By Chuck Baldwin
March 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Thanks to a concerned Missouri state policeman, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host stated that he was alerted last week to a secret Missouri state police report that categorized supporters of Congressman Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself as “‘militia’ influenced terrorists.” The report, he said, “instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.”

Ignoring the threat of Muslim terrorists, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report focuses on the so-called “militia movement” and “conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.”

This report is not original, of course. During the Clinton administration, a Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force explicitly designated “defenders” of the Constitution as “right-wing extremists.” However, the MIAC report significantly expands on earlier documents and is the first known document to actually name names.

According to the MIAC, opposition to world government, NAFTA, federalization of the states, and restrictive gun laws are a potential threat to the police. The MIAC report also refers to Aaron Russo’s film, “America: Freedom to Fascism.”

The story exposing the MIAC report states, “The MIAC report is particularly pernicious because it indoctrinates Missouri law enforcement in the belief that people who oppose confiscatory taxation, believe in the well-documented existence of a New World Order and world government (a Google search of this phrase will pull up numerous references made by scores of establishment political leaders), and are opposed to the obvious expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states as violent extremists who are gunning for the police. It specifically targets supporters of mainstream political candidates and encourages police officers to consider them dangerous terrorists.”

See the report here:

The Columbia Daily Tribune also carried the story last Saturday. It quoted Missouri resident Tim Neal of Miller County. “When Neal read the report, he couldn’t help but think it described him. A military veteran and a delegate to the 2008 Missouri Republican state convention, he didn’t appreciate being lumped in with groups like the Neo-Nazis.

“‘I was going down the list and thinking, “Check, that’s me,”‘ he said. ‘I’m a Ron Paul supporter, check. I talk about the North American union, check. I’ve got the “America: Freedom to Fascism” video loaned out to somebody right now. So that means I’m a domestic terrorist? Because I’ve got a video about the Federal Reserve?’”

The Tribune’s report also acknowledges, “The [MIAC] report’s most controversial passage states that militia ‘most commonly associate with third-party political groups’ and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional [sic] Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year.”

The Tribune report also said, “Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won’t know whether it’s because he was speeding or because of his political views.”

See the Columbia Tribune report here:

I realize that there are people who will dismiss this kind of story as insignificant. They shouldn’t. This is very serious and should be treated as such. Anyone who knows anything at all about history knows that before a state or national government can persecute–and commit acts of violence against–a group of people, they must first marginalize the group from society’s mainstream and categorize it as dangerous.

Rome did exactly that to Christians, as did Mao’s China; Hitler’s Germany did the same thing to Jews; Stalin’s Russia did the same thing to political dissenters, etc. That a State police agency in America would actually infer that people who supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself in a political campaign are somehow indistinguishable from violence-prone “militias” is beyond insulting: it is a smear campaign, and might should even be regarded as a hate crime!

Beyond that, the MIAC report paints with a very broad brush. In addition to supporting Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, a review of the report reveals that opposition to any of the following risks someone being classified as a potential “domestic terrorist”:

The New World Order
The United Nations
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion on demand
Illegal Immigration

Again, if you oppose any of the above, or if you supported Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or myself, you risk being labeled a “domestic terrorist,” according to the MIAC.

Do you not see how dangerous this kind of slanderous labeling can become? It could affect your flight status when you try to board an airline. It could affect your application for sensitive jobs. It could affect your adjudication before a court or judge. It could make you a target for aggressive law enforcement strategies. It could affect your being able to obtain a passport. It could affect one’s ability to purchase a firearm or receive a State concealed weapon permit.

This is very serious business! We are not talking about private opinions. We are talking about law enforcement agencies. And remember, most law enforcement agencies share these types of reports; therefore, how many other state police agencies have similar reports floating around? Probably several. Plus, how do we know that this report was not influenced by federal police agencies? We don’t.

Rest assured, I do not plan to take this lying down. As one who is personally named in the above report, I demand a public retraction and apology from the MIAC and Missouri State Police. I can tell you that my family is extremely distraught that their husband, father, and grandfather would be labeled in such a manner. I am also not ruling out legal action. In addition, I am discussing an appropriate response with Ron Paul and Bob Barr. I will keep readers posted as to what comes of these discussions (as I am at liberty to do so, of course).

In the meantime, I encourage everyone who believes in the freedom of speech and who believes that the MIAC report is an egregious miscarriage of justice to contact the appropriate Missouri police officials. Here is the contact information:

Email address: Brandon.middleton@mshp.dps.mo.gov

Missouri Information Analysis Center
Division of Drugs & Crime Control
P. O. Box 568
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0568
Phone: 573-751-6422
Toll Free: 866-362-6422
Fax: 573-751-9950

And lest one thinks that none of this concerns him or her, I would like to remind you of the lament of Martin Niemoeller back in the days of Hitler’s Germany. Niemoeller was a decorated U-Boat Captain and pastor of great distinction. An avid anti-communist, Niemoeller at first supported Hitler’s rise to power and was hesitant to oppose the violations of civil rights against various groups he personally found distasteful. It did not take long, however, before Niemoeller realized that when laws protecting the rights of all were removed from some, no one was safe–including him. Unfortunately, he learned his lesson too late, as he, too, was persecuted and imprisoned by Hitler’s State Police. Here is what Niemoeller said about his indifference:

“They came first for the communists, and I did not speak up-
because I was not a communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up – because I was not a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew;
And then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak up.”

So, those of you who think you have nothing to fear because you did not vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or me, or because you do not live in the State of Missouri need to think again. As I have repeatedly said, we either have freedom for all, or we have freedom for none. Truly, secret police reports such as the one above threaten the liberties of us all.

So, will you speak up now or wait until they come for you and no one is left to speak up?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Related Posts:

• Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• Adolf Hitler: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened, Part 3
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!

By BRADLEY SIMPSON

The presumptive appointment by President-elect Barack Obama of retired Admiral Dennis C. Blair as his new Director of National Intelligence is being greeted with cheers by the national media, which hail his experience, bureaucratic infighting skills and comparatively moderate views on national security issues. The New York Times, in a recent profile, seemed much impressed by the fact that the 34-year Navy veteran once water skied behind an aircraft carrier, in addition to his stints with the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Institute for Defense Analysis (from which he resigned in 2006 over conflict of interest charges involving the F-22 raptor).

But human rights supporters are right to be worried that Dennis Blair will hardly lead the charge for reform in the nation’s intelligence community after the Bush Administration’s embrace of torture, rendition and other crimes. For in the period leading up to and following East Timor’s August 1999 referendum on independence from Indonesia Blair, from his perch as US Commander in Chief of the Pacific (CINCPAC) from February 1999 to May 2000, ran interference for the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) as they and their militia proxies committed crimes against humanity on an awesome scale.

Following the ouster of long-time dictator Suharto in 1998, Indonesian president B.J. Habibie signaled that Indonesia would be willing to allow East Timor an up or down referendum on independence following 24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation. The Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI), hoping to sway the vote in Jakarta’s favor, launched a campaign of terror and intimidation led by the Army, Police and local militia proxies in which they killed hundreds of people displaced tens of thousands, most infamously on April 6, 1999, when militia forces massacred 57 Timorese in a church at Liquica on the outskirts of the capitol Dili.

Two days after the massacre, the Pentagon dispatched Blair two days later to meet with Wironto and demand that he disband the militias and allow a fair vote in East Timor. Instead, Blair offered assurances of continued US support for the TNI and invited Wironto to Pacific Command Headquarters in Hawaii as his personal guest. According to top secret CIA intelligence summary issued after the massacre, however (and recently declassified by the author through a Freedom of Information Act request), “Indonesian military had colluded with pro-Jakarta militia forces in events preceding the attack and were present in some numbers at the time of the killings.” A Top Secret Senior Executive Intelligence Brief from April 20, 1999 stated plainly that “to restore stability, the Indonesian security forces must stop supporting the militias and adopt a neutral posture.” A Top Secret CIA Intelligence Report dated May 10, 1999 reported that “local commanders would have required at least tacit approval from headquarters in Jakarta to allow the militias the blatant free hand they have enjoyed.” Blair’s performance, which prompted a rebuke by the State Department, was part of a fierce bureaucratic struggle between the Pentagon and State Department and Embassy officers seeking to reign in the TNI’s terror.

Immediately after the August 30, 1999 referendum, in which nearly 80 per cent of Timorese voted for independence from Indonesia, TNI forces and their militia proxies launched a murderous scorched earth campaign, killing nearly 1,500 Timorese, forcing a third of the population from their homes and destroying most of the territory’s infrastructure. Following a global outcry and enormous pressure from Congress and grassroots activists, President Clinton finally severed military ties on September 8, with Dennis Blair personally conveying news of the cutoff to General Wironto.

By this point the TNI’s – and by extension Wironto’s – control of the terror operations in East Timor was being widely acknowledged internally by both State Department and CIA sources. On September 10 the US Embassy in Canberra, Australia dispatched a secret telegram to Washington reporting in the subject line that that the TNI was “controlling and assisting militia” in East Timor. Yet in Pentagon news briefing two weeks later Blair continued publicly to push the ‘bad apple’ line – characterizing the TNI’s deliberate destruction of East Timor and murder of hundreds of people as “a bad breakdown of order with some elements of TNI contributing to it and not helping it.” He went on to insist that US training of the Indonesian Armed Forces had paid dividends, with “many of those officers who did have training and education in the United States … are leading a very strong reform movement within TNI.” As Dana Priest of the /Washington Post/ later reported, however, fully one third of the Indonesian officers indicted by Indonesia’s national human rights commission for “crimes against humanity” committed in East Timor in 1999 were US trained. Wironto, also indicted, is now considering a run at the Indonesian presidency in 2009. The clear links between US training and TNI terror clearly did not trouble Blair, who spent much of his remaining time as CINCPAC fighting to restore the military ties to his allies in Jakarta that grassroots activists and their Congressional allies had worked since 1992 to sever, finally winning their resumption in 2002.

Blair’s apologetics for murder and torture by the Indonesian armed forces in East Timor, and his opposition to trials, international or otherwise, for the high level perpetrators of mass violence, offers a sobering indication of the positions he is likely to take as Director of National Intelligence. President-elect Obama’s choice suggests that he will resist – as Blair almost certainly will – demands for the prosecution of high-ranking Bush Administration officials, much less lower level employees in the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency, for torture, rendition and other crimes carried out in the name of the so-called War on Terror.

Bradley Simpson is an assistant professor of history and international affairs at Princeton and Director of the  Indonesia and East Timor Documentation Project. He has just published Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and U.S.-Indonesian Relations, 1960-1968. He can be reached at  bsimpson@princeton.edu

Related Posts:

• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Career Army officer sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11
• Bailout for the People
• The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security

View related photos

WASHINGTON – Reversing itself yet again, the State Department said Wednesday it will not meet with an activist from the Russian-backed breakaway region of Georgia who had regular conversations with a KGB official.

Last week the department called off a meeting with South Ossetian human rights activist Lira Tskhovrebova. Tuesday the department announced it was back on. By Wednesday, officials said Tuesday’s announcement resulted from an internal miscommunication.

Tskhovrebova came to the United States to draw American attention to the brief war in August between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway region. She has urged the U.S. to place conditions on foreign aid to Georgia, which is a U.S. ally.

The confusion at the State Department followed publication of an article by The Associated Press about intercepted telephone conversations between Tskhovrebova and an official in South Ossetia’s security service still known by the Soviet-era acronym KGB.

Tskhovrebova has denied working for the South Ossetian KGB and maintains that the recordings reflect innocent conversations with a family friend.

Last week, a deputy assistant secretary of state, Matthew Bryza, canceled a meeting between his staff and Tskhovrebova on grounds that he doubted her independence.

‘Disappointed’
Mark Toner, a spokesman for the department’s European affairs bureau said Tuesday’s announcement that a meeting would take place was based on inaccurate information. He said that a State Department official may attend a dinner hosted by George Mason University for Tskhovrebova’s delegation, but that no separate meeting would take place.

Tskhovrebova expressed disappointment that the State Department would not meet with her.

“I am disappointed that the State Department, under pressure from Georgia, is refusing to listen to our eyewitness accounts,” Tskhovrebova said in a statement through a spokesman. “They’ve met with Georgia’s lobbyists dozens of times. I thought it was part of the State Department’s human rights responsibilities to hear from victims of war.”

