq War. Popular culture shown all sorts of sounds, music, and imagery for not just the increase of monetary profits. Some want to stir society to accept moral relativism, excessive materialism, and the breakdown of the social mores. It isn't just in the music industry. Various television shows outline the same thing. The famous 21st century show of "24" gave a positive depiction of torture, the war on terror, and extreme methods of accomphlishing duties. This of course can shift some in the public sympathy toward torture techniques against human beings. Frankily, torture is never justified at all. This is nothing new. Back decades ago, China, the then Soviet Union, and the United States had brainwashing programs. CIA Director Allen Dulles promoted propaganda techniques and he worked with Dr. Harold Wolff about it. Later, the CIA including the federal government created MK Ultra, ARTICHOKE, and other programs about using drugs and shock techniques in manipulating the human brain's activities. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron. Dr. Cameron claimed that he can create differential amnesia. With biometrics and other technical feets, I'm sure programs exist to this day about manipulating people. The deal is that we need to be independent. We should reject anything for anyone to forcibly put biochips into our bodies. Technology is like a two edged sword. It can be utilized for good and evil purposes. We have to make sure that technology is maintained for just purposes now and for the future. Domestic Spying and civil liberties are an oxymoron. David Edwards from the Raw Story on Sunday, at June 29, 2008 explained a story by MSNBC's Alex Witt. She talked to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff talked about a new proposal by the Bush adminitration to use satellites for domestic surveillance. Isikoff told MSNBC that the Homeland Security Department is talking about expanding the program by utilizing military satellites in order to achieve domestic operations. Civil liberties issues exist about this. The reason is that strict limit the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement purposes. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the military from acting in a law enforcement role like a local police officer. Some of these satellites are so precise, that they can capture crystal clear images of a car leaving a studio. These images are caught in computer databases in the government computer databases. This makes a violation of the Fourth Amendment, because it can potentially look at innocent citizens. Also, this plan is expanding government spying system for domestic reasons. The government claims it wants to track areas in national disasters. Yet, some view it as tracking more than that. Programs similar to this have been present in the government for many decades. For example, many cars have Onstar on them which can track where you drive. Some locations tax on how far you drive. A Maryland school district attempt to forcibly vaccinate young children.
Symbolism and information about the Secret Societies are common place. Many authors and researchers have exposed them. They exist in many forms and shapes. Jordan Maxwell was one of the first researchers who explained and exposed specific forms of symbolism present in a variety of spheres of the world. Symbols typicaly have multiple levels of meanings. For example, the cadeaus is a medical symbol, it look similar to the double helix structure of DNA, and it relates to Hermes (the pagan god of learning and knowledge). The caduceus is made up of many parts.There is the staff represeting the authority in the hands of the messengers. The wings relate to the wand of Hermes or Mercury. The snake has many meanings like wisdom. Serpents are praised in the ancient world from Egypt to ancient China. Gnosticism is an easy example of a religiou group where the serpent represents Sophia. Sophia is the feminine representative of the divine that helps mankind. In the book of Genesis, the serpent is classified as evil and called Satan. Now, in the occult, there is a feminine and a masculine to equate completion in Nature and the Universe. This is one of the meanings of the Square and Compass emblem in Freemasonry. Freemasons like Albert Pike and JD Buck. Mason JD Buck goes as far as saying that the only personal God in Freemasonry is Humanity itself. Of course, that's blasphemy. Now, I agree with Jordan Maxwell on many issues and disagree with him on others. What's interesting is that he said that the Vatican rules the world. An example Willam Cooper uses about that is that back in the ancient times, the kings didn't really rule the land. The priesthood did (that's why the priests controlled the religious spheres and some praised Sirius) and to this day our priesthod now (the occutists, Secret Societies, and the controlled religious elite) have some power even above and beyond the geo-poitical elite today. Jordan Maxwell has exposed the Jesuit Order, who have a nefarious history. The Vatican/Jesuit network is the most power religious group in the world with connections to the Bush family, kings, Presidents, the UN, and the EU. I don't subscribe to the Vatican or Freemasonry believe they embrace false doctrines, have a nefarious history, and embrace secrecy to cover up their real histories plus tenets. The Scriptures are clear that we do nothing in secret and we don't swear death oaths at all (especially those that take the Lord's name in vain). There is nothing wrong with believing in one God, but we have right to disagree with the controlled establishment trying to manipulate our thinking. It's important to expose all evil organizations. The truth wil come out.
By Timothy
Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding Of Terrorists In Iran
From http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/300608Iran_Covert.htm
Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding Of Terrorists In Iran
Military, intelligence, and congressional sources say secret war is vamped to bring down Iranian leadership
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, June 30, 2008
Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed a move by the Bush administration, with Congressional backing, which represents a "major escalation" in covert military operations aimed at destabilizing the Iranian leadership.
Hersh also details how The CIA and the United States Special Operations Forces have long-standing ties to the PEJAK, the outlawed breakaway faction of the PKK terrorist group in Iran, as well as other Sunni fundamentalists that former intelligence officials say "can also be described as Al Qaeda."
Hersh describes how the neocon White House has vamped up secret efforts to work with the same terrorist groups that were once populated with figures such as Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was fingered as one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks.
"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money," Hersh reveals, quoting an unnamed "person familiar with its contents."
Congress, under Democratic leadership, approved a $400 million request for funding late last year, according to Hersh's sources, military, intelligence, and congressional officials with direct knowledge of the top secret Presidential Finding, which by law must be issued when covert intelligence operations get underway.
The corporate media has somewhat downplayed the revelations, which essentially highlight once again how the so called "war on terror" is a complete fiction, as US elites are funding Sunni extremists intent on destroying the Shiite Iranian leadership.
