The Snowe Removal Campaign
— "Clearing the path back to Democracy" —
This site is being superseded by my new site
Please visit me there!
Alex Jones was Right to Expect that
Pentagon No-Plane Theory
Might Be a Strawman
Alex and his able associates, Steve & Paul Joseph Watson, are on the record for a long time as being leery of the No-Plane Theory vis-à-vis the Pentagon strike, as in this article, "Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly":
Following the publication of our article questioning claims that wake turbulence or jet blast could have thrown cars around the highway as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a reported altitude of 20 feet, a former pilot and aeronautical engineer contacted us to refute the arguments presented in the piece.
It is our intention to explore both
sides of the argument and leave the reader to decide for themselves
if the Pentagon Flight 77 issue is a genuine smoking gun of 9/11 or an attempt by the government to bait us into a honey
pot trap by later releasing crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the
Pentagon. At no turn do we doubt the validity of the overwhelming
body of evidence proving 9/11 as an inside job. The 9/11 truth movement is
currently enjoying its widest exposure ever, and a new Zogby poll which shows half of Americans
nationwide (not just
I have just stumbled upon what I take for clear evidence that shows a full-size airliner in the famous five frames released years ago. My source is "The 'Pod People' And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon":
But then again, as occurred to me several days after posting these pics, the pics themselves could be forged without too much trouble by a half-trillion dollar a year defense industry, I suppose. Resting the whole question of the Pentagon strike on these two frames is a fool's errand
Marc Sheppard Hates the
I was raised to love
Your recent piece in Opinion Editorials, The Kennedy, Chavez & Chomsky Pipeline, while utterly typical in most respects, had some interesting detours from the Winger scenic route. For example:
DID HE SAY SOCIALISM FOR THE
In the first two clauses of that quote you make the mistake of telling the truth — by the very repetition of that incisive truthful phrase. But then of course you get right back on track in the third, not so much by calling the idea “silly” as by following it with no reasoning to show that it is so.
What’s really silly is for me to write to you as if you were interested in reason. But nature abhors a vacuum, so when you open your mouth, nature’s logic will be inexorably pressed thitherward to fill it.
I’m having to guess what you mean by “silly”. My best guess is, you have a pocket dictionary of minimal size — you know, the kind with a three-or-less word definition for every entry? — that lists Socialism as “money for poor”. Therefore, “any money for not-poor cannot be socialism. Next question.”
Now here’s a curious phrase of your own choosing:
weak-minded, self-hating Americans
Self-hating — self-hating — where
have I heard that phrase? Oh! Yeah —
“self-hating Jew” — Jews who criticise
Don’t think I’m being anti-Semitic: I’m well aware that some 80% of American Yiddishkeit voted against the current Caligula and the NeoCon madmen that manipulate him, whose house of cards is now tottering like the House of Usher.
Hey — Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Sy Hersh, Dennis Bernstein, Daniel Barenboim, Norman Finkelstein, Studs Terkel — all Jews, in the best tradition of internationalism, standing on principle above greed. None of this small sample of my heroes deserves to be lumped in with Shylock, who even himself had legitimate gripes, although he was insane by them.
But deeper in the phrase “self-hating Americans” (only one minimal step deeper) is the virulent corrupt fallacious meme that rules the ReichWing with a rod of iron: that any questioning of the jingoistic cabal that temporarily sits in power over a nation (or, when out of power, as during Clinton’s term, mercilessly frustrates the current chief, as did Gingrich) — such questioning is destructive of the nation, whereas we (the questioners) believe it to be corrective.
You Wingers are just like old King Lear, loving the flattery of Goneril and Reagan — oops! Sorry <heh heh> Regan — and punishing most cruelly the real patriotism of Cordelia. After his madness finally led to her death, Lear ultimately bewept his one true faithful daughter:
Enter Lear with Cordelia in his armes.
Lear. Howle, howle, howle, howle, O you are men of stones,
Had I your tongues and eyes, I would vse them so,
That heauens vault should cracke, shees gone for euer,
I know when one is dead, and when one liues,
Shees dead as earth, lend me a looking glasse,
If that her breath will mist or staine the stone,
Why then she liues. [Act V Scene 3 — the end of the drama]
But when she was alive, he despised her honesty:
. . .
The two great Princes France
Great ryuals in our youngest daughters loue,
Long in our Court haue made their amorous soiourne,
And here are to be answerd, tell me my daughters,
Which of you shall we say doth loue vs most,
That we our largest bountie may extend,
Where merit doth most challenge it,
Gonorill our eldest borne, speake first ?