More on KGB | South Osettia

Related Posts:

• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• As if Things Weren’t Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.
• America’s “Money Machine”
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• Global Energy War: Washington’s New Kissinger

Filed by Stephen C. Webster

A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.

According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.

On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.

“The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised ‘painful questions’ about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent” said Veale in a media advisory.

Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.

The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.

“What they don’t want is for this to go into discovery,” said Gallop’s attorney, Mr. Veale, speaking to RAW STORY. “If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we’ve got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We’ve got the law on our side.”
The lawsuit’s full text follows.

APRIL GALLOP, for Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of ELISHA GALLOP, a Minor, No. _____________

Plaintiff, Jury Trial Demanded

vs.

DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the U.S.A., DONALD RUMSFELD, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, General RICHARD MYERS, U.S.A.F. (Ret.), and John Does Nos. 1– X, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.

__________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSPIRACY, AND OTHER WRONGS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This case arises from the infamous Attack on America of Sept 11, 2001, and especially on the Pentagon; and is premised on an allegation of broad complicity in the attack on the part of key U.S. Government officials, beginning with and led from the top by Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Myers, then acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plaintiffs allege that these and other government officials, whose identities will be ascertained from their proven or evident relevant roles and activities, and who are named herein as ‘John Doe’ defendants, together with other known and unknown operatives and functionaries, official and otherwise, engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, or a set of related, ongoing conspiracies, in which the concrete objective was to facilitate and enable the hijacking of the airliners, and their use as living bombs to attack buildings containing thousands of innocent victims; and then to cover up the truth about what they had done.

2. The defendants’ purpose in aiding and facilitating the attack, and the overall object of the conspirac(ies), was to bring about an unprecedented, horrifying and frightening catastrophe of terrorism inside the United States, which would give rise to a powerful reaction of fear and anger in the public, and in Washington. This would generate a political atmosphere of acceptance in which the new Administration could enact and implement radical changes in the policy and practice of constitutional government in our country. Much of their intention was spelled out prior to their coming into office, in publications of the so-called Project for the New American Century, of which defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld were major sponsors. There they set forth specific objectives regarding the projection of U.S. military power abroad, particularly in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and other oil-producing areas. They observed, however, that the American people would not likely support the actions the sponsors believed were necessary, without being shocked into a new outlook by something cataclysmic: “a new Pearl Harbor”. By helping the attack succeed, defendants and their cohorts created a basis for the seizure of extraordinary power, and a pretext for launching the so-called Global War on Terror, in the guise of which they were free to pursue plans for military conquest, “full spectrum dominance” and “American primacy” around the world; as they have done.

3. In pursuit of the goals of the conspiracy, the named and unnamed defendants knowingly and by agreement committed a series of acts and omissions which were aimed at and did generally accomplish the following objectives:

+ To permit the men they later identified as the hijackers and any immediate accomplices to enter and remain in the country, and carry out the activities, movements and communications needed in their preparations for the hijacking, free from interference by police or counter-terrorist authorities; and then allow the groups of these men to book passage, all on the same day, and board the flights;

+ To cause normal operation of the regular off-course airline flight interception practice of the US Air Force, in cooperation with civil flight control authorities, to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove its protections, at least on that day, and thus permit three of the four apparently hijacked planes to reach their targets and crash into them (or appear to do so…);1

+ To cause the normal operation of ground and air defenses which guard the Pentagon from external attack to be altered, suspended or disrupted in such a way as to remove or negate the building’s normal protections, and thus permit an airliner, believed to be hijacked by possible suicide bombers, and following a forbidden, descending flight path, to reach the Pentagon undeterred;

+ To cause and arrange for high explosive charges to be detonated inside the Pentagon, and/or a missile of some sort to be fired at the building, at or about the time the wayward airliner supposedly arrived there, to give the false impression that hijackers had crashed the plane into the building, as had apparently happened in New York;

+ To arrange, thereafter, and fabricate, propound and defend, as part of the conspiracy, an elaborate, highly complex and sophisticated cover-up, centering around the Report of the 9/11 Commission, and continuing to this day. To this end, defendants misappropriated the highest authority of government to block, misdirect and otherwise evade any fair, independent investigation of the evidence, and officially if implausibly explain away the evident wholesale failure of America’s defenses with misinformation, omissions and distortions, withheld and destroyed evidence, and outright lies.

4. In the attack on the Pentagon, in particular, plaintiff avers that the official story, that a hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon and exploded (causing the plaintiff’s injuries), is false. In fact, the bombing was accomplished another way, so as to limit the damage, protect the defendants, and only make it appear that a plane had been crashed into the building. This claim is supported by data from the plane’s supposed “black box”, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile. This is supported by the lack of any photographic evidence of a wrecked airliner at the Pentagon, compounded by the record of reported refusal by the U.S. Department of Justice to release some 85 video tapes from surveillance cameras in locations at or near the Pentagon, which it has declared exempt from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.

5. Whatever way the bombing of the Pentagon was accomplished, however, and whatever else may or may not have been done by defendants to facilitate the hijackings that day, it is clear the defendant top commanders would have had and did have, at a profound minimum, enough foreknowledge, on that day and in the intelligence information they received beforehand, to have sounded a warning in time for plaintiff and others to evacuate the building, and thereby avoid much if not all the death and injury which occurred. In the end, more than half an hour passed after flight controllers first sounded the alert on Flight 77, while all concerned were fully aware of the suicide crashes in New York; plenty of time for the Pentagon to be evacuated. ‘Top gun’ jet fighter-interceptors under defendants’ command, available with time to spare, were not summoned; and the people in the building, including plaintiff and her infant, were not

warned. This was the result of unlawful conspiracy among these highest-level commanders, and others, who acted knowingly and intentionally to have the Pentagon attacked or to allow it to be attacked, without warning, with deliberate indifference to and in reckless and callous disregard for the fundamental constitutional and human rights of plaintiff and her child, and many other people, dead, injured and bereaved.

6. Plaintiff April Gallop brings this action for herself and as next friend of her son Elisha Gallop now aged 7, who was a two-month-old baby in her arms on that day, her first back from maternity leave. She was a career member of the US Army, a ranking specialist with top secret clearance, who had served six years, two-and-a-half of them in Germany, before being assigned to the Pentagon in 2000. Her desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall. As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.

7. Plaintiff and her baby both suffered substantial head and brain injuries, which seriously affect them still today. Plaintiff charges that, because of the conspiracy alleged herein, she and her child and others were injured by acts of terrorism participated in by defendants. Further, as more fully described within at Pars 57-59, she and her child were and subsequently have been denied fundamental rights — including by acts of retaliation against her for raising painful questions about what occurred — as the cover-up continues.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction of this case, as follows:

a. Under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to federal officials under the rule of Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 28 USC 1331;

b. Under the federal Common Law — given that the most direct occurrences and mechanisms of plaintiffs’ injuries, no doubt including crucial agreements and other communications among various defendants, took place in the Pentagon, a federal enclave — giving plaintiff a right of action in this Court for conspiracy to commit and facilitate actions likely to cause wrongful death, great bodily injury, terror and other loss to plaintiff and others to whom defendants owed a special duty of care; where, instead, defendants acted with reckless and callous disregard for and deliberate indifference to the likelihood of great harm to plaintiff and others, and deprivation of their rights;

c. Under the Terrorism Acts, 18 U.S.Code 2333(a), for acts of terrorism brought about by actions wholly outside the scope of defendants’ duties, in perversion of their authority, and beyond the bounds or color of any law; and therefore not exempt or immune under the provisions of Sec. 2337, the application of which to exonerate these defendants would be unconstitutional.

9. Venue for the case is set by the special provisions of the Air Transportation Safety Act of September, 2001, 49 U.S.C. 40101, Subsection 408(b)(3), bringing all claims arising from events of 9/11 to this honorable Court .

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff APRIL GALLOP is an American citizen, resident of the State of Virginia, a member until this year of the U.S. Army, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11, claiming for herself and for her minor child, ELISHA GALLOP, who was just two months old on 9/11/01, and was with her when the building was hit. Plaintiff respectfully petitions the Court to appoint her as guardian ad litem for the purposes of this action and related matters.

11. Defendants are DICK CHENEY, the Vice President of the United States; DONALD RUMSFELD, formerly and at relevant times Secretary of Defense of the U.S.; Gen. RICHARD MYERS, then acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; all sued in their individual capacities. Additional named, unknown defendants are other persons who were and are co-actors and co-conspirators in sundry phases of the (terrorist) undertaking complained of herein, whose identities, and some of whose precise places or functions in the plot(s) alleged herein are not yet known or fully known, but who certainly include high-ranking members of the Defense Department, the Military, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies. Such persons are named and alleged as co-defendants, designated as John Does Nos.1-X and hereby notified of this action, pro tanto, to be identified for the record and impleaded by plaintiffs as the particulars of both culpable and innocent acts and omissions by everyone involved in these events become known.

12. Existence of a Class. Plaintiff notes that a number of other persons suffered injury and loss in the Pentagon on September 11 as she did, and are similarly situated to her, plainly within the provisions of Rule 23, F.R.Civ P., so that she represents a Class, the members of which evidently are also entitled to recover judgment as sought herein. She does not now assert the Class interest; but, where it appears there could be action by the Court affecting this question, and a class could emerge, she wishes to and does hereby reserve the right, subject to the Court’s approval, to act as lead plaintiff.

13. Limitations. There is no time bar to the claims in this action. The Statute does not run against plaintiff’s child, as a minor, under Virginia law (Va. Code Ann., §8.01-229). As to the plaintiff herself, defendants and their cohorts and agents, by means of elaborate planned and other ad hoc cover stories, public lying, alteration of records, misappropriation of official authority and other nefarious activities, have concealed and continue to conceal, fraudulently, the truth about the attacks and the way they occurred — and their own participation and complicity in the range of acts and omissions needed, in furtherance of conspiracy, to bring them about. Likewise, the original conspiracy to act secretly in furtherance of terrorism, and lie and dissemble afterwards, in order to foment war and vengeance against the supposed perpetrators, has stayed alive and continued to harm the plaintiff, as she will show.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Background: Al Qaeda and the 9/11 Attack

14. As the world knows, four large commercial airliners filled with ordinary passengers were reported hijacked in the northeastern United States the morning of September 11, 2001. Two were evidently crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, which later collapsed; a third was said to have hit the Pentagon in Washington DC, and the fourth, supposedly aiming for the White House or the Capitol, was reported crashed in Pennsylvania by its passengers, fighting back against the hijackers.

15. The alleged hijackers were quickly identified by US authorities, supposedly from passenger lists, as 19 men of Middle Eastern descent, fifteen from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian and one Lebanese. Their pictures, apparent police mug shots, were shown on TV around the world soon after the attack. It emerged that some if not all of these men were already known to police and intelligence authorities in the US and elsewhere as terrorist suspects. They were said to be associated with Al-Qaeda, a network of radical ‘Islamic’ militants, led by the renegade Saudi aristocrat Osama bin Laden, and pledged to unremitting ‘holy war’ against the United States and its people. Al Qaeda was blamed for several previous terrorist attacks, including suicide attacks in which hundreds died, in the Middle East and Africa, and against a U.S. Navy warship in the Persian Gulf. An earlier, precursor group of ‘Islamist’ terrorists, based in Brooklyn and New Jersey, carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center, in 1993.

16. At the time the Clinton Administration was succeeded by that of George W. Bush and defendant Dick Cheney, in January, 2001, an extensive, complex U.S. counter-terrorism effort against Al Qaeda was in progress, involving personnel and resources from a number of government agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the U.S. Military, and others, requiring coordination between these agencies at the highest levels. The Chief of Counterterrorism under President Clinton, Richard Clarke, was retained by Bush, but later strongly criticized the Bush Administration for ignoring the Al Qaeda threat, allowing the effort begun under Clinton to lapse, to the point where he felt constrained to apologize to the families of those who died, for the failure he said led directly to the devastation of September 11th. At all events, it is clear from the accounts of Clarke and others that, once Mr. Bush and Defendant Cheney were in office, the effort to combat Al Qaeda was decisively blunted at the top, and at key points down the chain of command.