Hersh spoke about the article in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley:
“Well, one of the basic points is no matter what we say about diplomacy, you know, carrot and stick, the stick is working pretty hard and the stick is working overtime. This president did escalate the secret war inside Iran. We’ve been doing stuff inside Iran since ‘05 pretty heavily, Looking at the nuclear facilities, collecting intelligence and trying to undermine the regime, et cetera, et cetera but there was a significant escalation this year.” Hersh said.
“They got a great deal of authorization to spend up to $400 million. That doesn’t mean he’s spent it all yet but he’s got that kind of authorization. The secret committees — anyone who saw “Charlie Wilson’s war,” — Charlie Wilson was able to generate a lot of money secretly. That’s what happens in Congress and the other major thing is we’ve sent in a special task force that operates out of Afghanistan into Iran.”
“I did notice what Ambassador Crocker said about ‘not cross-border’ and I have a lot of respect for him and I don’t want to challenge him. But the fact is were inside but not necessarily cross-border. We have teams inside Iran. These include joint special operations forces, the most elite commando units and basically they’re guys go after high-value targets around the world. They capture them or kill them so it’s a significant increase in American potential for damage inside Iran.”
Hersh went on to state that one of the reasons former Commander of the U.S. Central Command Admiral Fallen was forced out and purged by the Bush administration was that he was unable to find out the full scope of clandestine operations inside Iran. Hersh also stated that the endgame for Bush and Cheney is to ensure that they do not leave office without first having eliminated Iran's nuclear program, whether that be by attacking the country or forcing regime change inside the country.
Watch the full interview:
(Article continues below)
We have previously carried reports of how the US and Britain are already at war with Iran, have been at war with Iran for a number of years now and are funding anti-Iranian terrorist groups inside Iran in preparation for the fallout that will occur after overt military action is commenced.
High ranking CIA officials, Defense department officials, former UN officials and retired US air force Colonels have gone on record with the specific details.
In an article entitled The US war with Iran has already begun, written back in June 2005, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter described how intelligence gathering, direct action and the mobilizing of indigenous opposition is all being carried out already by CIA backed US special forces.
Ritter stated:
As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.
But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.
As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
Ritter goes on to describe how Iranian opposition groups, including the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations, are carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
He also describes how to the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Ritter is not alone in his assertions.
During an interview on CNN in 2006, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner claimed that U.S. military operations were already 'underway' inside Iran.
"I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way," Col. Gardiner told CNN International anchor Jim Clancy.
"The secretary point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year," Gardiner said. "I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, 'Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.' He said, quite frankly, 'Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans,'" said the retired Air Force colonel.
The full seven minute CNN segment can be viewed below:
Around the same time that Gardiner revealed this, RAW story ran an exclusive, which also revealed that, according to counterintelligence officials, covert operations were underway that included CIA co-option and use of right wing terror groups:
“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.
“These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”
The MEK were notorious in Iraq, indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.
MEK has been linked with numerous bombings inside Iran over the course of the last few years. The organization has also killed U.S. troops and civilians since the 70's, yet the Bush cabal continues to fund them.
According to Global Security.org, "In the early 1970s, angered by U.S. support for the pro-Western shah, MEK members killed several U.S. soldiers and civilians working on defense projects in Iran. MEK members also supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days."
The claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."
More recently, this May, the Iranian Intelligence Ministry busted a CIA-backed terror group that was planning to bomb scientific, educational, and religious centers, and carry out assassinations, according to a report in the Tehran Times. The arrests came weeks after Ret. Gen. Thomas McInerney urged the U.S. to carry out terror bombings in Iran.
McInerney publicly called for the U.S. government to support groups like MEK and carry out deadly bombings in Iran:
Here’s what I would suggest to you. Number one, we take the National Council for Resistance to Iran off the terrorist list that the Clinton Administration put them on as well as the Mujahedin-e Khalq at the Camp Ashraf in Iraq," said McInerney.
"Then I would start a tit-for-tat strategy which I wrote up in the Wall Street Journal a year ago: For every EFP that goes off and kills Americans, two go off in Iran. No questions asked. People don’t have to know how it was done. It’s a covert action. They become the most unlucky country in the world," he added.
Top Neo-Cons have been calling for the US to back terror groups in Iran and other reports clearly indicate that this program has already been in place for years.
Last November, Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade openly called for US support for acts of terrorism, such as car bombings, in Tehran. Colonel David Hunt, who has over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations, agreed with Kilmeade, stating "absolutely" in response to Kilmead's question about whether cars should start blowing up in Tehran.
Another Iranian-based terror group that the Bush administration is already funding as a means of regime change in Iran is Jundullah - a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported last year.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
As Seymour Hersh himself also reported back in 2004, U.S. intelligence and Israel’s Mossad are busy at work stirring up trouble in Iran in preparation for an attack on that country. In early 2005, the Guardian reported that “American special forces have been on the ground inside Iran scouting for US air strike targets for suspected nuclear weapons sites."
If this all sounds a little familiar, it's because it is. The fact is that the US has a long history of provocation and covert action inside Iran.
The In 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX), a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran's hugely lucrative oil infrastructure.
In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force incase the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of the chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.
The conspiracy centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mossadegh and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be pro-British.
Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.
“If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah’s brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics,” Ibrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister and leading member of a political party that traces its origins to Mossadegh’s National Front, told the Christian Science Monitor on the 50th anniversary of the coup and installation of the Shah. “Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again. That shows they have not learned anything from history.”
“For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth,” Dan De Luce writes for the Guardian. “Beyond Iran, America remains deeply resented for siding with authoritarian rule in the region.”
Alex Jones's latest film Terrorstorm covers the ousting of Mossadegh in depth.
After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the US again found itself sparring with Iran. Again we find a history of provocation and aggression. In particular, a fierce assault known as Operation Praying Mantis, is renowned. The operation began after a US warship had entered mined Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.
From Wikipedia:
On April 14 1988, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while sailing in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks. The explosion put a 25-foot hole in the Roberts' hull and nearly sank it. But the crew saved their ship with no loss of life, and Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 16.