Gon. Sir I do loue you more then words can weild the matter,
Dearer then eye-sight, space or libertie,
Beyond what can be valued rich or rare,
No lesse then life; with grace, health, beautie, honour,
As much a child ere loued, or father friend,
A loue that makes breath poore, and speech vnable,
Beyond all manner of so much I loue you.
Cor. What shall Cordelia doe, loue and be silent.
Lear. Of al these bounds, euen from this line to this,
With shady forrests, and wide skirted meades,
We make thee Lady, to thine and Albaines issue,
Be this perpetuall, what saies our second daughter?
Our deerest Regan, wife to Cornwell, speake?
Reg. Sir I am made of the selfe same mettall that my sister is,
And prize me at her worth in my true heart,
I find she names my very deed of loue, onely she came short,
That I professe my selfe an enemie to all other ioyes,
Which the most precious square of sence possesses,
And find I am alone felicitate, in your deere highnes loue.
Cord. Then poore Cord. & yet not so, since I am sure
My loues more richer then my tongue.
Lear. To thee and thine hereditarie euer
Remaine this ample third of our faire kingdome,
No lesse in space, validity, and pleasure,
Then that confirm'd on Gonorill, but now our ioy,
Although the last, not least in our deere loue,
What can you say to win a third, more opulent
Then your sisters.
Cord. Nothing my Lord.
Lear. How, nothing can come of nothing, speake againe.
Cord. Vnhappie that I am, I cannot heaue my heart into my
mouth, I loue your Maiestie according to my bond, nor more nor
Lear. Goe to, goe to, mend your speech a little,
Least it may mar your fortunes.
Cord. Good my Lord,
You haue begot me, bred me, loued me,
I returne those duties backe as are right fit,
Obey you, loue you, and most honour you,
Why haue my sisters husbands if they say they loue you all,
Happely when I shall wed, that Lord whose hand
take my plight, shall
Halfe my care and duty, sure I shall neuer
Mary like my sisters, to loue my father all.
Lear. But goes this with thy heart?
Cord. I good my Lord.
Lear. So yong and so vntender.
Cord. So yong my Lord and true.
Lear. Well let it be so, thy truth then be thy dower,
For by the sacred radience of the Sunne,
The mistresse of Heccat, and the might,
By all the operation of the orbs,
From whome we doe exsist and cease to be
Heere I disclaime all my paternall care,
Propinquitie and property of blood,
And as a stranger to my heart and me
Hould thee from this for euer. the barbarous Scythyan,
Or he that makes his generation
Messes to gorge his appetite
Shall bee as well neighbour'd, pittyed and relieued
As thou my sometime daughter. [Act I Scene 1]
Recent Letter to Snowe:
The Madness of George
To Snowe: strange as it may seem, angry as I have been for years, I still remember the days before you capitulated —
Hi Senator --
thanks for coming out strongly against the disingenuous and non-compos-mentis behavior of the Chimp. (BTW, have you read Sen. Rockefeller's latest? "...saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was 'still a mystery' to the president. // 'I don’t think he reads like he says he does....Every time he’s read something he tells you about it, I think.' ” Reminds me of that movie, "The Madness of George III", which they renamed "The Madness of King George" because people kept asking "how did I miss 'The Madness of George' I & II' " <heh>, with the monarch strapped in his chair. Remember?)
It's going to be easier for you on the Intel committee now that Rubber-stamp Roberts no longer holds the club, eh, with his "memory pills"?
I breathe with you that sigh of relief. As I told Sen. Collins, a few days ago, you would both be welcomed warmly (with I's by your names) into what's left of the Middle. The party you both sprang from, the party of Ike & Sen. Chase, blew a fuse and ran off the road into the ditch, leaving you both behind.
My friends and I still remember the quality of your work prior to the day the arm-twisting began. It was quite respectable, and I look forward to seeing that wisdom being brought to bear in the same measure as before, now that the bonds are loosed.
Still a friend, JSC
The Holocaust is Not a Myth
The pleasure I had reading Ahmadinejad's letter, linked below, and the unfairness I felt at seeing the blatant accusation of gleeful war crimes with the Polonium symbol in his hand, have been darkened by what has happened since. I regret it has taken me till now to get time away from other unavoidable business to address "what has happened since" in Iran: “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision”, the conference called by him to cast doubt on the reality of the darkest event in human history.