17. In particular, little or no attention was paid by defendants and others responsible to an increasingly explicit series of warnings, during 2001, that Al Qaeda was hoping and planning to strike inside the US; and that there were concrete plans — which cadres in U.S. agencies were aware of, and were in fact conducting exercises to prepare for, and defeat — which included attempting to crash planes into important buildings. U.S. investigators were well aware that the man they believed was the enemy network’s chief bomb-maker for the 1993 attack on the Trade Center, Ramzi Youssef, had hoped and attempted to bring a tower down in that attack; and that this remained a goal of the group.

18. Responsible intelligence officials were aware that Al Qaeda members were operating inside the U.S., and there were a number of critical investigative leads. Two of the hijackers-to-be lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. The CIA monitored a meeting in Malaysia in 1999, after which two of the participants came to the U.S., where authorities supposedly lost track of them. There were reports from FBI field offices in Arizona and elsewhere that figures on the suspect list were taking or seeking training as pilots — including one who reportedly said he only wanted to learn how to fly an airliner, not how to land or take off — but coordination and follow-up investigation on these and other leads was blocked by John Doe defendant CIA and FBI higher-ups and key players. Notwithstanding such malfeasance, the signs and portents of an imminent attack were very strong in the summer of 2001. As the then CIA chief George Tenet testified, “The system was blinking red.”

19. Despite the flow of ominous information to various sections of the US counterterrorism apparatus, however, and the danger to innocent people — and as a result of conspiracy among defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and other members of the Government in various positions — the many warnings of a coming attack by Al Qaeda forces (as many as forty messages in all, according to the Commission Report, from eleven different countries) were studiously ignored.

20. That is, defendants and others in the highest circles of the Government knew more than enough beforehand about the threat and gathering danger of an imminent possible attack by Al Qaeda in the U.S. to understand that they needed to take strong, thoroughgoing measures to increase the country’s protections and alertness. Instead, led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld, and because defendants were callously indifferent to the rights and safety of innocents — including their own people in the Pentagon, plaintiff among them — the government did not respond. On information and belief, no special meetings of high officials and agency heads were called, to make sure protections systems were on high alert and functioning properly, and that all needed information was being shared. No special warnings were given to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Immigration Service, the Military and other affected agencies. No consultations were had about possible methods of attack, including specifics about possible hijackings, and the use of planes as missiles to hit buildings, despite operational planning and training which had already occurred at lower echelons. The FBI did not step up surveillance of suspected terrorist individuals or “cells”, or immigration checks, or let such people know they were being watched, in order to impede their activities; and it appears that no coordinated, high-level monitoring and analysis of the threats, and planning for counteraction, ever took place. Instead, the threat was dismissed, and ignored.

21. It should be noted that plaintiff cannot and does not know with certainty the outlines of the plot at its initiation. The attacks may have been conceived of as a false-flag operation from the beginning, with the defendants and their operatives as creators, planners, and executors, with the assistance of others as necessary. Or, defendants may have employed Muslim extremists to carry out suicide attacks; or they may have used Muslim extremists as dupes or patsies. The roles of the supposed “nineteen” could have been to hijack the airliners, or simply, unwittingly, to be on the planes when they were crashed into buildings by remote control. It is also possible that the defendants learned of a plot originated by Muslim extremists, and co-opted or overrode it with their own plan. Whatever lay in the minds of the defendant conspirators at the outset, it is clear that the nineteen men so quickly identified as the hijackers, some if not all of them known terrorist suspects, traveling under their own names, simply walked onto the four planes that morning, with their “box cutters”, without hindrance or incident.

II. Failure of the Air Defense System.

22. Accounts from the FAA and the National Military Command Center vary widely, suffer from internal contradictions, and are in conflict with each other; but credible reports show that FAA flight controllers were aware of a problem with the first plane as early as 8:14 or 8:15 a.m. the morning of September 11th, and evidently called the military for emergency assistance, pursuant to routine, by 8:21 a.m. or thereabouts. They learned the second plane was off course and not responding a short time later. According to reports, United Flight 11 hit the WTC North Tower at 8:46 a.m. and Flight 175 hit the South Tower at 9:03. The Pentagon was hit at or about 9:32 a.m. — although the official version says 9:38 — and the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania shortly after 10:00 a.m. High performance jet fighter planes stationed at various bases around the northeastern U.S. — tasked to intercept and deal with unidentified or straying aircraft entering or flying in U.S. airspace under NORAD district command, or otherwise at NORAD’s disposal — were available at a moment’s notice. None were notified, however, or sent to the right place, until it was too late; at least for the first three planes.

23. No interceptor planes came to stop the supposed hijackers — shoot them down if necessary — even though the Air Force has for many years maintained a practice of immediate response in which the fighters have readily been “scrambled” when aircraft are seen to go too far off course, or lose radio contact with flight controllers. The interceptor program has been an elite assignment in the Air Force, even after the Cold War ended, in which pilots fly regularly, and wait in ‘ready rooms’ near the hangars, and planes are kept in top condition, with engines warm and ready for takeoff. The best jets are used, which can reach speeds of 1600-1800 miles per hour, and the personnel are so well trained and practiced that pilots routinely go from hearing the scramble order to 29,000 feet in less than three minutes. The scramble orders are normally made by local NORAD commanders in cooperation with the FAA. Both the FAA and the affected NORAD North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS) military command have radar tracking coverage of the entire airspace, and special telephone hotlines between them and with higher authority. Nor are these forays rare, reportedly occurring once or twice a week at various U.S. locales during the past several years. Published Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records showed that, between September 1, 2000 and June 1, 2001, interceptor jets took to the air 67 times to check on “in-flight emergencies” involving wayward planes.

24. No interceptors came to defend the Pentagon, in particular, and plaintiff and the other occupants, because of actions and failures to act by defendant Rumsfeld, Defendant General Myers and John Doe others in concert with them, even though more than an hour passed between the time the first warning went out to the Military, at or about 8:21a.m., and the attack on the Pentagon at 9:32; even though the first tower was hit in a suicide crash in New York at least 46 minutes before the Pentagon was hit; and even though ‘combat air patrol’ jets from any of several bases in the region could have reached the Pentagon — or the path of Flight 77 — in a fraction of that time.

25. Having pre-arranged a coordinated failure of the Pentagon defenses, and its warning system, the defendants hid and distracted themselves, and otherwise failed to act, just at the time they were needed to ensure defense of the building; and they have dissembled ever since, as part of the conspiracy, in representing where they were and what they did during that time. As with the planes that hit the towers in New York, the Military and the 9/11 Commission, while failing to cast blame, explained away the failure to launch fighter interceptors at the Pentagon as the result of a failure by flight controllers — which FAA personnel deny — to notify the Air Force of the flight emergencies in a timely way. This was cover-up, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

26. Likewise, by the acts of one or more defendants in furtherance of the conspiracy, no defenses at the Pentagon responded either, no missile or anti-aircraft batteries opening from the ground around the building, or the roof; no sharpshooters deployed with hand-held missiles at stations close by; nothing. And, shockingly, when the towers in New York had already been hit, and Flight 77 (or a substitute, see below) was out of radio contact and headed back towards the capital; and even when the plane approached, and then doubled back and headed toward the building in a long dive, no alarm was sounded.

27. It is evident, particularly with respect to the attack on the Pentagon in which the plaintiff and her baby were injured, that, if the building was hit by a plane that morning, or if, as appears more likely, a plane flew low over the building at the time the bomb(s) went off inside and/or the missile hit, to give the (false) impression of a crash, some form of order or restriction was in force which suspended normal operation of the building’s defenses. In particular, it is indisputable that the expected response of the fighter-interceptors failed completely; and plaintiff avers this resulted from orders or authorization from within the defendant circle of Rumsfeld and Myers and their helpers, restraining normal operation of the protections system and armaments at the Pentagon — including but not limited to jets available at various bases near the capital.

28. Plaintiff alleges further that such “standdown” orders, in whatever manner or form they had been prepared or issued, were maintained and affirmed by defendants up to and through that morning, and that defendant Cheney in particular, operating in the underground command bunker (Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC) beneath the White House, personally affirmed such an order. His word kept the order in force during the period between 9:20 a.m., when he was observed in the Bunker and the moment the Pentagon was hit.

29. In this connection, plaintiff refers the Court to the testimony of then-U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that when he arrived at the White House, he was sent to the PEOC, and arrived at around 9:20 a.m., to find Cheney there, and in charge. He said he sat at a table with Cheney for the next period of time, during which a young man came in the room, three times, and informed the Vice President that an “unidentified plane” was approaching Washington, D.C., first at 50, then 30, and then 10 “miles out”; and that, when he reported the distance as 10 miles, the young man asked the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” Secretary Mineta testified that defendant Cheney responded sharply, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Whereupon the young man left the room; and a few minutes later, the hit on the Pentagon was announced. This testimony by the Secretary has never been contested, discredited or explained away by any U.S. official.

30. Plaintiff alleges that the “orders” were orders not to intercept or shoot down the approaching plane. If the orders had been to attack the approaching plane, it would have been shot down before it reached the Pentagon — or at least some attempt to stop it would have been made; and the world would know of it. Based on some two hundred years of American military history, the failure would have led to a Board of Inquiry or other public official investigation, to determine how and why the defense apparatus had failed. Individuals would have been called to account, and disciplinary procedures followed resulting in findings of responsibility and demotions or formal charges against those found to have failed the Country. All of these bureaucratic events would have become part of the official record, and known to the public; none of which has happened. There has been no publicly recorded disciplinary action against any military or civilian officer of the United States government as a result of the attacks of September 11th. Such proceedings would have created a great risk that the truth would be exposed.

31. The public record also shows that no meaningful follow-up questioning of Sec. Mineta occurred before the 9/11 Commission; that defendant Cheney has never testified under oath or been reasonably questioned about these events; and that he has given contradictory accounts, one of which—the account he gave to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11— conflicts with The 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission Report adopts an unsworn statement by Cheney that he never reached the bunker until about 10:00 a.m.; and contains no reference to Mineta’s testimony, ignoring completely this contradiction between the two high government officials. The Commission also ignores the fact that Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” supports Mineta’s testimony and hence contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s account.

32. Plaintiff charges that, in point of fact, the “orders” referred to were orders not to shoot the plane down, but to let it proceed, and that such orders were given and/or approved by defendants Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers, pursuant to the root conspiracy alleged herein, and transmitted down a chain of command. The normal expected operation of Pentagon defense that day was thus prevented, allowing the attack to succeed, or to “succeed” in creating a false and deceptive scenario of a plane crash.

III. The Attack on the Pentagon.

33. At the Pentagon, the plaintiff was at her desk, with her baby, in her office on the first floor, when large explosions occurred, walls crumbled and the ceiling fell in. Although her desk is just some forty feet from the supposed impact point, and she went out through the blown-open front of the building afterwards, she never saw any sign that an airliner crashed through. If Flight 77, or a substitute, did swoop low over the building, to create the false impression of a suicide attack, it was then flown away by its pilot, or remote control, and apparently crashed someplace else. At the building, inside or outside of the wall the plane supposedly hit, there was no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel. The interior walls and ceilings and contents in that area were destroyed, but there was no sign of a crashed airplane. A number of those present inside the building and out have attested to this fact in published reports.

34. Instead, just when plaintiff turned on her computer — for an urgent document-clearing job she was directed by her supervisor to rush and begin, as soon as she arrived at work, without dropping her baby off at child care until she was finished — a huge explosion occurred, and at least one more that she heard and felt, and flames shot out of the computer. Walls crumbled, the ceiling fell in, and she was knocked unconscious. When she came to, terrified and in pain, she found the baby close by, picked him up, and, with other survivors caught in the area, made her way through rubble, smoke and dust towards daylight, which was showing through an open space that now gaped in the outside wall. When she reached the outside she collapsed on the grass; only to wake up in a hospital some time later.

35. Plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided, had an alarm been sounded. However, despite the undoubted knowledge of the defendant commanders and operators in the system that an unknown aircraft was headed towards Washington, possibly as part of the apparent terrorist suicide attack begun earlier in New York — and in spite of well-established Pentagon emergency evacuation procedures and training — there was no alarm. On the contrary, plaintiff was directed to go straight to her desk when she arrived at work, and when she got there, and turned her computer on, the place blew up. If an unauthorized non-military plane was headed towards the building, on a day when two apparently hijacked planes had hit the Twin Towers, why wasn’t she evacuated, with her baby, instead of hurried inside? Why weren’t alarms going off, and all the people in the building rushing to safety? Due to the conspiracy, and defendants’ actions and flagrant failures to act, in furtherance of it, one hundred and twenty-five people, members of the Military and civilian employees, died in the bombing; and many more including plaintiff and her child were seriously hurt.