After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. When the serial numbers were found to match those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September, U.S. military officials planned a retaliatory operation against Iranian targets in the Gulf.
The battle, the largest for American surface forces since World War II,[1] sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats. It also marked the first surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.
The US also attacked and destroyed several Iranian oil platforms in a full out military assault. At the time the Chicago Sun Times reported:
U.S. naval forces on Monday attacked Iranian targets in the Persian Gulf to show the Iranians that "if they threaten us, they'll pay a price," President Reagan said.
In fighting conducted over nine hours, the U.S. forces knocked out two Iranian oil platforms, and then sank or disabled a fast-attack missile patrol boat, two frigates, and three speedboats when Iran attempted to fight back.
Note Reagan's comments. Hence the name 'Operation Praying Mantis' was a reference to the fanning of the wings used to make the mantis seem larger and to scare the opponent.
On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice dismissed Iran's claim for reparation against the United States for breach of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. The court also dismissed a counter-claim by the United States, also for reparation for breach of the same treaty. As part of its finding the court did note that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and 18 April 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."
The fallout of Praying Mantis also resulted in the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian civilian commercial airliner, Iran air flight 665, between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down.
According to the U.S. government, the Iranian aircraft was mistakenly identified as an attacking military fighter. The Iranian government, however, maintains that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft.
According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.
Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles wrote that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report accused the U.S. government of a cover-up. An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.
George H.W. Bush, at the time Vice President said "I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are" in reference to the incident.
The BBC later reported:
It took four years for the US administration to admit officially that the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the skirmish took place with the Iranian gunboats. Subsequent investigations have accused the US military of waging a covert war against Iran in support of Iraq. In February 1996 the US agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed, plus the cost of the aircraft and legal expenses.
So we see that Britain and the US have a long history of covert action against and provocation of Iran in their bid to aggressively control the region. Nothing has changed.
Robert Mugabe henchmen backed by Barclays
Robert Mugabe henchmen backed by Barclays
Insight
From The Sunday TimesJune 29, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4232283.ece
Jonathan Calvert and Maurice Gerard
Barclays is flouting European Union sanctions on Zimbabwe by providing two of President Robert Mugabe’s most senior henchmen with bank accounts.
Both men are named on an EU blacklist that compels European-based financial institutions to freeze their bank accounts and have no dealings with them.
Barclays has been able to get around the sanctions by persuading the UK Treasury that the rules do not apply to its 67%-owned Zimbabwean subsidiary because it was incorporated outside the EU.
The two henchmen have been heavily involved in the regime’s crackdown, which in effect fixed Friday’s presidential election in favour of Mugabe. They are Elliot Manyika, minister without portfolio, who is a key figure in the recent violence, and Nicholas Goche, minister of public service, who is said to have masterminded attacks on white farmers.
Yesterday Kate Hoey MP, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe, said Barclays had a moral responsibility to comply with at least the spirit of the sanctions.
“It is reprehensible that Barclays is still prepared to offer [the two ministers] bank accounts . . . [the bank is] using intricacies of incorporation overseas as a means of sanction-busting in order to service Mugabe’s brutal henchmen,” she said.
Zimbabwe’s human rights abuses have made it a pariah state and the 84-year-old Mugabe’s attempts to maintain his 28-year grip on power have drawn international criticism.
In the run-up to the election, Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party is alleged to have carried out attacks that left more than 80 political opponents dead and caused Morgan Tsvangirai, the rival presidential candidate, to withdraw.
The EU sanctions were first imposed when Mugabe attempted to rig his 2002 presidential campaign. A blacklist was produced naming senior politicians whose funds – such as “deposits with financial institutions” – were to be frozen. The sanctions make clear: “No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of [people on the blacklist].”
However, both Manyika and Goche – who have been on the list since 2002 – told The Sunday Times they have held accounts with Barclays for some time. They could have used the bank to transfer funds out of the country, avoiding the hyperinflation that has made Zimbabwe’s currency almost worthless.
Both ministers have fearsome reputations. They are based in the country’s northeastern Mashonaland region, which has been the focal point of government violence since the first presidential poll on March 29.
Manyika is Zanu-PF’s national commissar directing Mugabe’s election campaign. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party claims Manyika told supporters at a rally in May to beat up opponents. The MDC says that, in addition to the deaths, 10,000 people have been injured and 200,000 have been displaced from their homes. Manyika is also understood to have instructed the police to turn a blind eye when opposition supporters were being attacked.
Manyika has been accused of orchestrating the burning-down of four opposition members’ houses. He was also implicated in the shooting of an opposition demonstrator during a rally outside Harare. Court documents revealed he had ordered a supporter to shoot into the crowd.
Goche is a former national security minister who ran Mugabe’s infamous Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO). He was heavily involved in the “land reform” policy that left thousands of white and black farmers without their livelihood.
At the height of the evictions in 2000, Goche was accused of being the planner of violent farm invasions by bands of so-called war veterans. He was also behind for a leaked CIO document, entitled Solution to the White Problem, which aimed to drive whites from Zimbabwe.
Earlier this month Goche announced that humanitarian agencies would be suspended from operating in the country – a ruinous development for many of the 4m people who depend on food aid. It was believed to be a ploy to enable Zanu-PF to control food supplies to hungry villagers ahead of the election.
Barclays, which faced criticism for operating in South Africa during the apartheid years, has remained one of only a handful of banks with extensive operations in Zimbabwe. It has been operating in Zimbabwe through a subsidiary company for almost a century and has recently been opening branches there.
Last November The Sunday Times revealed that the bank had contributed millions in loans to a scheme that was used by Mugabe to fund cronies given land seized from white farmers.
Internal Foreign Office and Treasury e-mails – acquired under freedom of information laws by Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP – show there was little enthusiasm for intervening against Barclays at that time.