A wiser man
than the Iranian president, whose name is so long it's a burden to type it
more than once a month, could have raised issues that have a few scraps of
legitimacy: that the sequellae of the Holocaust are frequently
misappropriated to justify imperialist aggression by Israel, that Zionists
may have early on made means to exaggerate the effects of the Nazi supreme
crime, in hopes of scaring more Jews into Israel and out of Europe, that
certain earnest orthodox Jewish sects, notably the Satmar, have from the
earliest flickerings of Zionism opposed it, on the grounds that it was not
for earthly man to decide when the Diaspora should come to an end, and be
regathered as the Tanach predicts. The
29th chapter of Jeremiah is adduced as evidence of this position:
Thus saith the LORD of hosts,
the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have
caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon;
Above all, and this the conference
organizers did stress, that
But to call the Holocaust a myth? Thanks to the meticulous, nit-picky German civil servants, the banality of evil, in the classic phrase of Hannah Arendt's reference to Eichmann, was recorded in very possibly the most comprehensive detail of any nation policy implementation before or since. There is no reasonable, serious way it can be doubted in any but tangential measures.
No, the Holocaust is not a myth.
The moderates in
While I know of no reason to regret my previous two pieces in this space, I'm sorry for what I have to write today: this guy, or those pulling his strings, have just lost most of the credibility of their position.
When you have hard liners over here (the Bush team, AKA NeoCons) squaring off against hard liners somewhere else, who suffers? The liberals and moderates everywhere. <sigh> Hard liners are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Don't be surprised if I find better
ways of saying this in coming weeks.
Yellow Journalism is Alive & Well in New York City
What right have you, New York Times, to
print this pictorial accusation of President Ahmadinejad of
Remember Judith Miller, the yellow journalist you used to employ? "Yellow Journalism", if by chance you cut History class all your life, is that practise begun by Wm. Randolph Hearst, Jr., then owner of the New York Journal in his circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the New York World. The name comes from the first mass circulation cartoon, Hogan's Alley, and its star character, a toddler in a yellow nightshirt, so outstanding that the strip was universally referred to as The Yellow Kid, and formally so after the cartoonist, Richard F. Outcault, defected from the World to the Journal. While the World retained ownership of the name Hogan's Alley, and hired George Luks to continue drawing it, Hearst and the Journal kept Outcault on, drawing the same strip under the name The Yellow Kid.
wrong with that? Well, the opprobrious
epithet "yellow journalism" is really centered on the shameless,
despicable warmongering that these giants of the "ink-stained
wretch" category carried on, entirely for the sake of circulation — the only goal in those days, before advertising was the cash cow —
and afterward claiming credit for instigating the Spanish-American War, as in
Hearst's headline "How do you like the Journal's war?" two weeks
after the start of hostilities.
Sensational drawings like this one of Spanish officers
strip searching American women in
History shows that the influence on the run-up to war of Hearst's and Pulitzer's papers was minimal, Hearst's boast notwithstanding. The circulation ended at the boundaries of the city, for the most part.
Judith Miller's stenographic/phonographic sounding board for Cheney's lies about Iraq, which were generated in the Zionist fiddle-section known as the Office of Special Plans (run by Doug Feith of Feith & Zell) cannot claim such unintended harmlessness. As Amy Goodman has noted in her book The Exception To the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers and the Media That Love Them :
The Bush administration knew just what to do with the
story they had fed to Gordon and Miller. The day The Times story ran, Vice
President Dick Cheney made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to advance the
administration's bogus claims. On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney declared that
Now here you are again, with unjustified slander of a country the Bushies have marked for destruction. As Neocon hero Samuel Huntington has written "For peoples seeking identity and reinventing ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enmities occur across the fault lines between the world's major civilizations." He might well have added "and for those in the Military-Industrial-Media complex seeking to get filthy rich on weapons sales and general war profiteering", but surely he's right about the fault line between the Bushies and their potential victims: they're most likely to lie on the other side of some racial divide — brown babies are jus' easier for white folks t'kill.
But as to
the most common justification for such slander against the president of
Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining
what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he
doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against
Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an
endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected
that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result
would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of
Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it
wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.
The tag lines you yellow journalists love to repeat forever, like the audio of the Dean Scream, ought to be tied around your necks and the other end to a millstone. Instead, you are the millstone around the necks of the voters, who know not their right hand from their left, and are, for filthy lucre's sake, attempting to drag this tired country into another war.
A Reply to
Iranian President Ahmadinejad's
Dear President Ahmadinejad:
Your letter of today is received with gratitude in the spirit wherein it was written. The tragedy of the American people is that they are being subverted by anonymous elites within governmental and financial organs, remnants of old aristocratic families from pre-1776, and some who got lucky and stumbled onto untold wealth in the meantime.
The only hope for
You wrote: "The
The greatest leader we have had in my lifetime would have been John F. Kennedy, if he had been able to finish his course. He was about to abolish the tyranny of the Federal Reserve, pull US troops out of all Southeast Asia (not just Vietnam, but more importantly the Golden Triangle, source of all that CIA mad money), he fired Allen Dulles for going in without permission to the Bay of Pigs catastrophe, and he and his brother were in a position to right many of the wrongs of long standing in my country.