36. Plaintiff alleges further that, pursuant to the conspiracy, the attack on the Pentagon was contrived to “succeed” in only a very limited way. Destruction, death and injuries, in comparison to what would have occurred if the building had been attacked straight on with a large plane, by enemies bent on causing the greatest possible devastation and loss of life, were kept to a minimum; and the conspirators themselves not put at risk. Certainly the official account of what occurred is full of gross anomalies,

which contradict the physical evidence, the scientific and aeronautical evidence, and the laws of physics and aerodynamics. The 9/11 Commission Report is exposed as an artifact of the conspiracy, aimed at covering up the fact that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon, and that it was bombed a different way.

37. The official account established in the 9/11 Commission hearings is that American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 jetliner, took off from Dulles International Airport at or about 8:20 a.m., and apparently was hijacked at about 8:55 a.m. some two or three hundred miles west of Washington. Radio contact was lost and the plane’s “transponder” was turned off. At that point, Flight 77 was traversing an apparent radar “dead zone”, located over the southeast Ohio-West Virginia borderland, where another similar plane, fitted with radio control reception equipment, may have been substituted, so as to ensure that the precise maneuvers required by the conspirators’ plan could be carried out. Whichever plane it was soon established a flight path leading back towards Washington at high speed, on a downward trajectory, until it was close to the Pentagon. There it began a two-and-a-half-to-three-minute spiral dive, from an altitude of about 8000 feet and in a 330-degree loop, which supposedly carried it into the northwest wall of the building. Experts agree this dive was an aeronautically fantastic maneuver, nearly impossible for a plane of that size, which would require the most skillful and experienced pilot — or remote control.

38. The returning plane, according to the official version, struck the Pentagon just above ground level. There it disintegrated — even maybe vaporized, according to some accounts, at least in part — but, paradoxically, also plowed inside. Had it simply flown straight into the top of the building rather than making its improbable spiral dive, there would have been far greater damage and loss of life. Had it turned only 150-180 degrees, it could have smashed into the East side of the building, where the office of defendant Rumsfeld was publicly known to be located on the third floor, looking out at the river, with the Joint Chiefs and other high officials all nearby. In contrast, the ground floor area that was blown up held offices like the one plaintiff worked in, many of them empty for a remodeling project, which was said to have included reinforcement to protect against attack. Another part of the destroyed space held financial records.

39. Also in the official version, the nose of the plane supposedly penetrated the distance of the three outer “rings” of the building, leaving a large, nine- or ten-foot-high round hole — shown in official photographs, without any sign of a plane — in the inner wall of the third (“C”) ring. The hole was located some 300 feet from the alleged impact point, through a maze of structural pillars and interior walls. It was also said that the wings of the plane knocked over five lampposts along a nearby road, as it approached the building, which meant the wings were a maximum of 50 feet off the ground as the plane flew past, roughly 300-350 yards away from the near face of the building.

40. This account is at odds with known evidence, and raises substantial questions about the absence of evidence — and official withholding of evidence — including the following:

a. There are no photos of a wrecked airplane at the place where the building was hit and set on fire; or of airplane wreckage at the hole in the inner ring where the nose of the plane was originally said by Rumsfeld to have come to rest, or elsewhere inside the building. Moreover, the nose of such a plane contains radar equipment, and the outer shell is made of a porous, composite material that allows the radar to function. Therefore, the nose was not capable of surviving an impact with the outer wall without being crushed, let alone penetrating all the way inside to the C-Ring wall, 300 feet away.

Although this story was later dropped, defendant Rumsfeld has never been publicly questioned about his statement that this is what occurred.

b. As noted, there is no footage from numerous video surveillance cameras — reportedly 85 different tapes are being withheld by the U.S. Justice Department — which are known or reliably assumed to have been operating at various nearby locations where some or all of the plane and the crash could be expected to have been caught on tape.

c. The official account says the plane knocked over several lampposts with its wings — two on one side of a nearby road, three on the other — which meant the wings were less than fifty feet off the ground as the plane approached, over uneven terrain, and the undercarriage even closer. The earliest photographs, taken before the upper floors fell in, about 30 minutes after the explosion(s), show the front blown off an expanse of the ground floor, no marks on the lawn in front of the impact zone; and several large cable reels standing in front of the building, unscathed.

d. The “black box” flight data recorder identified by the Government as coming from Flight 77, and reportedly recovered from the wreckage at the scene, bears data, according to pilots who have examined printouts provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which contradict various aspects of the official account, — and indeed the very notion that a plane struck the Pentagon — in crucial ways, viz:

1. It is a fundamental premise of airliner manufacture and operation that the black box only stops recording data when a flight is terminated — by the pilot turning off the engines at the gate, or by a crash. According to the pilots who studied the printouts, however, the record showing the path of Flight 77, etched with codes which connect it to that plane that day, cuts off, unaccountably, some 4-500 yards short of the building — a point reached after the pitched, diving loop described above — at an altitude of 273 feet. The Pentagon is roughly 75 feet high. Just as they will confirm the improbability of that dive, expert pilots will attest that for a plane that size to descend from 273 feet, going approximately 500 miles an hour, and then level off inside of a quarter mile without hitting the ground — let alone get down to 50 feet in time to catch the lampposts, 300 yards closer — is an aerodynamic and gravitational impossibility.

2. The Safety Board has released a computer simulation of the flight path of Flight 77, allegedly based on the data from the flight recorder, which contradicts a simulation adopted by the 9/11 Commission. The Commission simulation shows the flight path of the official story, at an angle reflected by the damage inside the building, consistent with the downed light poles, and to the south of two nearby buildings housing the Navy Annex and a Citgo gas station. The NTSB simulation shows the plane headed towards the building on a path north of the two buildings and the line of lampposts.

3. Similarly, in the one fragment of a surveillance tape the Pentagon has released, two of the five frames disclosed appear to show an object, not recognizable as an airliner and apparently trailing a plume of white smoke, moving parallel to and just above the ground towards the Pentagon wall, followed by a bright explosion and a fireball mounting from the front of the building. The NTSB’s black box data shows Flight 77 was roughly 200 feet above the top of the Pentagon as it reached its last known position some 400 to 500 yards (2-3 seconds) away. Thus, it could not have hit the building except by diving into it, and so could not have flown parallel to the ground between there and the point of impact. So it appears that, contrary to the defendants’ false cover story of an airliner suicide crash, there was a different, additional, flying object, which hit the Pentagon, and was part of the terrorist bombing that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries.

e. Additionally, the FBI identified the hijacker pilot of Flight 77 as “Hani Hanjour”, supposedly a known terrorist suspect, who was reported to have received flight training in various places in the months before the attack. His flight instructors, however, reported that Hanjour was such a poor flight student that he was barely able to fly a small Cessna; and then he was so erratic that instructors refused to go up with him, and, just a few months before 9/11, recommended he be washed out and his license taken away. Thus it seems quite impossible that he could have flown the 757 really at all, let alone in its great uncanny dive. There have also been repeated reports since 9/11 that several of the other men named and pictured by the FBI as the hijackers were still alive after 9/11, and living in various locations in the world — including one, Waleed Al-Shehri, who was said to be a working pilot for Moroccan Air Lines, correctly shown in the FBI photo, whose identity and location have been verified by at least one major press outlet, the BBC. This information has not been pursued by U.S. investigators, or media.

f. Several trained and experienced military personnel at the scene noted the distinctive odor of cordite, a high explosive used in gunpowder, in the aftermath of the attack at the Pentagon. This suggests explosives as the cause for the destruction rather than the impact and fire resulting from burning jet fuel.

g. One investigator has documented the fact that numerous clocks in the damaged area of the building stopped at 9:32 a.m., as the plaintiff’s watch did also, supporting the idea that electrically timed or detonated explosives were used to bring about the intended damage to the building — and that the attack occurred at 9:32, not 9:38.

41. All the matters alleged in paragraph #40 are known and demonstrable, and most would have been immediately evident to the defendants at the time. As Secretary of Defense, defendant Rumsfeld in particular was in a unique position to determine the truth and fix responsibility. He did neither. That he did not is confirmation of his complicity in the attack–and his indifference to and callous disregard for the injuries and loss of rights suffered by plaintiff and others.

42. Further, it should be noted that on September 10, 2001, the day before the attack, Defendant Rumsfeld conducted a press conference at the Pentagon in which he publicly announced that auditors had determined that some 2.3 trillion dollars in Defense Department funds —$2.300,000,000,000 — could not be accounted for. To plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, part of the area of the ground floor of the Pentagon that was destroyed in the bombing is a location where records were kept that would be used to trace those funds, and where people worked who knew about them. On information and belief, there has been to this day no public report concerning the fate of those records, or that money.

43. In any event, the plainly visible pattern of damage on the outside and in other photographic views makes it clear the building was not hit by a plane. There may have been a missile strike, perhaps penetrating through to the back wall, which helped collapse the section that fell in, possibly augmented by explosives placed inside. Photos taken before the collapse suggest this, showing a single blown-out window section, above the ground floor; and witnesses have reported seeing a helicopter above the building, and disappearing behind it, followed by a big explosion and bright fireball. As noted, a large roundish hole was found in the C-ring wall, some 300 feet inside the building; and there were credible accounts, ignored in the Commission Report, of serious bomb damage in the B-ring, second from the center, and even some reports of dead bodies in the central A-ring, also ignored. As shown on CNN television, a large military aircraft, identified as an E-4B — the so-called “Doomsday Plane”, which carries the most complete and sophisticated military command and control apparatus — was circling above Washington at the time the Pentagon was hit. It was in perfect position to coordinate the detonation and/or missile shot with a fly-over; and guide the airliner in its dive by remote control. It was also in perfect position to spot the oncoming plane on its radar and sound an alarm. Significantly, the Department of Defense has denied any knowledge of this airplane flying in that area on that day.

44. Whatever the cause of the bombing, and the traumatic injuries to plaintiff and others which resulted, the Government, of which the two main defendants were and have been the highest, most powerful officers, pursuant to the conspiracy they led and still lead as alleged herein, has been altogether deceptive in investigating, reporting and explaining the attack and its cause; and defendants, rather than righteously investigate and determine the derelictions which occurred, have done nothing but lie and cover up.

45. Defendant Rumsfeld in particular has been deceptive from the start, as where, on September 13, he reported on Good Morning, America that the plane “…went in through three rings (of the Pentagon). I’m told the nose is — is still in there, very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away”; a palpably false statement, contradicted by numerous witnesses, a total lack of photographic evidence, and evident impossibility. Rumsfeld has also contradicted himself several times in describing his whereabouts and movements during the first hour or more of the attack. He does not acknowledge his presence in a teleconference which Richard Clarke said he, Rumsfeld, and others were part of, beginning shortly after 9:00 a.m. — after the Flight 77 emergency was reported, at or about the time the second tower was hit in New York, and more than half an hour before the Pentagon was hit — and he contradicts himself about whether and when he went to the Executive Support Center and/or the National Military Command Center, both within the Pentagon, as events transpired that morning. General Myers also (falsely) denied he was at the Pentagon in the early stages of the teleconference, as reported by Clarke. Tellingly, the tape of the videoconference, which obviously would have been part of any good faith investigation, has been kept secret.

46. Defendant Rumsfeld also made a striking prediction of the attack, as if speaking compulsively about his secret knowledge, that very morning, and several days later, he publicly referred to the “missile” that hit the Pentagon. In testifying before the 9/11 Commission, the defendant stonewalled and double-talked egregiously, responding to direct questions (some of them personally submitted by plaintiff herself during a hearing open only to survivors), especially about the Air Force fighter-interceptors not showing up, with irrelevant and sometimes incomprehensible ramblings. Consistent with their part in the cover-up, Commissioners failed to question him closely or confront his non-responsiveness.

IV. The Other Planes.

47. In spite of what the record shows was a regular, timely alert and request to NEADS commanders by FAA flight controllers at Boston for in-flight emergency response regarding United Airlines Flights 11 and 175 out of Boston, as described above in Pars. 22-24, the jets were not scrambled, or properly “vectored”, in time to intercept the planes that hit the Towers in New York — even though there was plenty of time for the interception.

