Internet News And Review

911

Naturally, I could have included a dearth of information regarding the 911 travesty, but others have done stellar, most informative work in this regard.

Please read the following.  Take the time and look at the videos.  Only then will you fully understand the concept of betrayal.

The 47-story skyscraper WTC 7 was located to the north of the North Tower, across Vesey Street. Prior to 9/11, this relatively obscure cousin to the Twin Towers was more commonly known as the Salomon Brothers Building after its largest tenant.

Built above and around an electrical substation, WTC 7 also housed other businesses and a number of federal agencies: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the IRS, the Department of Defense, and a secret CIA station that the Agency later described as its largest office in North America outside of the Washington area.

The Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, a high-tech nerve center built by the Giuliani administration and intended as the city's command headquarters in a crisis, was on the 23rd floor. The location was criticized by officials at the New York Fire Department and others who considered it insecure.

The 9/11 events rendered OEM unusable. WTC 7 was evacuated in the morning, caught fire at some point after the Twin Towers fell, and collapsed completely at 5:20pm Eastern Daylight Time on Sept. 11, 2001. The building fell evenly within 6.5 seconds, leaving a pile of rubble contained almost entirely within the original footprint. The many external signs of a controlled demolition raised the prospect that explosives were used to bring it down. (See for example the video clips at http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html).

Authorities have maintained the global failure was entirely due to the serious structural damage caused by the earlier collapse of the Twin Towers and subsequent fires (fueled by diesel tanks located around the building, the largest of which belonged to OEM). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged with preparing a full report. Its publication date has been delayed several times over a period of almost two years, and is currently scheduled for April 2007.

More at http://www.improbablecollapse.com/screens2/history.html

UPDATE--FEBRUARY 2, 2010

ews from AE911Truth

Feb 19, 2010  
Major Milestone Reached at AE911Truth:
1,000 Architects & Engineers demand new 9/11 WTC investigation!
Press Conference Scheduled February 19th
— Editor
 

As of January 2010, over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed our petition demanding a real investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11. This petition, along with AE911Truth literature and DVDs, will also be presented to every Member of Congress.

helen thomas shovels snow

December 17, 2006

Helen Thomas Shovels Snow

                HELEN THOMAS SHOVELS SNOW.

Well, a few salient comments might be preferred in preface to presenting the actual event, but in defense of the notion that ‘seeing is believing,’ this missive continues here-- Download TonySNow-Combatdeaths-presser-12-15-06.wmv-- or read the short transcript below: 

My commentary follows.

Q I have two questions. Since the President knows how many Iraqis were killed in the two months period, how many were killed in the four years of war?

MR. SNOW: Two things; I know you asked the question in the gaggle. What you had was the President had a briefing on how many people were killed in combat activities. The Iraqi government, itself, compiles its own statistics on those who have died in the violence. I am sure that there is a briefing paper that has that exact number on it, or at least their best guesses on it.

Maybe the one important number is the nearly 27 million Iraqis no longer have to live under the terror and despotism of Saddam Hussein. They have an elected government, which many of them risked their lives to vote for. It's a unity government. And one of the chief aims, as we've just pointed out, is to get rid of the violence that is claiming lives unnecessarily and to allow that democracy to move forward peacefully.

Q That isn't an answer.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q Why? Why can't you count the number who were killed in four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently it's a difficult task, and I would refer you to the government of Iraq.

Q How do you know 5,900 were killed in two months?

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you, those are the confirmed kills on the battlefield as passed on by commanders.

Q And what about going after ACLU, when you didn't go after the Hadley memo –

MR. SNOW: We do not talk about any ongoing court activities. You know that, Helen.

Q But you are going after the ACLU, aren't you?

MR. SNOW: As I said, we don't — you could chase me around the table as many times as you want on it, but we do not comment on ongoing court activities.

Q That's not fair.

MR. SNOW: It may not be fair, but it's the policy of any administration not to talk about ongoing court activities.

Q As a former newsman –

MR. SNOW: As a former newsman, I know when to stop chasing somebody around the podium. This is a case where it has always been the standard of administrations, Democratic and Republican, that you do not talk about ongoing court issues.

Enough Snow reigned down during this exchange to require everyone present to grab shovels and start digging their way out.  But good enough for Helen Thomas.