Initially, officials drafted a statement saying they believed it “morally” wrong for Barclays to make farm loans to members of Mugabe’s regime but this line was quashed. The word “investigating” was also removed in case it might result in what an official described as a “whoops there go the money markets” incident.
In the end Treasury solicitors ruled that the Barclays subsidiary did not come under the EU sanctions scheme because it was incorporated in Zimbabwe.
On Friday Barclays issued a statement saying: “[Barclays] services are critically relied upon by many of the 135,000 customers for their day-to-day operations to maintain access to banking and employment, with a benefit to the wider community. This continued presence brings the benefit of avoiding additional hardship [to that] already being experienced within the country.”
Insight
From The Sunday TimesJune 29, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4232283.ece
Jonathan Calvert and Maurice Gerard
Barclays is flouting European Union sanctions on Zimbabwe by providing two of President Robert Mugabe’s most senior henchmen with bank accounts.
Both men are named on an EU blacklist that compels European-based financial institutions to freeze their bank accounts and have no dealings with them.
Barclays has been able to get around the sanctions by persuading the UK Treasury that the rules do not apply to its 67%-owned Zimbabwean subsidiary because it was incorporated outside the EU.
The two henchmen have been heavily involved in the regime’s crackdown, which in effect fixed Friday’s presidential election in favour of Mugabe. They are Elliot Manyika, minister without portfolio, who is a key figure in the recent violence, and Nicholas Goche, minister of public service, who is said to have masterminded attacks on white farmers.
Yesterday Kate Hoey MP, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe, said Barclays had a moral responsibility to comply with at least the spirit of the sanctions.
“It is reprehensible that Barclays is still prepared to offer [the two ministers] bank accounts . . . [the bank is] using intricacies of incorporation overseas as a means of sanction-busting in order to service Mugabe’s brutal henchmen,” she said.
Zimbabwe’s human rights abuses have made it a pariah state and the 84-year-old Mugabe’s attempts to maintain his 28-year grip on power have drawn international criticism.
In the run-up to the election, Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party is alleged to have carried out attacks that left more than 80 political opponents dead and caused Morgan Tsvangirai, the rival presidential candidate, to withdraw.
The EU sanctions were first imposed when Mugabe attempted to rig his 2002 presidential campaign. A blacklist was produced naming senior politicians whose funds – such as “deposits with financial institutions” – were to be frozen. The sanctions make clear: “No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of [people on the blacklist].”
However, both Manyika and Goche – who have been on the list since 2002 – told The Sunday Times they have held accounts with Barclays for some time. They could have used the bank to transfer funds out of the country, avoiding the hyperinflation that has made Zimbabwe’s currency almost worthless.
Both ministers have fearsome reputations. They are based in the country’s northeastern Mashonaland region, which has been the focal point of government violence since the first presidential poll on March 29.
Manyika is Zanu-PF’s national commissar directing Mugabe’s election campaign. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party claims Manyika told supporters at a rally in May to beat up opponents. The MDC says that, in addition to the deaths, 10,000 people have been injured and 200,000 have been displaced from their homes. Manyika is also understood to have instructed the police to turn a blind eye when opposition supporters were being attacked.
Manyika has been accused of orchestrating the burning-down of four opposition members’ houses. He was also implicated in the shooting of an opposition demonstrator during a rally outside Harare. Court documents revealed he had ordered a supporter to shoot into the crowd.
Goche is a former national security minister who ran Mugabe’s infamous Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO). He was heavily involved in the “land reform” policy that left thousands of white and black farmers without their livelihood.
At the height of the evictions in 2000, Goche was accused of being the planner of violent farm invasions by bands of so-called war veterans. He was also behind for a leaked CIO document, entitled Solution to the White Problem, which aimed to drive whites from Zimbabwe.
Earlier this month Goche announced that humanitarian agencies would be suspended from operating in the country – a ruinous development for many of the 4m people who depend on food aid. It was believed to be a ploy to enable Zanu-PF to control food supplies to hungry villagers ahead of the election.
Barclays, which faced criticism for operating in South Africa during the apartheid years, has remained one of only a handful of banks with extensive operations in Zimbabwe. It has been operating in Zimbabwe through a subsidiary company for almost a century and has recently been opening branches there.
Last November The Sunday Times revealed that the bank had contributed millions in loans to a scheme that was used by Mugabe to fund cronies given land seized from white farmers.
Internal Foreign Office and Treasury e-mails – acquired under freedom of information laws by Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP – show there was little enthusiasm for intervening against Barclays at that time.
Initially, officials drafted a statement saying they believed it “morally” wrong for Barclays to make farm loans to members of Mugabe’s regime but this line was quashed. The word “investigating” was also removed in case it might result in what an official described as a “whoops there go the money markets” incident.
In the end Treasury solicitors ruled that the Barclays subsidiary did not come under the EU sanctions scheme because it was incorporated in Zimbabwe.
On Friday Barclays issued a statement saying: “[Barclays] services are critically relied upon by many of the 135,000 customers for their day-to-day operations to maintain access to banking and employment, with a benefit to the wider community. This continued presence brings the benefit of avoiding additional hardship [to that] already being experienced within the country.”
Whistleblower: FISA ‘compromise’ advances police state agenda
From http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/300608Whistleblower.htm
Whistleblower: FISA ‘compromise’ advances police state agenda
Nick Langewis
Raw Story
Monday, June 30, 2008
Retired AT&T engineer Mark Klein has condemned the Senate’s Wednesday cloture vote on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
The bill, if passed by final vote planned for July 8, would revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to retroactively grant immunity to customers’ civil lawsuits against telecommunications companies who participated in the National Security Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, on the condition that they can provide documentation that they were told ahead of time that their activities were legal.
Klein, in November 2007, urged Congress not to allow such immunity, having gone public with his story of a secret room in AT&T’s San Francisco switching center, which required NSA clearance to enter. All Internet traffic, he said, was being diverted to equipment in the room, as he discovered during his time maintaining optical splitters that handled data to and from AT&T customers.