48. With respect to Flight 93, which was thought to be intended for an attack on the White House or the Capitol, but crashed in Pennsylvania, there remains a great deal of mystery. Much of what supposedly happened was a made-in-Hollywood saga, where the passengers, learning of the earlier suicide crashes, gathered themselves and counter-attacked the hijackers, succeeding in heroic, self-sacrificing measure by crashing the plane (or causing the hijacker pilot to crash it) in a remote field, before it could approach its target. This story was supposedly recounted to persons on the ground by passengers with cell phones; but the science is clear that, at least in 2001, cell phones couldn’t operate at the high altitude where the struggle supposedly took place. Also, the FBI, in presenting evidence at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, denied that any of the high-altitude calls that had been reported actually took place. The only cell phone calls confirmed by the FBI were two that reportedly occurred when the plane had descended to 5,000 feet. Thus, the mythic account is suspicious, to say the least.

49. Moreover, it appears fairly well established that one or more fighters ultimately did go aloft, and reached Flight 93, although this was also comprehensively denied in the Commission Report. There is also good evidence that supposed presidential authority to “engage”, meaning shoot down the plane, was given by defendant Cheney at or about 9:50 a.m. that morning, wherewith Flight 93 was indeed shot down with an air-to-air missile from a U.S.A.F. fighter jet.

50. Finally, there are multiple reports that debris from the plane was found a mile or more from the crash site, an obvious impossibility if the plane simply fell or dove into the ground. Likewise, there is no debris visible in photographs of the crash site, despite a long photographic history of airliner crashes showing plane parts and debris spread around the point of impact. Instead there was a crater, and no sign of the plane. Implausibly, however, the official report said that a visa, in the name of the alleged hijacker identified as the pilot, was recovered near the crater, along with a red headband of the type the hijackers supposedly wore. Again, available evidence shows the official account promulgated under the defendants’ illicit influence is, and plaintiffs allege that it is, false and fraudulent, in furtherance of the conspirac(ies) alleged herein.

V. The Cover-up.

51. As with the other branches or phases of the conspiracy, wherein a number of John Doe defendants working on different aspects of the organized enablement of the hijacking led by defendants Cheney and Rumsfeld may not have been aware or fully aware of each other’s involvement; so too with the cover-up, a complicated operation which those involved have maintained for these seven years, and must continue to see to, indefinitely, on any number of fronts. That is, the skein of misrepresentations, distortions, omissions, contradictions, withheld evidence and outright lies which comprise the fraudulent “official” version, must be and plaintiffs allege that it has been and is assiduously, and fraudulently, maintained by the original perpetrators and various cohorts, who have kept the original conspiracy alive to this day.

52. In particular, the cover-up — beyond the fact that the simulated plane crash at the Pentagon was itself a cover-up — has been concentrated around the purported investigation and analysis of the attack and its supposed background by the 9/11 Commission, formally known as The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, and the Report it issued in 2004. There, as extensively shown by a number of critics and commentators, this official organ put forth a supposedly comprehensive account of the attacks, the alleged attackers and their history, and various surrounding events and circumstances, in a version so full of omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods, as to clinch its purpose as a mainstay of the cover-up, in furtherance of the underlying conspiracy alleged herein, and its ongoing success.

53. Thus the Report gives a careful account and description of some of the many warnings the Government received during 2001 about Al Qaeda’s intention to attack — in the United States, possibly with hijacked planes. The Report goes on to describe an interview with President Bush, which occurred only after intense negotiations in which the Commissioners acquiesced to White House conditions requiring that defendant Cheney be permitted to accompany the President, and that no record would be kept and no notes taken. There the President earnestly insisted to his Commission interlocutors that no warning of the attack had come. All contradictions were left unexplored, and ignored in the Report.

54. Similarly, defendant Rumsfeld — like the President himself, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defendant Gen. Richard Myers and others — testified and said in public, repeatedly, that no one in the Government security apparatus ever imagined terrorists suicidally crashing planes into buildings. This claim was also absolutely false. In point of fact, the CIA, the NSA, the FAA and NORAD had planned and trained for just such a possibility. Indeed, the record shows training exercises involving such a potential attack had in fact been carried on at the Pentagon in October, 2000 and May, 2001, and that NORAD had begun planning in July, 2001, for a training exercise in which the premise would be that a hijacked airliner was crashed into the World Trade Center. The 9/11 Commission, however — with the same studied indifference it showed towards the Mineta testimony — failed even to mention these contradictions in its Report, let alone explain them away.

55. In any event, it is in the nature of the acts alleged that the participants would endeavor from the outset to keep their actions — and the meeting of the minds that unleashed them — the deepest and darkest of secrets, forever. Thus the cover-up, even as it continues today, and will be manifest in the litigation of this complaint, was inherently part of the original unlawful agreement, and thereby part of the cause of the injuries and deprivations plaintiffs suffered on 9/11, and continuing injury since that time.

56. As to the overall plot, with its roots in the command positions and unhinged political fantasies and intentions of the two main defendants, Cheney and Rumsfeld, plaintiff alleges that, necessarily, there were multiple meetings of the minds among the various necessary parties in various implicated locations, positions and phases of the action. Indeed, the narrative reflects an evident form of rolling conspiracy, or multiple successive, interlocking, sub-conspiracies, by which defendants and their cohorts maintain and have maintained the original agreement to cover up the original crime(s) of terrorism, and their part in it, to this day.

VII. Plaintiffs’ Injuries.

57. The injuries, loss and deprivation of rights suffered by Plaintiff April Gallop, her child and others in the bombing of the Pentagon, however it was accomplished, were the result of terrorism, and terrorist acts, and conspiracy to commit terrorism, and to violate constitutional rights, and they include serious head and brain injuries she and her child both sustained when the ceiling caved in on them, as well as the loss and deliberate denial of their rights involved in their being made innocent victims of the attack. Plaintiff’s son, Elisha, has had ongoing problems as he has grown older, associated with injury to his brain, and has required continuing medical care and other special help. Both mother and child have had continuing difficulty, pain and suffering as a result, and sustained need for medical care, and financial and other loss; and they evidently will continue to suffer and to need medical and other assistance for the future.

58. Further, clearly as a result of and in retaliation for her public statement that no airplane wreckage was present in the building after the explosion(s), and for raising other questions, John Doe Department of Defense (DOD) defendants, pursuant to the conspiracy, have wrongfully caused plaintiff to be denied medical care and other benefits she should have received since the attack, and have acted to discourage others from helping her, all to her consequent, actionable loss. Most recently, on being discharged from the Army earlier this year, plaintiff’s financial account was closed out with a zero balance. A short time later, however, she was refused service at the VA medical center, on grounds that she supposedly owed the Defense Department more than $14,000; for which no documentation has been provided.

59. The plaintiff and her child also will experience more general loss, pain and suffering, forever, from what was done to them by high officials of their own government, who, attacking the Country and the Constitution, were willing to see her killed, and did see many others, thousands, killed, simply to further crass political designs. They were and are themselves terrorists, in truth, without whose crucial complicity the Al Qaeda attacks would never have occurred.

PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION

One. Violation of Constitutional Rights – Bivens.

a. Conspiracy. The defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or series of interlocking conspiracies whereby they and various co-conspirators and others took various concrete steps, pursuant to a meeting of the minds around the objective of facilitating and enabling the terrorist attacks, specifically by de-activating and defaulting various normal defense systems and measures, as described and to be shown, so that the Al Qaeda hijackings and bombings of September 11 could succeed. They thereby helped cause the attacks and the resulting injuries to plaintiff, denial of her fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and death and injury loss to so many others; entitling plaintiff to judgment against the defendants under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

b. Deliberate Indifference. The concerted actions of defendants in their efforts to facilitate and enable the terrorist attacks of September 11 in various ways as described hereinabove and to be shown, and the defendants’ deliberate indifference to the likelihood of serious injury and deprivation of rights arising therefrom, resulted in plaintiff and her child being made unknowing, defenseless victims of the attack, and thereby seriously injured and denied fundamental rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, entitling her to judgment against the defendants, under the rule of the Bivens case, for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

c. Retaliation. The actions taken against plaintiff in retaliation for her speaking out with questions about the official explanations of what happened violated her rights under the First Amendment, entitling her to a further judgment against those responsible for compensatory damages in such amount as the Jury may determine; and Punitive Damages.

Two. Common Law Conspiracy to Cause Death and Great Bodily Harm. The plaintiff is further entitled to judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the injuries she and her child received which were caused by the acts and omissions of defendants and others pursuant to the conspiracy(ies) alleged herein, and by breach of defendants’ duty of care towards the plaintiff, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may determine, and costs and attorneys fees.

Three. Acts of Terrorism Causing Injury – 18 U.S.Code 2333(a). The aforesaid acts and omissions of and by defendants were part and parcel of a terrorist attack on the United States, and the Pentagon in particular, resulting from a conspiracy or conspiracies to cause and help cause, facilitate and enable the hijacking and crashing of the planes and other elements of the attack; and these acts resulted in serious injuries to plaintiff and her child, entitling her to judgment against the defendants for compensatory damages as determined by the Jury, treble damages, and Attorneys Fees, under the Terrorism Acts — notwithstanding the provision of Sec.2337, purporting to exempt or immunize U.S. officers and employees acting “within… official capacity or under color of legal authority”; in that the agreements, acts and omissions alleged herein are outside and beyond the reach and compass of any conceivable official capacity or legal authority, actual or colorable, and therefore unconstitutional as applied in this case, as a deprivation of Due Process of Law, and of her right under the Seventh Amendment to have her claim tried by a Jury according to Law.

///

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands Trial By Jury, and Judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in such amounts as the Jury may see fit to award; treble damages under 18 U.S.C. 2333(a), and costs of suit, expenses and attorneys fees…

Yours, etc.,

DATED: December 15, 2008.

Related Posts:

• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Bailout for the People
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy

There will be no refreshments served, get used to it. So, here we go. You are now poor and this is the awareness group: “So you woke up and found yourself poor.” Any former millionaires here? Ha, ha, ha, ha, I’m sorry, I know that’s mean-spirited but I just can’t help myself sometimes. How about any Republicans? I didn’t think so, I knew you wouldn’t fall for that gag twice, would you?

With that I’ll open up the floor for questions. Yes, sir, go ahead.

“I am a retired business man living in Florida. Just about all my money is invested with Madoff Securities. I have been using that money to live on. Based on what is known so far, can you tell me how badly I have been hurt and if there is anything I should be doing to possibly protect myself or preserve my assets. I appreciate any advice you can give me. Please email me or call me . . .”

That’s an easy one; you are screwed, blued and tattooed. You were retired, now you’re just broke-ass poor. Your new hobbies are yard sales, flea markets, and for a big day, hanging out at the public library. Yes, you in the back.

“I have just read the article regarding the Madoff investments. Could you please tell me what investors are supposed do in wake of this news? Or provide any detail that you may have come across in your research for this story?”

Well, ma’am, in the words of the late Johnny Cash, “Cry, cry, cry,” but try to look at the bright side. Remember how concerned many of you were before the election that Obama was going to raise your taxes? You don’t have to worry about that any more.

“Both my grandmother and parents invested funds with the firm. We are very concerned. Please advise.”

Clean out the spare room and don’t expect an inheritance.

“We are long-time investors in Madoff with millions of dollars there. We can’t get any information. Do you know anything about how much of the investors assets are left?”

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, I’m sorry, let’s see, he had fifty billion and he’s got around two hundred million left, so what’s that? About two cents on the dollar? Of course, that was before Bernie started passing out millions to his friends and relatives. So, if you’ve got any jars filled with change you might want to start planning your retirement around them.

“I am one of the little guys who has money invested at Madoff. My father was an investor with the company for 30 years, and when he died in 2006 he left money in trust for my children and my wife which is invested in Madoff accounts. Based on what he told me of the firm, I also invested the money he left to me. All totaled we have about $2,800,000 in four accounts. Needless to say I am feeling pretty sick to my stomach this evening. At this point do you have any idea of whether there is (or will be) any money to distribute to account holders. Any information you can provide would be appreciated (that is an understatement for sure). Thank you.”

Had, sir, you had, then he had; now you don’t have and never will have again.

“I am an 86-year-old widow who had her total money with Madoff. I have read the Internet stories but would be interested to learn more about the prospects of getting any money out of this situation. If you have any information or can direct me to how I can get some information I would be very grateful.”