These questions continue to elicit the dodgy, fumbling mendacity practiced by administration talking heads.  Nothing new here------it is all an indefensible position in any case.

December 17, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink

                HELEN THOMAS SHOVELS SNOW.

Well, a few salient comments might be preferred in preface to presenting the actual event, but in defense of the notion that ‘seeing is believing,’ this missive continues here-- Download TonySNow-Combatdeaths-presser-12-15-06.wmv-- or read the short transcript below: 

My commentary follows.

Q I have two questions. Since the President knows how many Iraqis were killed in the two months period, how many were killed in the four years of war?

MR. SNOW: Two things; I know you asked the question in the gaggle. What you had was the President had a briefing on how many people were killed in combat activities. The Iraqi government, itself, compiles its own statistics on those who have died in the violence. I am sure that there is a briefing paper that has that exact number on it, or at least their best guesses on it.

Maybe the one important number is the nearly 27 million Iraqis no longer have to live under the terror and despotism of Saddam Hussein. They have an elected government, which many of them risked their lives to vote for. It's a unity government. And one of the chief aims, as we've just pointed out, is to get rid of the violence that is claiming lives unnecessarily and to allow that democracy to move forward peacefully.

Q That isn't an answer.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q Why? Why can't you count the number who were killed in four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently it's a difficult task, and I would refer you to the government of Iraq.

Q How do you know 5,900 were killed in two months?

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you, those are the confirmed kills on the battlefield as passed on by commanders.

Q And what about going after ACLU, when you didn't go after the Hadley memo –

MR. SNOW: We do not talk about any ongoing court activities. You know that, Helen.

Q But you are going after the ACLU, aren't you?

MR. SNOW: As I said, we don't — you could chase me around the table as many times as you want on it, but we do not comment on ongoing court activities.

Q That's not fair.

MR. SNOW: It may not be fair, but it's the policy of any administration not to talk about ongoing court activities.

Q As a former newsman –

MR. SNOW: As a former newsman, I know when to stop chasing somebody around the podium. This is a case where it has always been the standard of administrations, Democratic and Republican, that you do not talk about ongoing court issues.

Enough Snow reigned down during this exchange to require everyone present to grab shovels and start digging their way out.  But good enough for Helen Thomas.

These questions continue to elicit the dodgy, fumbling mendacity practiced by administration talking heads.  Nothing new here------it is all an indefensible position in any case.

Helen Thomas Shovels Snow

                HELEN THOMAS SHOVELS SNOW.

Well, a few salient comments might be preferred in preface to presenting the actual event, but in defense of the notion that ‘seeing is believing,’ this missive continues here-- Download TonySNow-Combatdeaths-presser-12-15-06.wmv-- or read the short transcript below: 

My commentary follows.

Q I have two questions. Since the President knows how many Iraqis were killed in the two months period, how many were killed in the four years of war?

MR. SNOW: Two things; I know you asked the question in the gaggle. What you had was the President had a briefing on how many people were killed in combat activities. The Iraqi government, itself, compiles its own statistics on those who have died in the violence. I am sure that there is a briefing paper that has that exact number on it, or at least their best guesses on it.

Maybe the one important number is the nearly 27 million Iraqis no longer have to live under the terror and despotism of Saddam Hussein. They have an elected government, which many of them risked their lives to vote for. It's a unity government. And one of the chief aims, as we've just pointed out, is to get rid of the violence that is claiming lives unnecessarily and to allow that democracy to move forward peacefully.

Q That isn't an answer.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q Why? Why can't you count the number who were killed in four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently it's a difficult task, and I would refer you to the government of Iraq.

Q How do you know 5,900 were killed in two months?

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you, those are the confirmed kills on the battlefield as passed on by commanders.

Q And what about going after ACLU, when you didn't go after the Hadley memo –

MR. SNOW: We do not talk about any ongoing court activities. You know that, Helen.

Q But you are going after the ACLU, aren't you?

MR. SNOW: As I said, we don't — you could chase me around the table as many times as you want on it, but we do not comment on ongoing court activities.

Q That's not fair.

MR. SNOW: It may not be fair, but it's the policy of any administration not to talk about ongoing court activities.

Q As a former newsman –

MR. SNOW: As a former newsman, I know when to stop chasing somebody around the podium. This is a case where it has always been the standard of administrations, Democratic and Republican, that you do not talk about ongoing court issues.

Enough Snow reigned down during this exchange to require everyone present to grab shovels and start digging their way out.  But good enough for Helen Thomas.

These questions continue to elicit the dodgy, fumbling mendacity practiced by administration talking heads.  Nothing new here------it is all an indefensible position in any case.

DEATH OF THE IRS

To no flaw, the author below has clearly defined an economic solution to our present precarious deficit-heavy position.  Our system can't go on much longer, and the smart money is betting against the dollar.  Simply take a look at where Soros and Buffett have drawn a line in the sand.

At the same time, this proposition would certainly right one of the more egregious examples of Constitutional injustices in modern times----the illegal ratification of the 16th amendment, and the subsequent convoluted legal language forming the parameters of the system which serves to obfuscate the truth.

For our citizens:

Why not write our laws in a foreign language?  As it is, we need attorneys to vet the truth and intent from existing laws, as if clarity of such ought not be an assailable aspiration or possibility.

To wit:

THE IRS SHOULD BE LEFT TO DIE
                                                               by Bob Minarik
03/08/06

                 'There have been a number of stories in the news about the IRS being
sickly because
                 of lack of funding and low morale within its ranks.
The IRS is sick all right, but trying to fix it isn't that an agency should be
left to die or be killed.  Its death would be a
benefit not a detriment.  Credibility would be added to an ethics
starved government and the most vile, the most contemptible, the
most reprehensible agency in existence in the U.S.A.  today, would
be eliminated.

        Even now, the bleeding hearts, who worship big government as savior of
mankind, are crying for more funding and pleading that we
can't survive without an increase in the Gestapo and fear tactics
that the IRS now uses to steal from the American people.  But such
is utter hogwash.

        An elimination of the IRS and the income tax would not only more
productivity in the free market, it would inspire an economic
boom that would eliminate the present need for government subsidies
and give-a-ways.  Ironically, those give-a-ways equal the exact 43%
of the expenditures of the proposed national budget that is
collected from the American people as an income tax.

        Other benefits of a dead IRS and no income tax would be free, fairer
elections where the IRS could no longer intimidate with
threats, audits or criminal investigations, the people who donate to
candidates.  Even Judges, both Federal and State, would have one
less agency to black-mail them to stay within the agency determined
parameters when deciding cases.

        The rights of people would also be enhanced 1000%. The people once again would be secure in their personal papers, privacy and effects.
They would no longer be compelled to be a witness against themselves
or required to take an oath against their will.  Much fear and
private waste attempting to comply with an intentionally complicated
Revenue Code would be flat out eliminated.  And thousands of
lawyers, accountants and tax preparers would have to become givers
of production instead of takers of it.

        Yes, it's past time to let this thieving agency die. For few would
mourn it's death.  To the contrary, celebration would abound
as the cause of liberty would once again take a giant step forward.

        It can't be stated loud enough that a free people and the IRS can co-exist.
The IRS is like a cancer.  The IRS permeates the free
enterprise system and eats away at the liberty that is the
foundation of that system.  To allow it to operate, even in a sickly
state is allowing too much.  The reality is that the IRS is
inversely proportional to liberty.  The stronger the IRS the less
the liberty of the people.  If we are to regain our liberty - The
IRS must not just be left to die, it must be destroyed and the
ground salted so heavily that it can never ever sprout again.'


        Bob Minarik  - rochester indiana  -  http://freedomlaw.com/
e-mail: rlmpfl9065@earthlink.net

As contentious as it might be, would  not a true test of democracy be a citizens vote whether to abolish the institution entirely?  When, one wonders, does the notion of common sense frame the reference points and rules by which we live?

When can common sense be counted on to prevail in disputes of natural social discord?  Or to smooth the wrinkles of bureaucracy, streamlining and making effective programs designed to strengthen the rubric of our society.

When might we be allowed our right to vote?  An educated guess would predict hordes flocking to the polls.  Let justice be heard.

The Future of The Dollar

So much for the notion that the foundation of our economy, the dollar, might find a 'fair and balanced' place in the months and years to come.

Too late, evidently, as collective greed and incompetence has fueled a free-fall second to none, and our dollar plummets in value daily.

Soon, we will all be praying for pennies from heaven.

See what Representative Ron Paul has to say in this regard:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul271.html

The burning bush

Well, it strikes a visceral fear in the heart to say what needs saying.

It causes deep horror, intellectual and physical nausea, and a stabbing knowledge of trust betrayal.

It is a world upside down. And, truly, we would need an upside down language to properly express the manifestations.

But we're right side up, aren’t we?

Justifiably, we took after those invaders, didn’t we? All those Saudi pilots under the influence of Bin Laden------we attacked Afghanistan and bombed the crap out of them, didn’t we?

Then, for extra measure, we bombed the crap out of Iraq……….didn’t we?

For those who missed the master plan, it was a sorrowfully bad performance.

First, when it was immediately apparent the buildings came down via implosion settings, the nausea set it.

Then, the gray-faced Bush, sitting still in a school room for at least five minutes……………

Good God, man, you have just learned that ‘….the United States is under attack…..’

Only imagination allows for pondering what any other person would have done in those circumstances.  Not to speak of our Commander-in-Chief.

Five minutes?  How about jumping up and running to your awaiting vehicle to facilitate important communications?

In five minutes, most folks are done with sex.

Five minutes will grant you a part of a good cigar and a half snifter of brandy.

During the time our president sat there, looking at the floor, then the students, he could have had a decent bowel movement.

That stabbing knowledge was having its effect.

When the public was shown the hole made by the 747 crashing into the Pentagon, they turned away in horrific shame.

Well, everything was in chaos, right? Over 3000 of our citizens were dead.

So, who cares that the hole in the Pentagon isn’t the right size?  Who cares there are a half dozen other inconsistancies in the particulars?

Let’s just get it fixed, and kill the lousy bastards that perpetrated this attack.

And so it goes.

People with great minds and political clarity attempt to educate the public concerning our troubled times.

However, Lew, while it is sensible to agree with a great percentage of your political thought, your statement:

"The important thing to note is that someday he will be gone.  And with him the movement that has covered for him."

must be based on pure hope for Divine intervention, as it is simply too late for alternatives.

May we all rest in peace.

National ID Card, Part 2

It all started with Nixon.

Alright, consider it a concession it didn’t actually start with Richard Milhous Nixon, but upon 30+ years reflection, it is clear he deserves the ‘medal of embodiment,’ if you will.

His eyes were lifeless.

Must have been the guilt, because he was a heavy contributor.

Lying and open betrayal of the American people, and a sword in the back of democracy will do that every time.

Sure as hell.

Those eyes were scary, dark and evasive.  And his thin, dried-lipped assurances that he was ‘not a crook.’  Pretty convincing stuff. 

Yes, Dick, you were a crook.  And a bad one at that.

At the time, many people wondered if the entire incident (including Ellsberg's office) would qualify for the 'world's stupidest crime' category in Guiness.

But, times have changed since Nixon. 

The crimes are entirely more serious, and the underwriting process has improved its methodology incrementally.

Especially the marionette part----hell, you can hardly even see the strings now.  Great stuff.

Yes, Dick, it all came true.

He would still worry about the Jews, however.

Those pesky Jews.

His scenario includes rubbing insincere little hands gleefully together.  And then, to Haldeman:

‘You see, Bob, I told you we could whip these people into shape.  Now they’ll tell us everything about their neighbors……just what we need---fear, Bob--fuck the people.  That prick Thompson was right---they’re doomed.  Next, we need to get those guns, Bob.  Need to figure something out………get rid of that Hollywood guy---what’s his name-----Hooper or Lester?  Something like that.  We got people that can do it---no mess.’

Well, a lot of folks have come and gone since then.  A lot of mysterious circumstances.  A lot of timely dying.

Truly, a bi-partisan effort.

And today’s lullaby is a simpler song.  And way more effective.  Nixon’s……errrrrr…….Bush’s dance card is filled by willing partners wearing white gowns, effusing official policy through entire communications networks worldwide.

If only Dick had it that easy.  He had to deal with those ‘commies’ physically protesting in the streets across the country.

He actually had to do something about the ‘war.’

He didn't have Fox News to protect him.

But what of the inevitable anti-war protests?  Time has a way of making things more serious.  And time is wearing on for the 'shock and awe' crowd. 

But when the time comes:

No bad form allowed.

In a matter of moments, the 'terrorist' brand will be upon you, and you will be shot in the streets.

Simple as that.

Many demand: (as a conscience salve)

'Support the troops, even if you oppose the war.’

Well, no.

How about we support the ‘war,’ but oppose the troops, and bring them home out of moral outrage?

How about stepping away from centuries old endemic fights?  If they can’t sort if out amongst themselves, then natural selection prevails.

The oil will just have to spill whatever direction it spills. 

Simple as that.

But, that won’t work, will it?

According to political dictates, we are obligated to ‘spread’ Democracy.

Like peanut butter.

Seems like there was a ‘spread’ of the Red Menace only a few years back----then it miraculously disappeared.

Maybe they ran out of bread.

Apparently, many things have disappeared, including any desire to hold accountable our lawmakers, as they spin completely out of control, senses akimbo.

The average United States citizen has absolutely no idea about laws which are being passed directly influencing their lives.

They don't even care.

Some of the time, laws aimed at restricting the ways in which citizens may be a part of any decision making process.

Democracy at work.

Here’s a corker:

In February, one of the few politicians who stood firm against the implementation of the 'REAl ID' card (HR 418)--- Congressman Ron Paul----was recently forced to watch the inevitable.

The Senate passage of this horrific, troubling law.

Dr. Paul must be a lonely kind of guy. 

After all, he believes in the goodness which frames the Constitution, in the notions of free and fair trade, and the limitations imposed on the power the Federal government could wield.

Is he the only politician willing to look truth in the face?

And, our citizens!

They simply obligingly gaze on.  They listen to Bill O'Reilly chortle that he couldn't tell the difference between 'a Wookie and a Libertarian.' 

They agree with Sean Hannity that the 'world is better off' rid of Mr. Hussein, thus justifying acts of war.

Whew.

The stare from people's eyes now is reminiscent of the barren, trance-like reflection from a steer's eyes as it munches grass relentlessly.

No thinking.

Almost Nixon like.

Munch, munch, munch.

Have we become so entrenched in the psychology of the moment, the daily grind of fear spewed from television boxes?  Can we not see?  Are we numb?

Evidently so, because through a simple stroke of the pen, we have allowed our lawmakers to set in motion a plan to create a National ID card. 

(The Real ID Act originally passed the House in February as a standalone bill (H.R. 418) by a vote of 261-to-161. House leaders, realizing national ID would have been problematic in the Senate, then added it to a military appropriations bill in a cynical ploy to make it almost impossible to fight national ID.)

It should have been put to a National vote.  This business of combining laws has got to stop.

What kind of democracy tolerates this?

On the local level, this 'combining' process would be like voting to continue the 4th of July parade and fireworks display, but allowing an unpopular businessperson to become a city council member because the fireworks measure passes.

What kind of sense does that make?

Just wait until your REAL ID card requires you to identify whether you own guns. 

Or what publications you read.

Yes, yes, state government already requires you to register gun purchases.  But that is not the point. 

A federal database is being built to collate personal information.  Collated information will be used, and not with citizenry best interests at heart.

Why does the Federal government need all our personal information?  What are they planning to do with this information?

Common sense dictates that is in direct violation of our Constitutional right to privacy.

What of our future?

You can expect increasing 'inconveniences' through collusion with insurance companies, banks, and other businesses and agencies necessary to our existence.

You know, like the DMV.  But that's another story.

Then, there will be regulations to follow in the interests of 'national security.'  Many people will ultimately (and willingly) surrender their personal firearms.

It will be the patriotic thing to do.

Neighbors will inform the 'authorities' if anything 'suspicious' is happening at your house.  Don't set off too many fireworks.

And you better get your passport while the getting is good.

'Your papers, please.'

If you have ever heard that uttered by a swarthy man carrying a machine gun, you know the horror behind those words.

But wait.  Enough of the negativity. 

Won't things get better?  Surely we will have some change.

Overheard just the other day:

'Well, it's just for a few more years, and that moron will be out of office, and then them "demmy-crats" will get us out of the war, and vote us a bunch more money........just hold on, things will get better........right?'

Well, no, we won't be out of the war, no matter who occupies the seat of government.  You can count on it.  If it's not Iraq, it will be somewhere else.

And, if you are an average citizen, your life won't get any better, either.

That giant deficit is not going to go away without some serious economic hardships ahead.  Guess who is going to bear the preponderance of that weight?

Again, simple as that.   

Someday, folks will take notice that the 'changing of the guard' between Republicans and Democrats amounts to no more than the famous British ritual. (no offense to the British nation--there, the people know that the ritual is a ritual.)

But, mind control being what it is, this otherwise life changing notion simply doesn't matter.  None of it does.

So, are the Founders 'turning over' in their graves?

No point in that, they're still dead.  Evidently, so are their ideas.

James Madison, the principle architect of the U.S. Constitution, noted in 1795:

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

QUITE A SUMMATION OF OUR TIMES.

Something's Wrong Here

The Portland Oregonian (Sunday, March 13) reported on a national survey which, in part, sought to determine high school students awareness of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Naturally, the above is recognized by most citizens as our First Amendment-----a code of importance, a doctrine to live by.

Something on which we base our lives, and our hopes for the future.

Well, the results of the survey were disconcerting.

Actually, shocking.  There's something wrong here.

Take a look.

1. High school students tend to express little appreciation for the First Amendment. Nearly three-fourths say either they don't know how they feel about it or take it for granted.

2. Students are less likely than adults to think that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions or newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

3. Students lack knowledge and understanding about key aspects of the First Amendment. Seventy-five percent incorrectly think that flag burning is illegal. Nearly half erroneously believe the government can restrict indecent material on the Internet.

4. Students who do not participate in any media-related activities are less likely to think that people should be allowed to burn or deface the American flag. Students who have taken more media and/or First Amendment classes are more likely to agree that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions

5. Students who take more media and/or First Amendment classes are more willing to answer questions about their tolerance of the First Amendment. Those who have not taken the classes say they "don't know" to First Amendment questions at a much higher rate.

6. Most administrators say student learning about journalism is a priority for their school, but less than 1 in 5 think it is a high priority, and just under a third say it is not a priority at all. Most, however, feel it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills.

7. Most administrators say they would like to see their school expand existing student media, but lack of financial resources is the main obstacle.

8. Students participating in student-run newspapers are more likely to believe that students should be allowed to report controversial issues without approval of school authorities than students who do not participate in student newspapers.

9. Student media opportunities are not universally offered in schools across the country. In fact, more than 1 in 5 schools (21 percent) offer no student media whatsoever.

10. Of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated student papers within the past five years. Of those, 68 percent now have no media.

11. Low-income and non-suburban schools have a harder time maintaining student media programs than wealthier and suburban schools.

12. Interestingly, virtually the same percentage of students participate in media activities in schools that offer a high volume of student media, as in those schools with no media programs. Apparently, students interested in journalism find a way to participate in informal media activities, even if their school does not offer formal opportunities.

So, one upshot is that approximately half of responding students disagreed that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story.

Huh?  Half of the students?

The national study, sponsored by the Knight Foundation, also found that students appreciation and understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment tend to increase with the exposure to media classes, or work experience with school newspapers.

Of course, there is a dramatic drop in number of school newspapers and classes which purport to teach journalism.

The ususal 'budget constraints' ranked as the primary reason given for this decline.

Right.

Looks like the uphill battle just got a bit steeper.

Ward Churchill Responds

Professor Ward Churchill, the latest target of main stream 'talk television'--those journalists cum administration apologists--has clearly responded to the outcries and pummeling  (and  demands for his termination)  with a statement issued January 31, 2005.

As media vilification is a one-way street, and free speech an honored principle, here is Professor Churchill's statement.

Ward Churchill Responds to Criticism of "Some People Push Back"

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Ward Churchill Boulder, Colorado January 31, 2005

Democracy Is Not Freedom

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

These words from Ronald Reagan ring particularly true these days.

Read what Congressman Ron Paul has to say about freedom.........

Just Say No

'Suppose a traveling salesman came to your door. He said he was representing a foreign country that had a bad government. He would like for your son to volunteer to overthrow that government and possibly get killed in the process.'

It is refreshing to know that journalists like Charley Reese continue to rail against the hypocricy and madness.

Read the rest of this gritty realism.