(Article continues below)
“[My] thought was George Orwell’s 1984 and here I am forced to connect to the Big Brother machine,” Klein told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in a November 2007 interview.
Documents Klein obtained, along with conversations he had with colleagues, suggested that 15 to 20 other sites such as this were in other offices across the country, ABC News reported. The documents, acquired by Wired.com, were submitted as part of a 2006 class action lawsuit, currently awaiting further action in the 9th Circuit US Appeals Court, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“[Wednesday]’s vote by Congress effectively gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies and endorses an all-powerful president,” Klein said. “It’s a Congressional coup against the Constitution.”
“This cynical deal is a Democratic exercise in deceit and cowardice,” he went on. “Congress has made the FISA law a dead letter–such a law is useless if the president can break it with impunity. Thus the Democrats have surreptitiously repudiated the main reform of the post-Watergate era and adopted Nixon’s line: ‘When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.’ This is the judicial logic of a dictatorship.”
Whistleblower: FISA ‘compromise’ advances police state agenda
Nick Langewis
Raw Story
Monday, June 30, 2008
Retired AT&T engineer Mark Klein has condemned the Senate’s Wednesday cloture vote on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
The bill, if passed by final vote planned for July 8, would revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to retroactively grant immunity to customers’ civil lawsuits against telecommunications companies who participated in the National Security Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, on the condition that they can provide documentation that they were told ahead of time that their activities were legal.
Klein, in November 2007, urged Congress not to allow such immunity, having gone public with his story of a secret room in AT&T’s San Francisco switching center, which required NSA clearance to enter. All Internet traffic, he said, was being diverted to equipment in the room, as he discovered during his time maintaining optical splitters that handled data to and from AT&T customers.
(Article continues below)
“[My] thought was George Orwell’s 1984 and here I am forced to connect to the Big Brother machine,” Klein told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in a November 2007 interview.
Documents Klein obtained, along with conversations he had with colleagues, suggested that 15 to 20 other sites such as this were in other offices across the country, ABC News reported. The documents, acquired by Wired.com, were submitted as part of a 2006 class action lawsuit, currently awaiting further action in the 9th Circuit US Appeals Court, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“[Wednesday]’s vote by Congress effectively gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies and endorses an all-powerful president,” Klein said. “It’s a Congressional coup against the Constitution.”
“This cynical deal is a Democratic exercise in deceit and cowardice,” he went on. “Congress has made the FISA law a dead letter–such a law is useless if the president can break it with impunity. Thus the Democrats have surreptitiously repudiated the main reform of the post-Watergate era and adopted Nixon’s line: ‘When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.’ This is the judicial logic of a dictatorship.”
Lieberman Latest To Pitch For New Terror Attack
From http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/063008_latest_pitch.htm
| Lieberman Latest To Pitch For New Terror Attack Senator says new president will be welcomed by "test" |
Paul Joseph Watson |
Senator Joe Lieberman has echoed a national talking point by promising that the new president will be welcomed by a terror attack in 2009, continuing a disturbing trend of talking heads anxiously relishing a catastrophic pretext to reinvigorate the Neo-Con agenda.
"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
Lieberman's comments follow last month's Washington Times report concerning a warning from national intelligence spooks that, "Islamic terrorists will attempt to exploit the transition in power by planning an attack on America."
(Article continues below)
Let us swiftly dismantle the naive pretense that a terror attack is a negative thing for a new president - both Clinton and Bush exploited terror in America to realize preconceived domestic and geopolitical agendas.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an inside job from start to finish - it did not come as a "surprise" to the U.S. government since they ran the entire operation, having cooked the bomb for the "Islamic terrorists" that they had groomed for the attack.
In 1993 the FBI planted their informant, Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center's twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand people. The FBI's failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.
The attack, coupled with the Oklahoma City bombing less than two years later, enabled Bill Clinton to whip up support for the passage of a plethora of unconstitutional legislation, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Brady Bill, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and a $100 million dollar grant to Israel for "counter-terrorism" purposes.
By the time Clinton left office, the Patriot movement - which before the OKC bombing had grown in leaps and bounds, spurred on by the atrocities committed by the federal government at Waco - was effectively dead.
Few need reminding of George W. Bush's agenda before he took office. The ideological framework that would shape his presidency - encapsulated by the goals of the Neo-Con Project For a New American Century - required a "new Pearl Harbor" to get things started, which is exactly what they received on September 11, 2001.
Furthermore, the attacks enabled Bush to pursue an invasion of Iraq that he had dreamed of achieving as early as 1999, according to the ghostwriter of Bush's autobiography Mickey Herskowitz.
"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency," Bush told Herskowitz.
That "chance to invade" arrived on the morning of 9/11, within hours of which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, "Was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."
The pattern is clear - each time a new President takes office they have a mandate to act as a torch bearer for the same agenda - domestic repression and foreign invasion. A terror attack provides the perfect pretext to realize those goals.
Whether it be Barack Obama or John McCain, we can expect a new crisis to conveniently arrive shortly after they take office, enabling them to pursue the same tyrannical blueprint followed by their predecessors.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
McCain meets with Billy Graham
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=159262
McCain meets with evangelist Billy Graham and son
Liz Sidoti - Associated Press Writer - 6/29/2008 3:55:00 PM
MONTREAT, N.C. - John McCain met Sunday with evangelist Billy Graham and his son, Franklin, at the family's mountaintop retreat.
The Republican presidential candidate, who is actively courting religious voters and trying to reassure skeptical conservatives, visited privately with the Grahams on the grounds of Little Piney Cove in the Blue Ridge Mountains in western North Carolina.
"We had a very excellent conversation. I appreciated the opportunity to visit with them," McCain said after the 45-minute meeting.