Ma’am, in all honesty you have a better chance of winning the New York marathon with a winning lottery ticket in your pocket. But never forget that you live in the greatest country in the whole wide world. You live in a country where even a man who admits to stealing 50 billion dollars from little old ladies can post bond and be out of jail and home in time for supper. Where he can return to his palace fit for the king of Saudi Arabia and hold meetings with an army of high-priced lawyers on how to keep you from ever getting a nickel and use what’s left of your money to do it with.

“I am absolutely appalled by the arrest of Bernard Madoff. My father has a very substantial investment with his firm and is, at the moment, out of the country and not reachable. Is there any word on whether my father’s account is worth anything? Is there something that he should be doing, or is it too late? What does it mean that Madoff was making distributions to select employees, friends and family? How could this happen??????”

That is a very good question, thank you for asking. The good news is that until you are able to reach your father, he is still affluent. So don’t be in too much of a hurry to contact him. Your father’s account is worth a smile and a promise. This happened because you forgot that greed is eternal. You trusted in those who told you that the market could be trusted and that regulations would steal away the precious pennies you sought to put in your pocket, and that is what brought you here today. Try and understand, sir, that you are in the remedial group.

The rest of us already know that we are screwed, we’ve already lost homes and cars and jobs. Most of us had little to lose in the first place, the workmen, the carpenters and painters, plumbers, the sheet rock men have all seen their jobs bled away. Then it was the auto mechanics and bank tellers. But now you dare ask in righteous indignation how could this happen, but what you really mean by that is how could this happen to you?

You are better then? Than the autoworkers trying to keep their jobs? You thought your white collar and your wealth would protect you as you nodded in agreement that outsourcing was vital to a growing economy. You thought these things could never reach you? Well here’s another clue for you all, the walrus is Paul, coo coo ka choo.

Welcome to our world; come on in, a world where the mailman only brings bad news. Where your heart jumps when city vehicles drive by your house. Where shopping isn’t a pleasure but a nightmare; where you don’t decide what you’ll get but what you won’t get. When the door bell is ringing at 3 AM, it’s the repo man, and that red color on your utility bills means that they are delinquent and about to be turned off.

But we welcome you all, you are one of us now, even if you thought you never would be.

They used to tell me
I was building a dream.
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow
Or guns to bear
I was always there
Right on the job.
They used to tell me
I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead.
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad
I made it run
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad
Now it’s done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun
Brick and rivet and lime.
Once I built a tower,
Now it’s done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits
Gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle dee dum.
Half a million boots went sloggin’ through hell
And I was the kid with the drum!
Say don’t you remember?
They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Why don’t you remember?
I’m your pal.
Say buddy, can you spare a dime?

(Gorney, Harburg)

The questions are all actual questions posed by the former investors in Madoff Securities; please make them feel welcome when you run into them today.

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• Looting Social Security
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?

Prophet Yahweh, Seer of Yahweh, Master UFO Caller says that on October 31, 2008, superhuman black men, from other planets, will appear in their spaceships and hover over his UFO Summoning School for three days as a sign that all Americans should vote for Obama as President.

YAHWEH wants people to know that if Barak Obama does not become President, America will quickly be led into a war with Russia via Iran that will result in: a cut off of oil from the Persian Gulf, a great depression, stock market crash, runaway inflation, devaluation of the dollar, food shortages, riots, famine, race wars, out breaks of disease, etc. Las Vegas, NV (PRWEB) October 17, 2008 — According to Prophet Yahweh: Some time before Nov. 11, 2008, more than likely before the presidential elections, and possibly on October 31, 2008, at approximately 12 noon, spaceships will start appearing, on my summons request, and hover over my school for all Las Vegans and media to see and film. He goes on to say that: My UFO Summoning School is located by one of Las Vegas’ housing projects in the middle of the ghetto. There I teach people the ancient art of summoning or calling down UFO’s and spaceships on-command. In anticipation of the spaceships’ descent, Prophet is planning to install live, Internet broadcast streaming capability at his school. He is doing this so people, worldwide, can see him call down the spaceships on Oct. 31, 2008, exactly at 12 noon, and the spaceships that appear for the entire time they sit up in the sky. Prophet says that he may be off a little with the dates and some details he gives, but let there be no doubt that something within the general overview of what he says is going to happen. He claims that these space beings are the Angels of Yahweh, the Creator of all things. And, they are talking to him, on a daily basis, via a sophisticated form of telepathic, non-verbal, none-talk, brain-to-brain communication. Most of the time, when they contact him, he is sleep. At that time, he hears a voice speaking to him inside his head. He also says that: Unless I am misinterpreting my visions, it’s very likely that Yahweh’s angels are going to descend down from space, in one of their spaceships, on two different occasions, in a different, single ship, each time, and hover over my school, in Las Vegas, NV for three days so the media can film them. When asked why the spaceships will appear, Prophet boldly says that: One of the many reasons why they will do this is to show support for Presidential candidate Barack Obama. This will be done so people will know that Obama is the best choice to lead America through the troublesome times to come. “YAHWEH wants people to know that if Barak Obama does not become President, America will quickly be led into a war with Russia via Iran that will result in: a cut off of oil from the Persian Gulf, a great depression, stock market crash, runaway inflation, devaluation of the dollar, food shortages, riots, famine, race wars, out breaks of disease, etc.” Barack Obama, as President, would do more than any other president to keep these terrible things from happening and hold back the tremendous suffering that would come upon the American people. YAHWEH, the Creator of all things, wants all Americans to vote for Obama, and put him in the office of the President of the United States, so he can immediately go to work against the terrible times to come. Prophet Yahweh is quick to reveal that his ability to call down sightings is devine and that the Angels of YAHWEH taught him how to summon their UFO flying machines or their spaceships on his prayer signal. On May 25, 2005, KTNV ABC TV-13, in Las Vegas, NV contacted Prophet Yahweh to put his summoning abilities to the test. At that time, he made broadcast history as the first person to call down real UFOs for mainstream television cameras to film. The news segment, and the UFOs that appeared, can be seen on the “UFO TV News” channel that’s broadcast via YouTube. Prophet Yahweh is available for radio and television interviews and summoning of UFO’s for the media to film. Also, he is willing to allow television stations, and other media, to set up their cameras on his UFO Summoning School’s grounds for perfect line-of-sight filming of the spaceships that will appear in the sky directly above it.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Barack Obama’s Zombie Followers and The Hell That Awaits America
• Bailout for the People

Related Posts:

• Ron Paul: No Change on the Horizon
• 6 Brainwashing Techniques They’re Using On You Right Now
• Video: Jesse Ventura debates 9/11 on the Howard Stern Show
• Obama’s Magic Bubble Deflator
• “I had a dream.” It was 2008 and Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States.

The world’s oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found – or stolen, as the monks say – in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today – and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Anti-Semitic writings

The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle. Before its discovery in the early 19th Century by the Indiana Jones of his day, it remained hidden in St Catherine’s Monastery since at least the 4th Century.

The monastery at the base of Mt Sinai

It survived because the desert air is ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.

Today, 30 mainly Greek Orthodox monks, dedicated to prayer, worship there, helped as in ages past by the Muslim Bedouin. For this place is holy to three great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a land where you can still see the Burning Bush where God spoke to Moses.

The monastery itself has the greatest library of early manuscripts outside the Vatican – some 33,000, and a collection of icons second to none.

Not surprisingly, it is now a World Heritage Site and has been called a veritable Ark, bringing spiritual treasures safely through the turbulent centuries. In many people’s eyes the greatest treasure is the Codex, written in the time of the first Christian Emperor Constantine.

When the different parts are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century – the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. “His blood be upon us,” Barnabas has the Jews cry.

Discrepancies

Had this remained in subsequent versions, “the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse”, says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.

The suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse had the Epistle of Barnabas remained Professor Bart Ehrman

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can’t be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

“When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer ‘which Bible?’”

The Codex – and other early manuscripts – do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be “angry” as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with “compassion”.

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned – until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”.

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

“It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God,” says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

Related Posts:

• How the Freemasons Rule the World
• Propaganda is making the Truth Movement Totally Irrelevant
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• The State of Israel: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened, Part 1
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world

The Chicago Sun-Times depicted Blagojevich as the “new sheriff in town” Thursday morning in its coverage of the governor’s plan to form an “elite tactical team” to help the city fight crime.”Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control,” Blagojevich said at the bill signing ceremony. “I’m offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help stop this violence,” said the governor.The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich said there’s been a child shot nearly every day since June 26, with 29 Chicago Public School students shot since last fall.

“Twenty-eight of those kids are African-American and Latino. Hard to imagine that that would be acceptable if that were, in fact, the case in other parts of the city or in a middle-class suburb somewhere,” he said. “Something is wrong, and this violence has to stop.”Bringing in state troopers — even National Guard helicopters to high-crime areas — is still very much in the planning stages.”It might be able to free up some resources that the Chicago police uses for capital needs, to be able, to maybe to, hire more police officers, or possibly ask some to come out of retirement, to put them into these violent zones, hot zones, where, clearly, I think, part of the challenge is that gangbangers outnumber police officers five to one,” Blagojevich said.The governor said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley hasn’t asked for help, but Blagojevich said he’ll call the mayor once he has some concrete suggestions about what help he can provide. He didn’t have many specifics, but he said it’s more likely that state police will be brought in than the National Guard.In fact, Daley’s office said the mayor did not know anything about Blagojevich’s comments and did not know he was going to make them.”The mayor welcomes partnerships, not just on this issue but on a variety of issues,” said spokeswoman Jody Kawada. “Beyond that, it is difficult to comment because we don’t have any facts.”And police department spokeswoman Monique Bond said they learned of the comments after Blagojevich made them as well, and said it was too soon to comment.But Bond took issue with the governor’s contention that crime is “out of control” in Chicago, pointing out that if the current murder rate holds in the city, 2008 may end with fewer than 500 homicides and that it is expected to be one of the least deadly years in the city in the last 40 years.On Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city council committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics that suggested to them that the police department wasn’t doing enough to stop it.They also come as the governor tries to find support for a massive statewide construction program that would be funded by expanded casino gambling. So far, Daley has refused to go along because he objects to the amount Blagojevich wants to charge Chicago to run a downtown casino.Blagojevich raised that issue as he discussed the possibility of state aid with Chicago’s crime problem.”We need help in that legislative process and the mayor could be a big help in this in getting the House Democratic leadership to pass that big capital program or versions of it,” the governor said.Blagojevich’s offer, whether or not it comes to anything, also puts him in the position of trying to help on an issue dominating the news in Chicago.Blagojevich said it is far more likely that state troopers would be used than guardsmen. In fact, his office moved quickly after the governor’s comments to stress in a news release that Blagojevich was not considering bringing in National Guard troops to the city.”The only way the National Guard would be involved, if they are involved, is with the use of tactical helicopters that are currently used in narcotics operations,” spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in a prepared statement.Blagojevich had few details, but suggested that one possibility would be to assign state troopers to areas of the city with lower crime rates, freeing Chicago police officers for areas where there is more crime.”Maybe we can play a role in providing more manpower so that the mayor doesn’t have to make that choice between taking a police from, let’s say the North Side, and putting that police officer on the street on the South Side,” he said.He also suggested that retired Chicago police officers and state troopers could be hired on a temporary basis to help out during the summer months when the violent crime rate typically climbs.

Blagojevich Signs Tougher Gun Bill

The bill signed Wednesday puts the adult who provides a gun to a minor in the same legal hot water as the minor who uses it to commit a crime.The bill signed Wednesday means that adults who sell or give guns to minors are eligible for the same sentence as minors convicted of violent crimes — including murder — in which they used the weapon.Before the law was signed, the maximum sentence an adult could get for providing a gun to a minor — whether it’s used in a crime or not — was seven years.Senator Kwame Raoul sponsored the bill after a spate of shooting deaths of Chicago school children.Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer sentence will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors.

Related Posts:

• 9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation
• FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts
• Israel holds drill simulating all-out war
• Woman cuffed for not holding escalator handrail

The Justice Department had decided that the coins, many of which bear the familiar symbol of Lady Liberty and the phrase “TRUST IN GOD,” were being illegally marketed as government-sanctioned currency, according to the sworn affidavit of an FBI agent.