But the hidden forces that
Allen Dulles launched against your noble predecessor, Mr. Mossadegh, all for
filthy lucre, were then turned on Mr. Kennedy, his brother, the great Dr.
Martin Luther King, and many believe even the shooting of Reagan belongs in
this list, by a demented son of a close friend of arch-spook GHW Bush, and
that even the murder of thorn-in-the-side and my hero John Lennon was the
work of careful, skillful, cynical, and anonymous professionals known in the
trade as "moles" or "handlers", for whom the art of madman
farming and cultivation is a mature science.
Moreover, the attacks of September 11th are clearly disingenuous, as
The Zionists you focus on are always near the center of these crimes — witness Netanyahu's comment on 9-11:
"On the day of the 9-11
attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the
attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "
'It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate
But it is essential that
Zionism is not seen to be the central player.
This is merely one more hedge behind which the real central players
can hide. They are the bankers — the
Bilderbergers, the crowned heads of old
They are powerless against an informed world populace. But they cannot be thwarted by an ignorant one.
Time is running out to avert the ultimate police state.
Mr. President, your timely and gracious letter is an important step. But only by bringing the light of evidence to a large critical mass of Americans can survival be assured.
Snowe Pretends to Support
Abstained — this is supposed to show her unwillingness to support the Republican majority, who finally defeated the amendment 51-48. Oh! She's a moderate — she's a maverick! She votes her conscience! All window dressing.
If she and Collins had voted "Yes" on the amendment, it would have been 50-50. Granted, Shotgun Cheney, the bloodthirsty President of the Senate would have cast the deciding vote.
if Collins and Snowe had stood up and pleaded for this most precious of all
rights, had had the courage of even the flimsy Lincoln Chaffee, who voted for
the Amendment (I guess he needs the votes of Democrats this Fall) there would
have been much greater pressure on a few so-called Moderates like Chuck
Hagel, or even John McCave, who made the most despicable empty show of
standing for principle, only to cave at the first ounce of pressure from
The prerogative of a king to seize and imprison whomever he wishes, indefinitely, with no compunction to show legal justification for his action is the ultimate definition of tyranny.
John, son of Henry II and younger brother of Richard I Coeur de Leon, who
assumed the throne of
Article 39 of this document states as follows:
"Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre."
In English, this is:
"No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we [the Royal Plural — remember these are the words the barons put into the mouth of King John] go or send against [literally, "over"] him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
"There are four fundamental undeniable principles, and facts, involved in the issue we are debating here today. The first undeniable principle is, that a statute cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision on constitutional grounds, and a statute cannot contradict an explicit constitutional provision. Point number one.
Point number two: the constitution is explicit in the statement that habeas corpus may be suspended only with rebellion or invasion. [Article 1, Section 9]
Fact number three, uncontested: we don't have a rebellion or invasion.
Fact and principle number four: the Supreme Court says that aliens are covered by habeas corpus."
Which of these points do you dispute, Senator Snowe?
'Modified Limited Hang Out'
THE TERM ORIGINATES in the Watergate tapes:
NIXON: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the--let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that—
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out.
As of this writing, Olympia Snowe has on her Senate website, dated September 11th:
The Portland Press Herald says
"Snowe, R-Maine, was joined by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., in helping Democrats force the release of conclusions about inaccurate information from the Iraqi National Congress leading up to the war."
“Over two years ago, the Intelligence Committee unanimously released the first phase of its investigation into one of the most catastrophic intelligence failures in our nation’s history." Today, we are witnessing a continuation of this investigation with the release of the first two sections of the second phase of this major review – and regrettably, in both instances, what the Committee continues to find is indeed disturbing. After reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, I voted for the conclusions that most closely reflect the facts in the report. Policy-makers seemingly discounted or dismissed warnings about the veracity of critical intelligence reports that may have served as a basis for going to war."
kidding? In the
Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in
far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is
gone and the Americans are in
Well, doesn't she get credit for "bucking the party"? "going her own way"? No, she's in a storm and she's lightening the ship. As Luke wrote in Acts, chapter 27:
And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day they
lightened the ship;
. . .
 And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea.
But also, verse 29,
 Then fearing lest we should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day.
What day are they wishing for? The day they are again re-elected the majority party. The Washington Post is closer to the truth with their headline:
The point of the WaPo article that Snowe's press release ducks is their opening two paragraphs:
"A long-awaited Senate analysis comparing the Bush administration's public statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private remains mired in partisan recrimination and will not be released before the November elections, key senators said yesterday.
"Instead, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence will vote today to declassify two less
controversial chapters of the panel's report, on the use of intelligence
in the run-up to the
Pat Roberts and Karl Rove, palms a-sweat, are
saying: "Tell them anything,