McCain's visit to North Carolina was his first sit-down with Billy Graham, 89, and with Franklin Graham, although McCain and the elder Graham are acquainted. McCain's father and Billy Graham also knew each other.
The world-renowned evangelist is in poor health but apparently felt well enough to visit with McCain, who flew to North Carolina with the expectation of meeting only with Franklin Graham, who is president and chief executive of the evangelistic association his father founded in 1950.
McCain said he did not know if the Grahams would vote for him. "I didn't ask for their votes," he said, calling them "great leaders."
After the meeting, Franklin Graham issued a statement praising the Arizona senator's "personal faith and his moral clarity."
"The senator and I both have sons currently serving in the military, and also have a common interest in aviation," Franklin Graham said. "I was impressed by his personal faith and his moral clarity on important social issues facing America today."
Franklin Graham said his father told a story about meeting McCain's father, a Navy admiral, on a trip to Vietnam during the war when John McCain was being held as a prisoner of war after his military plane was shot out of the sky. The two prayed for John McCain during his captivity.
Franklin Graham said his father "expressed gratitude for the senator's long and brave service" to the country.
"We had an opportunity to pray for the senator and his family, and for God's will to be done in this upcoming election," Franklin Graham said.
He said he was not endorsing anyone for president, but was urging "men and women of faith everywhere" to vote and be involved in the political process.
"I encourage people to vote for the candidate at every level who best represents their values and convictions, and then to pray for those in authority over us as required in Scripture," Franklin Graham said.
McCain said last week that he did not consider the meeting with Franklin Graham a political one. Earlier this month, Barack Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, met with the younger Graham, who was among some 30 evangelicals Obama met with in Chicago.
"He is a man whose family is respected, incredibly respected, and I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to meet with him," McCain said of Franklin Graham. "I think the Graham family really transcends politics in America. Billy Graham was an adviser to every president and so I'm not sure that there is any _ there certainly is no political aspect to the meeting that I will have."
Meanwhile, in Washington, Gen. Wesley Clark challenged McCain's claim to be better prepared to be president.
Clark said that while he honored McCain's service as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war and on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has no executive experience and that the Navy squadron McCain commanded was not a wartime squadron.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall," Clark said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
When moderator Bob Schieffer noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down, Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
McCain meets with evangelist Billy Graham and son
Liz Sidoti - Associated Press Writer - 6/29/2008 3:55:00 PM
MONTREAT, N.C. - John McCain met Sunday with evangelist Billy Graham and his son, Franklin, at the family's mountaintop retreat.
The Republican presidential candidate, who is actively courting religious voters and trying to reassure skeptical conservatives, visited privately with the Grahams on the grounds of Little Piney Cove in the Blue Ridge Mountains in western North Carolina.
"We had a very excellent conversation. I appreciated the opportunity to visit with them," McCain said after the 45-minute meeting.
McCain's visit to North Carolina was his first sit-down with Billy Graham, 89, and with Franklin Graham, although McCain and the elder Graham are acquainted. McCain's father and Billy Graham also knew each other.
The world-renowned evangelist is in poor health but apparently felt well enough to visit with McCain, who flew to North Carolina with the expectation of meeting only with Franklin Graham, who is president and chief executive of the evangelistic association his father founded in 1950.
McCain said he did not know if the Grahams would vote for him. "I didn't ask for their votes," he said, calling them "great leaders."
After the meeting, Franklin Graham issued a statement praising the Arizona senator's "personal faith and his moral clarity."
"The senator and I both have sons currently serving in the military, and also have a common interest in aviation," Franklin Graham said. "I was impressed by his personal faith and his moral clarity on important social issues facing America today."
Franklin Graham said his father told a story about meeting McCain's father, a Navy admiral, on a trip to Vietnam during the war when John McCain was being held as a prisoner of war after his military plane was shot out of the sky. The two prayed for John McCain during his captivity.
Franklin Graham said his father "expressed gratitude for the senator's long and brave service" to the country.
"We had an opportunity to pray for the senator and his family, and for God's will to be done in this upcoming election," Franklin Graham said.
He said he was not endorsing anyone for president, but was urging "men and women of faith everywhere" to vote and be involved in the political process.
"I encourage people to vote for the candidate at every level who best represents their values and convictions, and then to pray for those in authority over us as required in Scripture," Franklin Graham said.
McCain said last week that he did not consider the meeting with Franklin Graham a political one. Earlier this month, Barack Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, met with the younger Graham, who was among some 30 evangelicals Obama met with in Chicago.
"He is a man whose family is respected, incredibly respected, and I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to meet with him," McCain said of Franklin Graham. "I think the Graham family really transcends politics in America. Billy Graham was an adviser to every president and so I'm not sure that there is any _ there certainly is no political aspect to the meeting that I will have."
Meanwhile, in Washington, Gen. Wesley Clark challenged McCain's claim to be better prepared to be president.
Clark said that while he honored McCain's service as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam war and on the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain has no executive experience and that the Navy squadron McCain commanded was not a wartime squadron.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall," Clark said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
When moderator Bob Schieffer noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down, Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Tainted Love? Chocolate-Lovers: Cocoa Industry Set to Be a Heartbreaker
Tainted Love? Chocolate-Lovers: Cocoa Industry Set to Be a Heartbreaker on July
1, 2008
by Adrienne Fitch-Frankel
June 27, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9926/
You gaze at each other, illuminated softly by candlelight. Music plays in the background. Slowly pulling back the ribbon from your gift, your sweetheart glows with delight and anticipation…until the wrapping falls away from the box of chocolate to reveal a blank spot where the slave-free chocolate label belongs.
Even though the chocolate industry committed to ending the worst forms of child labor in cocoa production by today — July 1, 2008 — the slave-free label is still missing from lots of chocolate boxes…and chocolate bars and ice cream and syrup and other products made with cocoa. And it’s not just because industry talked Congress into a voluntary agreement in place of the 2001 legislation that would have created a mandatory slave-free label for chocolate, which was passed in the House of Representatives by a landslide. It is also because virtually none of the chocolate you buy as a consumer could be certified as “slave-free” if that label existed today.
In one sense, things aren’t that different now from the way Congress intended to protect us from tainted chocolate back in 2001. If you find a blank space glaring back from the spot where the Fair Trade certified label belongs on any cocoa product, you know it has not been produced under standards that prohibit abusive child labor.
The chocolate industry’s answer to the legislative threat of slave-free labeling was its 2001 pledge to voluntarily certify cocoa produced without the worst forms of child labor by July 1, 2005, known as the Harkin-Engel Protocol, after the two Congressmen who championed the original legislation. When they failed to meet this deadline, it was extended to July 1, 2008 and limited to 50 percent of the Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana.
While industry and governments have taken some steps to address the issue, it is too little too slow. The very title of the Harkin-Engel Protocol commits the industry to “…Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor,” yet for over seven years children have continued to languish in slavery and consumers have waited for untainted chocolate. It is also rather shocking that the cocoa industry had the chutzpah to officially commit to ending just half of slavery, not all slavery, in the cocoa fields of these two countries by July 2008.
With the next deadline rapidly approaching, the chocolate manufacturers have redefined the word “certification” to mean “data collection.” Industry even titled its 2007 version of its definition a “certification concept.” Wouldn’t it be great if we could all be released from our moral and legal responsibilities by redefining them? We can hear the chuckles about the “concept” concept forming around water coolers nationwide already. “Think a repayment ‘concept’ will work for my mortgage?” “Will the boss buy into a punctuality ‘concept’?”
Members of the public are broadly familiar with the characteristics of organic and other certification systems, and know that certification is not a ‘concept’ open to interpretation. Certification systems include elements such as specific standards required of industry participants and independent, third party institutions that confirm compliance with standards.
But the bottom line is that, as a report funded by the US Department of Labor stated, the industry’s current definition of certification is “a misnomer.” What industry is currently pursuing under its own definition of certification is not truly certification that there is no abusive child labor. It is a survey to determine the prevalence of abusive child labor. And, for that reason, industry is at risk of missing the upcoming deadline yet again. Data collection is not the goal; the goal is protecting children from the worst forms of child labor in the cocoa fields.
Nearly 60 organizations and companies concerned with child welfare have called upon major chocolate manufacturers to sign the Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing. The Commitment includes requirements that would reach the goal of ensuring that cocoa farming families and workers can live lives of dignity and meet their basic human needs rather than languishing in poverty while industry exploits the dismal price of cocoa in order to rake in profits. The Commitment also requires truly independent, third party certification.
Some have gone even further, by calling on chocolate companies to start sourcing Fair Trade certified chocolate. Fair Trade certification standards prohibit the use of abusive child labor and slavery. Just as important, Fair Trade also addresses the fact that cocoa prices are too low to fully cover the cost of the labor it takes to grow it. The Fair Trade certification system guarantees farmers a stable, decent price for their cocoa.
It is especially disturbing that the companies involved market specifically to children, making them unknowing participants in the exploitation of their peers. One troubling example is Chicago-based World’s Finest Chocolate, the leading producer of school fundraising chocolate bars in the country, does not source Fair Trade certified cocoa. World’s Finest Chocolate, a company that bases its seemingly squeaky-clean corporate image on supporting children’s education, should end its hypocrisy and start producing a Fair Trade certified chocolate bar to fundraise for children’s education. It is time for farmers who grow the cocoa in World’s Finest Chocolate’s chocolate bars to be able to afford to send their own kids to school too.
Go ahead and buy a chocolate gift for the one you love. Cocoa growing communities are depending on you. But from now onward, look for chocolate with the Fair Trade certification label. Because when the object of your affection pulls back the ribbon on your box of chocolate, looks at you, and sighs, “you shouldn’t have…” you don’t want your beloved to mean it.
Adrienne Fitch-Frankel is the Fair Trade Director of Global Exchange, a national human rights organization based in San Francisco.
1, 2008
by Adrienne Fitch-Frankel
June 27, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9926/
You gaze at each other, illuminated softly by candlelight. Music plays in the background. Slowly pulling back the ribbon from your gift, your sweetheart glows with delight and anticipation…until the wrapping falls away from the box of chocolate to reveal a blank spot where the slave-free chocolate label belongs.
Even though the chocolate industry committed to ending the worst forms of child labor in cocoa production by today — July 1, 2008 — the slave-free label is still missing from lots of chocolate boxes…and chocolate bars and ice cream and syrup and other products made with cocoa. And it’s not just because industry talked Congress into a voluntary agreement in place of the 2001 legislation that would have created a mandatory slave-free label for chocolate, which was passed in the House of Representatives by a landslide. It is also because virtually none of the chocolate you buy as a consumer could be certified as “slave-free” if that label existed today.
In one sense, things aren’t that different now from the way Congress intended to protect us from tainted chocolate back in 2001. If you find a blank space glaring back from the spot where the Fair Trade certified label belongs on any cocoa product, you know it has not been produced under standards that prohibit abusive child labor.
The chocolate industry’s answer to the legislative threat of slave-free labeling was its 2001 pledge to voluntarily certify cocoa produced without the worst forms of child labor by July 1, 2005, known as the Harkin-Engel Protocol, after the two Congressmen who championed the original legislation. When they failed to meet this deadline, it was extended to July 1, 2008 and limited to 50 percent of the Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana.
While industry and governments have taken some steps to address the issue, it is too little too slow. The very title of the Harkin-Engel Protocol commits the industry to “…Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor,” yet for over seven years children have continued to languish in slavery and consumers have waited for untainted chocolate. It is also rather shocking that the cocoa industry had the chutzpah to officially commit to ending just half of slavery, not all slavery, in the cocoa fields of these two countries by July 2008.
With the next deadline rapidly approaching, the chocolate manufacturers have redefined the word “certification” to mean “data collection.” Industry even titled its 2007 version of its definition a “certification concept.” Wouldn’t it be great if we could all be released from our moral and legal responsibilities by redefining them? We can hear the chuckles about the “concept” concept forming around water coolers nationwide already. “Think a repayment ‘concept’ will work for my mortgage?” “Will the boss buy into a punctuality ‘concept’?”
Members of the public are broadly familiar with the characteristics of organic and other certification systems, and know that certification is not a ‘concept’ open to interpretation. Certification systems include elements such as specific standards required of industry participants and independent, third party institutions that confirm compliance with standards.
But the bottom line is that, as a report funded by the US Department of Labor stated, the industry’s current definition of certification is “a misnomer.” What industry is currently pursuing under its own definition of certification is not truly certification that there is no abusive child labor. It is a survey to determine the prevalence of abusive child labor. And, for that reason, industry is at risk of missing the upcoming deadline yet again. Data collection is not the goal; the goal is protecting children from the worst forms of child labor in the cocoa fields.
Nearly 60 organizations and companies concerned with child welfare have called upon major chocolate manufacturers to sign the Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing. The Commitment includes requirements that would reach the goal of ensuring that cocoa farming families and workers can live lives of dignity and meet their basic human needs rather than languishing in poverty while industry exploits the dismal price of cocoa in order to rake in profits. The Commitment also requires truly independent, third party certification.
Some have gone even further, by calling on chocolate companies to start sourcing Fair Trade certified chocolate. Fair Trade certification standards prohibit the use of abusive child labor and slavery. Just as important, Fair Trade also addresses the fact that cocoa prices are too low to fully cover the cost of the labor it takes to grow it. The Fair Trade certification system guarantees farmers a stable, decent price for their cocoa.
It is especially disturbing that the companies involved market specifically to children, making them unknowing participants in the exploitation of their peers. One troubling example is Chicago-based World’s Finest Chocolate, the leading producer of school fundraising chocolate bars in the country, does not source Fair Trade certified cocoa. World’s Finest Chocolate, a company that bases its seemingly squeaky-clean corporate image on supporting children’s education, should end its hypocrisy and start producing a Fair Trade certified chocolate bar to fundraise for children’s education. It is time for farmers who grow the cocoa in World’s Finest Chocolate’s chocolate bars to be able to afford to send their own kids to school too.
Go ahead and buy a chocolate gift for the one you love. Cocoa growing communities are depending on you. But from now onward, look for chocolate with the Fair Trade certification label. Because when the object of your affection pulls back the ribbon on your box of chocolate, looks at you, and sighs, “you shouldn’t have…” you don’t want your beloved to mean it.
Adrienne Fitch-Frankel is the Fair Trade Director of Global Exchange, a national human rights organization based in San Francisco.
Gun-Grabbers at the Chicago Tribune
From http://www.infowars.com/?p=2983
Gun-Grabbers at the Chicago Tribune
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
June 29, 2008
 | |
 | |
| "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers." –Justice Story | |
It really bugs the gun-grabbers that the Supremes did not completely scratch out the Second Amendment last week, although they made a small first step in that direction. For instance, so steamed are they over at the Chicago Tribune they are calling for the Second Amendment to be repealed. As usual, they predicate their argument on three words — “well regulated Militia” — and claim beyond this you and I have no right to own firearms. “The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years,” the Tribune claims.
There is absolutely no evidence this is what the founders intended and the editors of the Chicago Tribune would be hard-pressed to find a single word in the writings of the founders indicating they believed only militias had the right to bear arms. In fact, the gun-grabbers completely misunderstand the very meaning of the word as the framers used it — for the founders, a militia was not like the National Guard, but rather a body of armed citizens. The militia clause and the right to arms are intended to be complementary. As Thomas Jefferson knew, “modern regular armies” consist of “desperate characters,” thus demonstrating “the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.”
Justice Story, appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811, wrote in 1833:
The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
 | |
| |
|
In New Orleans after Katrina, the state went house to house grabbing guns, not because they were concerned about Old West shoot-outs in the street but because they did not want citizens challenging the “arbitrary power of rulers.” As Alexander Hamilton noted, in times of chaos and the breakdown of civility — as in the case of Katrina — the “citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource,” that is without the intervention of the state, because the “people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate.”
As the founders knew, and the Chicago Tribune is unable or unwilling to admit, the “militia,” that is to say an armed citizenry, is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. In fact, as Jefferson stated, it is the “right and duty” of citizens “to be at all times armed” as a deterrent to tyranny. However, since Jefferson’s time, the very concept of such a duty has all but disappeared and has been replaced by a mass psychosis in dreadful fear of the very existence of weapons. Millions of Americans expect the government to protect them, a mindset diametrically opposed to the thinking of Jefferson and the founders who knew all too well that government will become murderously tyrannical if not checked.
It should come as no surprise the corporate media is engaged in a propaganda campaign to convince you that the Second Amendment should be repealed. After all, we no longer have small, independent newspapers published by people who understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but rather huge corporate combines owned by the very same globalist interests that have hijacked the government. It will be impossible for them to impose their transnational corporate plan — in other words, fascist plan, as Mussolini understood that corporatism and fascism are inseparable — on the whole of humanity so long as an appreciable minority remain armed. That’s what the corporate media jihad against the Constitution is all about — convincing you that “gun crime” is out of control, people who own guns are redneck nut cases, guns are for hunting only, the Second Amendment is a myth (or at best an editorial mistake), and it is in our best interest to relinquish responsibility for our own protection, our duty, and embrace government.
Finally, keep in mind the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was a big advocate of gun control. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000. “There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and had been well armed,” writes Theodore Haas, a survivor of Dachau. “Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun.”
Our thugs are not very brave, either. But they don’t need to be when confronted with a brainwashed and increasingly disarmed public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)