The creator of the coins, Bernard von NotHaus, who lives in Miami, claims that the federal government is trying to shut down production of his liberty dollars, as the coins are called, because of the competition they pose to the greenback. In recent years, his precious metal coins have outperformed the dollar, whose value has plunged in relation to gold.

The raids in November were the result of a two-year undercover investigation of Mr. Von NotHaus and how he sold liberty dollars. The Justice Department has not followed up with any criminal charges against Mr. Von NotHaus or the regional distributors of his coins.

In the suit filed in Idaho, the various plaintiffs say the federal government has no right to continue holding onto their coins any longer.

While it is common for agents to warehouse property seized during criminal investigations, such as firearms or surveillance equipment, the plaintiffs say coins of precious metal should be off-limits.

The coins “do not constitute contraband or other property subject to seizure,” the legal papers state, adding that the seizures violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.

For the most part, the plaintiffs had possessed bearer certificates for the silver liberty dollars that were being warehoused in Couer d’Alene, Idaho, at a mint. The mint, Sunshine Minting, is one of the sites that federal agents raided.

In an unusual request, the plaintiffs ask for an order, at the very least, forbidding federal agents from touching or moving the coins so that they are not dirtied in any way.

“Mishandling numismatic material can negatively impact value,” the legal papers say.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Charles Miller, said that the agency had not yet seen the legal papers and could not comment.

E-mail messages circulating among Liberty Dollar enthusiasts have expressed fears that the federal government intends to publicly auction off the coins. There has been no public announcement indicating that to be the case. The U.S. attorney’s office in Asheville, N.C., which led the investigation that prompted the raids last November, did not return several calls for comment over the last few weeks.

Mr. Von NotHaus markets his coins via the Internet as an inflation-proof currency and claims that between 100,000 and 250,000 Americans own them. They have attracted the interest of coin enthusiasts, as well as critics of the Federal Reserve.

A 1999 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said that many of the stores that accepted liberty dollars “are run by men and women connected to the radical right.” The coins have caught on particularly well in Asheville, N.C., and Austin, Texas, and are accepted by some merchants there.

More than 50,000 of the coins seized last year bear the likeness of Rep. Ron Paul, whose monetary policies Mr. Von NotHaus supports.

“About a quarter of a million people holding liberty dollars are almost up-in arms — not up in arms yet, but almost — about having their property seized, and rightly so,” Mr. Von NotHaus told The New York Sun yesterday.

Related Posts:

• Bailout for the People
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• State Secession and the Coming Civil War
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Unraveling The Myth of Al-Qaida

The 42-page report was authored by CASPIAN director Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a Harvard-educated privacy expert and long-time critic of the VeriChip. The highlight of the report is an eleven-page section titled “Cancer Cover-up” that describes a systematic pattern of lies and deception engaged by VeriChip executives in an effort to downplay the fact that implantable microchips cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The report reveals how news outlets like Time Magazine, Business Week, and the RFID Journal were used as unwitting pawns in a VeriChip scheme to spread misinformation about the cancer studies. Since research linking the product to cancer first surfaced last year, each of these publications has repeated misstatements from VeriChip company executives, in many cases printing the inaccurate statements verbatim and unchallenged.

“These were not subjective issues, they were plainly verifiable issues of fact,” Albrecht said. “We were saddened to see the misstatements fall through the fact-checking cracks of these respected publications. Now that VeriChip is back in the headlines, we felt it was time to set the record straight.”VeriChip’s media efforts have done little to salvage the company’s public image or its financial performance, both of which plummeted after research linking the implantable microchip to cancer was widely revealed by the Associated Press in September 2007. The same company that once predicted revenues in the “billions” earned just $3,000 from its microchip implant operations in the first quarter of 2008, as patients shun the device that many are now calling the “cancer chip.”
Investors have also distanced themselves from the failing company, with VeriChip’s stock plummeting from a high of $10.62 last year to just over $2.00 today. VeriChip’s VP of business development, Jay McKeage, acknowledged the implant division suffers from “a substantial cash burn” and is “not sustainable on its own.” As a result, he says, VeriChip plans to “shop the VeriMed / Health Link [human implantable chip] business around widely” in hopes that another company will take the unpopular product off its hands.

However, with recent blog headlines like “VeriChip Death Watch” making the rounds, Albrecht has a hard time imagining who, if anyone, will want to buy the business. This is a company that has engaged in a consistent pattern of making false and misleading statements,” she said. “It has lied to the public, to the media, to its shareholders, and to regulatory agencies,” she said, citing additional evidence from the report indicating that VeriChip hid cancer evidence from the FDA when the agency reviewed the implant’s safety in 2004. “We laid out all the evidence in our report,” she added. “We want to make sure no one else gets burned by VeriChip.”

ABOUT THE REPORT
CASPIAN’s new report, “Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” is a comprehensive reference guide to implantable microchips in animals and humans. It provides thoroughly-researched, footnoted answers to 85 of the most commonly asked questions about the implantable microchip, including religious, privacy, social, and health questions. The report concludes with a list of recommendations for patients, pet owners, and policy makers affected by the device.

The new report is available for free download on the group’s AntiChips.com website at: <http://www.antichips.com/faq/index.html>http://www.antichips.com/faq/index.html

While on the website, readers are encouraged to download Dr. Albrecht’s comprehensive 52-page overview of the studies, “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006,” and to review scanned copies of the original documents.

ABOUT CASPIAN
CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) is a grass-roots consumer group fighting retail surveillance schemes since 1999 and irresponsible RFID use since 2002. With thousands of members in all 50 U.S. states and over 30 countries worldwide, CASPIAN seeks to educate consumers about marketing strategies that invade their privacy and encourage privacy-conscious shopping habits across the retail spectrum.

Related Posts:

• The Kingdom of Lies
• Chemtrail Aerosol Assaults Continue
• ‘Cancer risk of nicotine gum and lozenges higher than thought’
• The Quality and Cost of Medical Care in America
• Heroes of the Generational Freedom Movement Part 2: General Smedley D. Butler By Brandon Dean

The White House earlier this year proposed slashing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which helps local law enforcement officials deal with violent crime and serious offenders, to $200 million in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

In 2002, the year before the Iraq war, the program received $900 million.

The administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress are headed for a showdown over the domestic money, probably next month. When the Senate last week passed the emergency Iraq war funding bill, it allotted an immediate $490 million for the domestic grants while keeping the Iraqi police funds intact.

The House is expected to consider the package when it returns from its Memorial Day recess next week. But the domestic grants are the kind of spending that’s causing Bush to threaten a veto.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not single out the Byrne grants but made it clear the president is not happy with items that don’t deal with the war on terror.

She talked about how Congress wants “to ladle on lots of special projects. The president thinks that some of those projects may be meritorious. But they should have that debate outside of funding for the troops.”

Some budget experts argue that the Iraq police and domestic grants have nothing to do with one another.

“State and local policing should be left to state and local governments. I don’t see any advantage to federal meddling,” said Chris Edwards, an analyst at Washington’s Cato Institute.

Cato opposed the Iraq war, but Edwards said the issue of Iraq’s police funding “is a foreign policy question, and foreign policy should depend on things other than economics.”

But Travis Sharp, military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, disagreed.

“There are tradeoffs in the federal government, and one of the arguments a lot of people make is that money spent in Iraq is not spent here,” he said.

Those angry with the administration have a powerful ally in Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department.

“While President Bush requests millions of dollars for the war in Iraq, his domestic spending continues to shortchange our safety at home,” she said.

When Budget Director Jim Nussle testified before her subcommittee last month, neither side showed any desire to compromise.

Mikulski called Bush’s policies “outrageous” and labeled Nussle’s testimony “snarky, scolding, dismissive.”

“We have funded the surge of Baghdad, but we have not funded the surge of violent crime in Baltimore, Biloxi or other places,” the senator said. She then asked Nussle if Bush would support restoring most of the Byrne grant.

“I can only repeat what the president has said,” Nussle replied.

“The president didn’t say anything about this,” Mikulski shot back. “You think if I went to see the president, he’d say, ‘No?”‘

“Senator,” Nussle said calmly, “I can only repeat what the president said. And his two priorities he stated were that the bill stay within the $108.1 billion request and that it support the troops.”

The Iraq police funds are listed as money due to Iraq’s Ministry of Interior. Also included in “new obligations” to the “Iraq Security Forces Fund” are $603 million for the Interior Ministry, $744 million for the Ministry of Defense and $153 million for “quick response.”

The Congressional Research Service estimates that since the war began, the United States has spent about $20.75 billion to train and equip Iraqi soldiers and police officers.

Because of congressional skepticism about just how well those forces were being trained, Congress last fall required the Pentagon to provide an independent assessment of the forces’ capability within a year to 18 months.

White House Office of Management and Budget spokesman Jane Lee stressed Tuesday that the administration hardly wants to make America less safe and believes it “should be a reliable partner with state and local law enforcement and that taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely to help meet that goal.”

And, she noted, the president’s fiscal 2009 budget proposes spending a total of $1 billion for a variety of programs to help states and cities.

But that doesn’t mean all the programs should survive intact. “A targeted number of programs that were earmarked, duplicative or had not demonstrated results were consolidated into flexible grants,” she said, “that will permit states and localities to compete for funding based on local needs, as well as national priorities.”

Skeptics were not buying it.

“Without the restoration of this funding, our efforts to limit drugs in Montana and throughout the country will be devastated,” said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. “Our children’s exposure to drugs and crime will be increased, and our families will be torn apart.”

Related Posts:

• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization

Once billed as “The Party of Principle” those principles were sold down the river. On Sunday, May 25, 2008 the principles were abandoned, and the party was last seen gasping for air
before expiring.

This author watched 30 years of his life pass before his eyes — wasted. Having been a candidate and supporter of the party since 1978 what I saw ended any respect I had left for the LP.

Far Right Republican congressman Bob Barr was nominated for president and the loudmouthed, huckster, Wayne Root, an “odds maker” from Las Vegas, traded with Barr in order to become his running mate. They brought to the LP the sort of backroom deal-making once only seen in the larger, corrupt parties.

It is true that the principles did not die easily, however. On the first ballot conservative Barr was leading libertarian Dr. Mary Ruwart by just one vote. On the second ballot it was dead even. On the third vote Ruwart was in the lead. And then the “behind-the-scenes” deal of the two neocon infiltrators was announced.

Root, who had sworn he would never take the vice presidential made clear that he doesn’t necessarily mean what he says at all. He got up and announced that he was endorsing Bob Barr. In return Root said that he would be Barr’s vice presidential candidate and in four years time he was promised the top slot by Barr — as if Barr had any authority to make such a promise.

Realize that neither man is a libertarian, both are conservatives. Both endorse foreign interventionism. Root gave $1,000 to the campaign of Joe Leiberman and Barr gave around $100,000 to Republican Right-wing candidates. Almost all of those candidates were on the far Right of the party and advocates of war. The people Barr has supported, for the most part, were the absolute worst among the Republicans — those least likely to respect libertarian principles.

The antiwar Libertarians were duped by both men who had convenient conversions to new positions more satisfying to the delegates. Root entered the campaign a war-mongering hawk. When he ran into trouble with party members he suddenly saw the light and announced a new position.

Barr seemed to hold to his conservative principles. Only two weeks ago he adamantly said he was opposed to ending the war on drugs. Nothing he said this weekend actually changed that but Barr answered questions in ways that made it appear he had. He talked about the failure of the war on drugs for a long time and then said the federal government should get out of the drug war. Of course, he merely wanted the individual states to wage the drug war instead. That part was barely mentioned, making it appear he was more opposed to the drug war than he is.

When Barr arrived in Denver he found a large percentage of delegates sporting anti-Barr buttons — something never before seen at an LP convention. And he had to make some concessions. So he had one of those last second, dramatic conversions. Previously Barr was openly and viciously antigay and he authored one of the most discriminatory pieces of antigay legislation around, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Barr had tried to placate the delegates by pretending that his law was magically libertarian in reality. No one believed him.

Just a few hours before the big vote Barr suddenly announced that he had seen the light and changed his mind on gay marriage. He now said his legislation was bad and he realized he was hurting gay people needlessly and he was sorry. Personally I found him as sincere as a horny teenage boy telling his date that he really loves her and, “of course, I’ll still respect you in the morning.” Often the girl concedes because she wants to believe the promise. And many delegates in Denver wanted to believe the promise as well. I suspect what they will find is that Barr doesn’t actually love them, he used them, and as soon as he can replace them with his fellow conservatives they will find out exactly how screwed they were.

Barr had brought in his own people to Denver, people previously not affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Like him they were conservative Republicans looking for a vehicle to use. And the LP, with its ballot status in numerous states is a prime target for plundering. We have to remember that these dogmatic Rightists have one goal in mind and it isn’t the promotion of libertarianism.

They want to defeat John McCain. While there is little to say in favor of McCain the Far Right doesn’t perceive him as one of their own. He is not theocratic enough, authoritarian enough, or vicious enough to satisfy them. They want to take votes from McCain. And how will they do that? By arguing that McCain is not a “true conservative” and that Barr is. And exactly how will that be sold to the public? Barr will have to campaign, not as a libertarian, but as a Far Right conservative.

How did this revolting coup take place? There are three reasons.

First, over the years the party has recruited from the Right. While the party should have recruited from the Left as well, it didn’t. The party drifted further and further away from libertarian principles as time went by. As more and more conservatives joined the party it attracted more conservatives and turned off those on the moderate Left. To placate these Right-wingers some dubious characters raped the party platform. Many planks were removed or watered down.

Second, some party members just felt that “winning” recognition was more important than seeing the values of liberty spread. The party was started by people wanting to use it to push for liberty. The party was the means to an end. But these desperate individuals reversed things. The party was the end in itself. The goal wasn’t promoting liberty but holding power. They thought that losing an election was worse than losing their principles. Bob Barr took them to the mountaintop and showed them the baubles that politics can offer and they were seduced.

Third, and worse, the party was intentionally betrayed by a cabal of individuals who were mainly associated with the LP National Committee and the LP office staff.

Barr was brought into the party by a bevy of Right-wing, often religiously-motivated, individuals. They first had to raise Barr’s status in the party. They arranged for the national committee member from Georgia to step down from his seat and then had Barr appointed to replace him. So this “new libertarian” suddenly became a national officer almost the same day he joined.

During this time Barr used Right-wing mailing lists to raise $4 million for his political action committee. Very little of that went to candidates, most of it was eaten up by “expenses.” Of the money that was given to candidates, the vast majority went to Far Right Republicans, many of whom used it to campaign against Libertarian candidates. But a tiny percentage of that money, well under one percent, or $12,000, went to the Libertarian Party National Committee. It didn’t go to candidates but to the national committee on which Barr was serving. Apparently that tiny amount was all that was necessary.

Some national committee members started working to stage a conservative coup and they wanted Barr as their candidate. This was done in cahoots with party staff, none of whom had any business engaging in such matters.

One cigar-chomping Right-winger, Stephen Gordon, started a web site, Third Party Watch, which was regularly promoting Barr. Gordon ended up being a paid staff member of the Barr campaign. Before that, he was a staff member at the LP national office.

And it was at this site that the first inklings of a Barr-Root secret agreement, to purge the party of actual libertarians, began. When the gentle libertarian, Dr. Mary Ruwart, announced she was running, both campaigns knew they were in trouble and started to smear Ruwart. They took her views out of context to make it sound as if she was promoting pedophilia.

The man who appears to be the most likely suspect for the smear is Aaron Starr, a Root campaign supporter and a member of the national committee. Starr certainly worked with Root’s campaign manager to get this smear out. It was first spread through the Barr-affiliated Third Party Watch site. Then Root’s managers used material supplied by Starr at the Indiana LP convention to smear Ruwart directly.

After Third Party Watch pushed the smear for a couple of days, the executive director of the party, Shane Corey, without any authorization to do so, put out a press release which was meant to pour gasoline on the fire. Corey misused his office to announce a new party position — a joint federal-state task force to go after pedophilia. That such activity is already against the law was ignored. That it is entirely a state matter, constitutionally speaking, was also ignored. Corey was basically calling for the federal government to take on a new, unconstitutional power for itself. But the purpose of the press release was to make it appear that the national Libertarian Party was distancing itself from Ruwart, even though Ruwart had not said what Starr and the Root campaign had claimed she said.

Many libertarians were upset, especially since Corey had ignored all the proper channels and unilaterally announced a policy decision without an authority to do so. He resigned his position. But don’t feel sorry for him either. He had another position already in the waiting. This reporter has to clarify the exact position but let us say that he was either working directly for Mr. Barr or working for someone very close to Barr, Richard Viguerie. Mr. Viguerie, is a Far Right conservative who was looking to take control of a third party for some time now. And this time it seems he got what he wanted.

In addition, Viguerie suddenly turned up as a last minute speaker at the Denver convention. When I asked around as to why someone who is as unlibertarian as Viguerie was a last minute speaker I was told it was done at Barr’s request. Why only Barr was allowed to appoint speakers at the convention was never answered.

That was not the end either. Remember Stephen Gordon of Third Party Watch. Gordon used his contacts from his time in the LP office to start a libertarian e-mail list company which was then used to promote Barr directly to Libertarians. In addition he started his web site, Third Party Watch for almost nothing. That was the site used to promote Barr and smear Ruwart. And what I’ve now heard is that Gordon “sold” this web site. The man handing Gordon the money supposedly is Richard Viguerie. I wonder if the going price for such betrayal is still 20 pieces of silver. Either way I’d like to know how much money Mr. Gordon got out of Barr and Viguerie. Add that to the $12,000 “contribution” to the LP Nat-Com and we’d have some idea of what it costs to buy a political party.

In addition it seems the national convention was practically run by Barr people. A Republican was brought in to moderate the candidate’s debate — apparently a Libertarian wasn’t good enough. And individuals who were given prominent roles in the convention just happened to be individuals who were also picked to nominate Barr for the office. So after they were given added “importance” by being paraded before the delegates, they ended up giving nominating speeches on behalf of Barr. I am sure they will say it was a coincidence.

Various committees were packed with the “reformers”, all of whom had been working to strip the party platform of measures offensive to conservatives. They not only ended up raping the platform but then making up the Fifth Column supporting Barr at the convention. It seems that being a Barr supporter was enough to give one a prominent role at the cone deck in favor of Barr of course. Perhaps it was all a coincidence?

But, of course, the joint Barr-Root smear of Mary Ruwart, was also a coincidence. No doubt the Root endorsement of Barr was a coincidence as well — perhaps a fluke.

Many in the party were shocked and horrified at what happened. These reformed “libertarians”, many of whom were just recently in the Republican Party, were taking over. Long-time party activists were angry and felt that a coup had been purposely staged. Unity in the party was threatened and some suggested that the vice presidential slot should go to a principled libertarian.

Ruwart did not want to share a ticket with a non-libertarian. Steve Kubby, a previous presidential candidate, who had endorsed Ruwart, said he would accept the VP slot. Ruwart’s delegates were in favor. The delegates who had worked for Senator Mike Gravel also came on board. And the first vote was close. Even many Barr voters thought it would be a good gesture and a way of keeping some actual libertarians in the Libertarian Party.

Barr would have none of it. He got up and made a speech, making it clear that he would not accept anyone but his fellow neocon, Wayne Allen Root. Barr was not interested in a unified party. He was interested in a total coup. That is what his Nat-Com allies wanted, that is what his friends in the national office wanted, and that is what they got. Barr had enough trouble from real libertarians and wanted them gone. One “reformer” had announced on his blog that the goal was to drive out of the party all “anarchists”. Of course by anarchist he meant anyone with a consistent libertarian view — as opposed to conservatives.

The reality is that Libertarian Party had one thing of value to the Far Right. It likely will hold ballot status in about 48 states. It has little in actual assets, but ballot status in that many states can cost millions of dollars. Barr, Viguiere and the Benedict Arnolds in the Nat-Com, like Starr, wanted that asset for themselves. And they got it — at least they have it for the moment.

Many of the state affiliates have a large amount of discretion over candidates they will list. It is possible that the many states which supported neither Barr nor Root could refuse them local ballot status. Some are discussing complete disaffiliation.

Some states didn’t give either Root or Barr any support at all. For instance, Root’s home state, Nevada, shut him out completely. Not only wouldn’t they vote for Root but they didn’t even want him as a delegate. Even though he doesn’t live there Root was voting with the California delegation, a delegation where Starr had a lot of influence. Perhaps he arranged for Root to vote as a California delegate. However Root got there, it didn’t seem anyone was interested in finding out why Root’s own state wanted nothing to do with him.

A lot of angry libertarians are looking for ways to take the party back from this interlopers and traitors. I don’t know how successful they will be. Barr’s campaign will attract more intolerant, interventionist, conservatives like himself to the party. The more of them that join the party the more unlikely it will be that libertarians will have any influence in their own party.

Over the next couple of years the real indicator will be the party platform. To prepare for the coup the so-called Reform Caucus had been working to denude the platform of anything that conservatives would find offensive. In other words they wanted a Republican platform. The previous position of support for freedom of choice in abortion was watered down to say almost nothing. One sign of the Right-wing coup will be when that plank becomes explicitly anti-choice.

A second plank that I suspect will be targeted by the Barr-Root cabal will be that of immigration. Both men will start sounding like the Minutemen and other xenophobic Republicans.

Third, expect to see more planks referring to “state’s rights”. Issues like drugs and gay equality will get replaced with calls for allowing the states to have whatever policy they want on this — regardless of how oppressive. Libertarians previously favored ending the war on drugs and favored full equality for gays before the law. Both those issues will go down the drain. Instead, the planks won’t call for either, but will merely say these are state matters — and the libertarian position will be replaced by this conservative interpretation.

Related Posts:

• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Bailout for the People
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• State Secession and the Coming Civil War

Now granted – you won’t find a lot of Albert Schweitzers or Mother Teresas working in television, but at least the people who had been honored in the past had pretty much followed the part of the Hippocratic oath that says, “First, do no harm.”

O’Reilly was an appalling choice, not because of his political views, but because he simply gets the facts wrong, abuses his guests and the powerless in general, is delusional, and, well, you might want to Google: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Plus there was that whole sexual harassment thing – the lawsuit he settled for an estimated $10 million. Not the kind of guy you normally think of when it comes time to pass out honors.

I found that most of my colleagues felt the same way. So, on May 10th at the Emmy Awards dinner, I quietly passed out a document that contained – not my opinion – but O’Reilly’s own words and quotes from his sexual harassment lawsuit. And that is what got me fired. I got fired from my job on a news and information network for reporting demonstrably true things in a room full of news people.

Normally, in the great scheme of things – this should be a total non-story. “Overpaid White Guy Gets Fired from Cushy Job for Shooting Mouth Off.” Yawn. But these are not normal times. After the word got out that I was fired – I started hearing from people from all over the country who were outraged. A guy in Texas who had once worked with O’Reilly and had seen a meltdown like the one on Youtube – a weather anchor in Arizona – a woman in China no less.

And it all got me to thinking about the myth of free speech. In today’s America, speech is only “free” when you are talking down to someone less powerful that you. Speak “up” – and look out.

In your work life, they can fire you, as I found out, for quietly saying something that is widely known to be true. Put a lid on it.

And in our role as citizens, we have been told by O’Reilly to shut up, or Fox Security may pay you a visit. We are called traitors if we simply speak the truth about the absence of WMD’s – the way the war is going – the disgraces of Abu Ghraib, of Gitmo, of waterboarding. Shut up.

So, when exactly do they think we have the right to speak up? To speak the quiet simple truth, to people who have more power than us?

Well, I think now would be a good time. The fog of fear is lifting. The balance of power is shifting. People are beginning to talk to each other again instead of shouting. I think it’s time to reclaim the right to free speech – even if it comes at a price.

Meanwhile, if anyone needs any lawn work done or his or her car detailed – give me a call.

Related Posts:

• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• The Target is Iran: Israel’s Latest Gamble May Backfire
• What Were Those 1960s Terrorists Thinking, Anyway?
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world

The CIA has denied any direct ties with the group, but U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran.

The six Jundullah members were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities last week, and the Iranian Mehr News Agency reported Pakistan would soon extradite the men to Iran, where they would likely be put on trial as spies and face execution.

ABC News

Related Posts:

• The Shadow Money Lenders: The Real Significance of The Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy
• Introduction to Devaluation and Demonetization
• Awash In Profits, Exxon Extracting Every Penny From Its Franchisees
• State Department Snubs Iraqi Whistleblower
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders