Targeted Killing: Where were you on September 14th, 2001?

S.J.Res.23 -- One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America

Joint Resolution - To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.


SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

"Yea" votes in support of the above-worded resolution :  420

"Nay" votes in disagreement with granting such authority to order executive action : 

1 

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member and my friend for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today really with a very heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and the loved ones who were killed and injured this week. Only the most foolish and the most callous would not understand the grief that has really gripped our people and millions across the world.

This unspeakable act on the United States has forced me, however, to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.

September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us.

Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.

This is a very complex and complicated matter.

This resolution will pass, although we all know that the President can wage a war even without it. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint.

Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, let us step back for a moment. Let us just pause for a minute and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.

I have agonized over this vote, but I came to grips with it today and I came to grips with opposing this resolution during the very painful yet very beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said,

"As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.''

---- NAYS    1 ---

Lee

---- YEAS    420 ---

Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Akin Allen Andrews Armey Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barr Barrett Bartlett Barton Bass Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardin Carson (IN) Carson (OK) Castle Chabot Chambliss Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Condit Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Culberson Cummings Cunningham Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Fattah Ferguson Filner Flake Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Frank Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Gordon

Goss Graham Granger Graves Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Grucci Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Harman Hart Hastert Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inslee Isakson Israel Issa Istook Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) Kennedy (RI) Kerns Kildee Kind (WI) Kingston Kirk Kleczka Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Langevin Lantos Largent Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manzullo Markey Mascara Matheson Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Mink Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey

Olver Ortiz Osborne Ose Otter Owens Oxley Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pelosi Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Phelps Pickering Pitts Platts Pombo Pomeroy Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Rehberg Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Schaffer Schakowsky Schiff Schrock Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simmons Simpson Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Souder Spratt Stark Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tiberi Tierney Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins (OK) Watson (CA) Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL)

Now, that's moral courage.

The Conspicuously Unquestioned Certainty of Al-Aulaqi's claim to US CItizenship - Where did all those Birthers go...?

Right, I'm fed up with this: NO American Citizens have been killed by drone strikes.

Accidentally, or otherwise.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lets sort this out once and for all:"

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

Al-Aulaqi was born in the United States to parents from Yemen, while his father was doing graduate work at US universities."
Birthers, note: He is NOT  therefore, a Natural Born Citizen. And his implicit naturalisation, appears to have been obtained years later by fraud; if indeed if ever was, which I am increasingly beginning to doubt as this takes on all the hallmarks of another National Security set-up.

Neither one of his parents were US Nationals, he claimed at various times when it suited him to have US Citizenship, but there seems to be not documentary proof of this, at least not in the public domain.

Already, AT BEST, he is a Yemeni national with a claim to dual US Citizenship 

"Al-Aulaqi was born in 1971 in New Mexico in the United States, where his father was doing graduate studies. "

Prove it.

"In 1978, when he was seven years old, he returned with his family to Yemen. "

He is a Yemeni national with two Yemeni parents who at various times has claimed to have been born in both Yemen and New Mexico, claiming both Yemeni and US Citizenship and maybe travelling under both on different passports for different occasions. There is no proof of either claim - but he is DEFINITELY a Yemeni National, with two Yemeni parents who grew up and spend most of his life in Yemen.

"He lived in Yemen for 11 years, where he studied at Azal Modern School."

 Can we do better than that to clear this up? What if he was born (as is claimed) in New Mexico but there was a fire and they lost all the birth records?

In other words, if the dates are found to match up and he can be reasonably estimated to have been born while his mother and father were studying at college, but no actual documentation can be found that definitively affirms that, does he have a reasonable claim to make a case?

Do we have any case law on this?

As it happens, actually - yes. We do.The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.^[19]

So, let's lawyer this  one - the "official version" - systematically, statement by statement and see if we can't give the guy a break, here.

Al-Aulaqi was born in the United States to parents from Yemen, He isn't automatically an American at birth, because neither of his parents are.

Were either (or both) of his parents "[Yemeni]citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and ...carrying on business in the United States...?"

while his father was doing graduate work at US universities.
Evidently they weren't. "Work" in this case implies study, implies education. The actual work may or may not involve or consist of paid employment but that's totally irrelevant, even if it is the case, which is unlikely.

Neither his father nor his mother can be said to be conducting "business" to support themselves - they are not in the country - primarily at least - for the sake of a job, even though they obviously do have ecconomic input and interactions and their admission into the country would be granted only if they fulfilled a certain very different set of criteria.

They were clearly NOT resident in the US on an open-ended basis, nor was their stay in the country expected to be permanent or last beyond a certain point.

His father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, was a Fulbright Scholar earned a master's degree in agricultural economics at New Mexico State University in 1971,

Nowhere do we get told where he earned his undergraduate first degree prior to this... which is a strange omission.

We might also note that the geological composition of Yemen is comprised almost entirely of enormous rocks and bare ground with 26 million desperately poor people, clinging round its coastline in fishing communities - the issue here is not merely the fact of there being no workable soil and next to no water (as with most of the rest of the Arabian Peninsular)... It's that next to none of the land for much of the country is anything close to being flat.

When I said "big rocks", I meant really meant "big rocks", rather than mountains or sand dunes.

it's a strange subject to major in - agriculture surely can never be economic in a land where nothing is able to grow.

Which is surely one of the many reasons it's so desperately poor...

received a doctorate at the University of Nebraska, and worked at the University of Minnesota from 1975 to 1977.

 In 1978, when he was seven years old, [Al-Awlaki] returned with his family to Yemen.

That's clear and unambiguous. Both parents were in the country on temporary student visas granted for the purpose of education, with no expectation that they would remain permanantly resident beyond the end of the final course and not therefore domiciled in the US.

Everyone clear? Anyone disagree?

Can I get a second on that source?


The Albuquerque Journal said New Mexico State University's Fall 2002 alumni newsletter notes that Awlaki's father, Nasser al-Awlaki, was named a distinguished international alumnus. The newspaper said the elder Awlaki earned a bachelor's degree in agricultural economics from NMSU in 1969 and a master's in 1971, when Anwar al-Awlaki [was born].

He eventually obtained a doctorate in agricultural economics at the University of Nebraska and from 1975 to 1977 he was a researcher and faculty member at the University of Minnesota before returning to Yemen in 1978, the Journal said.

Source: UPI

Done.
"In 1991 Al-Aulaqi returned to the U.S state of Colorado to attend college. He earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University (1994), where he was president of the Muslim Student Association."

That'll certainly attract attention in Denver....

And Denver, as previously noted is, Spook Central.

Aside from being the home city and pricinple command and training hub for the US Air Force, housing NORAD, Cheyanne Mountain, about a dozen unsolved quasi-Satanic Ritual Abuse murders facilitated by Aurora Police Department and the Jefferson County Sherrif's Department, school board and others, DIA are all over the International Airport as well with giant underground Nuclear Doomsday Facilities hidden in plain site so everyone will just ignore them. Which mostly works.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "He was likely recruited about this time".

Or earlier - if CIA had worked with his folks in the 70s, they may have even paid his plane fare over to infiltrate campuses and set up recruitment for Jihad in Bosnia and Kosovo and Chechnya - MI5 were doing EXACTLY that in EXACTLY this time period in Leeds and other cities in the North of England. This is the same year FBI were chasing Ramzi Yousef halfway round the world.

"He attended the university on a foreign student visa and a government scholarship from Yemen, apparently by claiming to be born in that country, according to a former U.S. security agent."

He is now 20 and never claims to be anything other than a Yemeni national and entered the US on a Student Visa to satisfy INS.

"He spent a summer of his college years training with the Afghan mujahideen"

I can't believe I even need to say this: CIA.

"In June 2002, a Denver federal judge signed an arrest warrant for al-Aulaqi for PASSPORT FRAUD."

Just show 'em your birth certificate....?

 Note, he is unable to prove he is a US Citizen when applying for a US passport to travel overseas - he presumably travelled to Kabul previously on his Yemeni passport or a possibly CIA fake one.

"On October 9, the Denver U.S. Attorney's Office filed a motion to dismiss its complaint, and vacate the arrest warrant. Prosecutors believed that they lacked sufficient evidence of a crime, according to U.S. Attorney Dave Gaouette, who authorized its withdrawal."

I have only once before encountered ANYONE with the surname Gaouette in my ENTIRE life, and he was fired as Rear Admiral Commanding the Stennis Battlegroup patrolling the Strait of Hormuz by Panetta 72 hours prior to a Presidential election for evidence impilicating him in a military coup to oust Obama and provoke a war with Iran;

SPECULATION: CIA is a family company. IF this US Attourney is (say) Rear Admiral (Ret.) Gaoutte's brother, this Gaoutte at the US Attourney's office appears to have arrived on the scene to smooth things over with the Judge and his visa situation.


"Al-Aulaqi had listed Yemen rather than the United States as his place of birth on his 1990 application for a U.S. Social Security number, soon after arriving in the US. "The bizarre thing is if you put Yemen down (on the application), it would be harder to get a Social Security number than to say you are a native-born citizen of Las Cruces," Gaouette said."

I know it isn't just me: that's complete hogwash. If he had valid  US citizenship in 2002, he would have been able to present his US Birth Certificate and apply for a US passport.

He didn't. Because he couldn't.


"Al-Awlaki used this documentation to obtain a passport in 1993. He later corrected his place of birth to Las Cruces, New Mexico."

What documentation? His social security number obtained by presenting his Yemeni passport and student visa...?

Let me get this straight: he claimed (accurately) to be a Yemeni National, born in Yemen to two Yemeni parents to get a social security number issued, THEN used the social security documentation to (fraudulently) obtain as US passport in 1993....? or do they mean a Yemeni passport issued in Denver?

I doubt it.

Far more likely explanation: CIA gave him a fake passport to travel to Afghanistan and back and he kept it it and set off red-flags in the system when he tried to replace it a decade later, triggering the warrent for his arrest, which goes away just in time for him to travel on a hate speech tour of Europe in 2002 - MI5 and MI6 just let him in.

"Prosecutors could not charge him in October 2002, when he returned from a trip abroad, because a 10-year statute of limitations on lying to the Social Security Administration had expired. The motion for rescinding the arrest warrant was approved by a magistrate judge on October 10, and filed on October 11."

"According to a 2012 investigative report by Fox News, the arrest warrant for passport fraud was still in effect on the morning of Oct. 10, 2002, when FBI Agent Wade Ammerman ordered al-Aulaqi's release. U.S. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and several congressional committees are urging FBI Director Robert Mueller to provide an explanation about the bureau’s interactions with al-Aulaqi, including why he was released from federal custody when there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest."

I think we all know the answer to this one: CIA were protecting him and moving him around where they needed him most on the globe, radicalising domestic Muslim Youth, sowing the seeds for homegrown terror and adhering to the Blind Sheikh Omar Rahman model . Slick. Very slick...

"ABC News reported in 2009 that the decision to cancel the arrest warrant outraged members of a Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego at the time. They were monitoring al-Aulaqi and wanted to "look at him under a microscope"."

Yes, I bet they did, and I bet they were - this is evidently, a Made Guy, protected on orders right from the top.... "He's someone very important to Mr. Dulles, y'honour..."


"But US Attorney Gaouette said that no objection had been raised to the recission of the warrant during a meeting including Ray Fournier. He was the San Diego federal diplomatic security agent whose allegation had set in motion the effort to obtain a warrant. Gaouette said that if al-Aulaqi had been convicted at the time, he would have faced about 6 months in custody."

Translation: DSA were asked to drop the case by their domestic CIA liason.

"The New York Times suggested later that al-Aulaqi had claimed birth in Yemen (his family's place of origin) to qualify for scholarship money granted to foreign citizens."

Yeah, that's a major breach of Sharia Law - you have to sign and affirm a sworn oath and statement that you are telling the truth and he lied.

That's completely haraam - forbidden. In actual fact, "Bin Laden", or someone speaking on his behalf in one of the 17 released Abbottabad documents is incensed by this, along with the same behaviour by the alleged Fort Hood Shooter and declared them both kuffur and both excommunicated them and threw them out of Al-Qaeda (of his bit of what was left of it) for bringing shame on them.

Bin Laden (when he was alive) had zero tolerance for Oathbreakers and would not tolerate it amongst the brothers, as shown here:

 The critique of The Yemeni Brothers begins at the 9.09 mark.

(Authors's Footnote: I believe, and I always have, both that Osama Bin Laden himself has been dead since early 2002 of untreated kidney disease in Tora Bora, and that the "Bin Laden Raid in Abbottobad (Operation Neptune Spear) was not what were told it was.)

 However, I depart from both mainstream and "alternative" consensus on this issue in as much as I don't think it was what the White House and Obama's inner circle was told it was either; there have been rumours and allegations for years of continued contact and financial support for Bin Laden from family members inside Saudi Arabia, long after his official public disinheritance by the family in 1993.

I offer a more specific breakdown of my analysis of the truth, lies, myth and efficacy of the Bin Laden Myth in context with the halftruths associated with the reality of Operation Neptune Spear as an actual real event that verrifiably took place amid the Fog of War, details quickly fudged or contradicted, early accounts and minority reports burried or smeared liberally with bullshit before being burried up to its neck in classic Pentagon baloney, augmented with fake, planted stories, fake witnesses, deliberate disinformation and red herrings at length elsewhere; for now, surffice to say this - the White House by their own account was forced into a position immediately following the raid wherein they were left with no option other than to announce the successful execution (in both senses) of the Bin Laden raid far earlier than they had agreed beforehand they would be comfortable going public with the announcement and while they were still far short of meeting their own (admittedly very tough, but stringently self-imposed) criteria for confirming both the fact of both the ID on the target and the kill to a standard of accuracy all concerned would be neccessary to meet prior to public disclosure of Osama Bin Laden's death at the hands of Special Forces;

The Official History of the build-up to the go-order on the raid conceedes that those in The Room on the night were in no sense close to certain what SEAL Team 6 would encounter inside the safehouse compound once their boots hit the ground and began kicking down doors - there could be no-one there at all, the coupound itself just a dead drop for relaying messages or worse still, a baited trap. While it could be fairly safely said that there certainly seemed to be someone seemingly very important and highly furtive and secretive hiding out in there and being ultracautious when it came to living off the grid and leaving no footprints, the likelihood of it being an international arms dealer, a Taliban War Lord's lovenest or an international heroin trafficker who had developed a Howard Hughes complex were still filling out at least 30-40% probability of providing the correct answer. ID was attempted post-mortem via facial biometrics on photographs of the corpse, bloodwork, DNA and we're told fingerprinting and e fewother methods, seeking to get, if not a perfect match, then at least a finding in excess of 95% certainty across a battery of different ID methods.

They did not yet have that when the President went on television to announce that the result of the raid was unambiguously beyond reasonable doubt

As I recall bei

Given that he was still verifiably acting on behalf of CIA in influencing the outcome of the Afghan Civil War immediately post-Soviet withdrawl, given that this was three years prior to even his most moderate identification of America as the "Far Enemy", conspiring with the "Near Enemy" embodied by the corrupt absolutists rule of the House of Saud and their poor stewardship as the guardians of the Holy Sites of Mecca and Medina, from the massacre of Hajii at the Grand Mosque to the invitation of American and Coalition "Crusader" troops barracked in occupation of the lands claimed by conquest by the Prophet for his people, and given that his crossing of the Rubicon in the aftermath of the Gulf War took the form of open condemnation of the Saudi Royal Family for their refusal to acceed to his pleas to allow some basic form of opposition, it's hardly a barmstormer of an allegation to suggest that much of the wider almost-as-wealthy Bin Laden clan more than likely were in complete agreement with him and supportive of his moral stand in private, even accepting the neccessity to save face and aquiesnce to his disinheritence as a sop in deference to the reality of tribal feudal patronage in the Kingdom.

He was, after all, in the right on these points and his righteous indignation was both well earned and well-met.

I have little doubt that the Family had his back and helped out whenever they could behind the scenes, certainly until the wrath brought down by the response to the African Embassy Bombings in 1998 (which simply do not match Bin Laden's M.O. or moral code - he would have been appalled by such a senseless and random act of brutality which injured over 1000 civilian bystanders, nearly all of them fellow Muslims and is therefore condemned by multiple Haddith) forced his retreat back into Afghanistan, where the collateral cost of any American Airstrike intended for him personally (as the Clinton/Berger  cruise missile strike on the Nairobi pharmaceutical factory was intended as) could be kept to to the absolute minimum.

Much has been written (and the full story yet to be told) of Osama's Jihadi glory days battling the Atheistic Soviet Hordes with his trusty AK-47, riding headlong into the fray on horseback against Russia Hinds and Anti-Personnel Cluster Bombs and other ordenance;

Rumours and sworn affidavits about from numerous US and Western members of his CIA funded tactical support effort, who talk of the man they knew as Tim Osman , adopting a nom de voyage to maintain a low profile on visits Stateside to attend specialist and tactical training, engage in tactical planning meetings with CIA brass and brief his handlers and their superiors on the reality of conditions on the ground in Afghanistan, having arrived directly from the front - most notable amongst these witnesses and anedcdotalists is Former FBI Regional Director, turned part-time Hoover apologist and  freelance private investigator Ted Gunderson and whistleblowing CIA Weapons Designer, INSLAW Case witness , victim of a drugs bust frame-up and 9/11 Cassandra, Michael Rocconacioto, who both allege to have met with "Tim" in the US at this point on Company business and both also cite suppression by the FBI linking Oklahoma City with the Afghan veterans Jihadi cell of Sheikh Abdul Rahman, Zawhari's Egyptian Islamic Jihad group and Ramzi Yousef's "Bojinka" plot centring on Malaysian Airliners; several men of Middle Eastern appearance were seen in the company of Tim McVeigh and his Ryder Truck, before, during and after the home-made AMFO-Nitrate Bomb went off immediately prior to the Demolition charges taking out the first set of core columns.

And at least one credible witness, a former CIA Asset acting as a a diplomatic back-channel between the US Government and the Government of Iraq under Sadaam Hussain acting under the auspices of the Iraqi mission to the UN handling exchanges conducted under the UN "Food for Oil" (hmph) Program has stated categorically with complete certainty that she was at one time shown photos obtained or taken by CIA of Ramsey Yousef meeting in Malaysia in 1995 with Terry Nichols, the oft-forgotten "second lone nut" of Oklahoma City, currently serving life in the Federal SuperMax in Colorado, ostensibly for assisting Timmy to help load, assemble and build the Nitrate-Fuel Oil AMFO Bomb parked out in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19th, 1995, by Timothy McVeigh of US Special Forces. And "friends".

"U.S. Congressman Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) wrote in May 2010 that it was his understanding that by doing so, al-Aulaqi fraudulently obtained more than $20,000 in scholarship funds reserved for foreign students, for which he was not legally eligible." 

OR: He was legally eligible for it, because he was a Yemeni National born in Yemen to two Yemeni parents, as seems to be the case and no one can produce documentation proving otherwise.

There's a lot more besides this, not least his activities in San DIego, where a domestic CIA front-Mosque was HIDING two of the future 9/11 Highjackers away from FBI, who were scouring the Earth (literally) to track them down after they lost track of them in Malaysia.

But that has no bearing on the question of if he was was a US Citizen under the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when he got whacked with a CIA Predator Drone strike in - where else? Yemen.

His HOME COUNTRY. Not that that's relevant. This is a question of rule of law and things do not look like they would go in his favour if this ever saw the inside of a court, as I'm sure is becoming increasingly apparent.

Before the final summing up one final point - someone we're forgetting in all of this...

Chief Justice Earl Warren

"...Warren continued by saying that Johnson then called him in personally. The president said he was greatly disturbed by the rumors going around the world about a conspiracy, perhaps involving Castro or the Russians. 

And that if these continued to grow, it could catapult the world into a nuclear war. Johnson then told Warren that he had just talked to Secretary of Defense Bob McNamara, and if such a thing occurred, a first strike by the Soviets would cost the USA as many as sixty million lives. 

“Now, I don’t want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow…and that Castro killed him.” Johnson then confirmed that Warren did start to weep.

“…we’ve got to take this out of the arena where they’re testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and check us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour….”

The important point to note here is the material Johnson used to seal the deal with Warren. Clearly, this was the information about Oswald’s visits to the Russian and Cuban consulates in Mexico City and his alleged talk with Valery Kostikov at the Soviet consulate. 

Kostikov would be revealed to be a secret KGB agent in charge of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere.

Warren left the meeting so emotionally distraught that he had tears in his eyes."

Libertarian Kool Aid

This one really gave me a chuckle.

Gary Sick - October Surprise Congressional Testimony, November 22nd 1991

Gary Sick - October Surprise Congressional Testimony, November 22nd 1991 from Paul Coker on Vimeo.

Hunter: Interrupted

Food for thought and grounds for further research

An Election Held Hostage - October Surprise Victims Press Conference, June 13th, 1991

Former National Security Advisor Prof. Gary Sick, Principal Presidential Assistant for Iran, (1975-1981)
and former hostages give one of the most important Press Conferences in Washington DC since 1963.

Letter by Dr. Louis Jolyon West, January 22nd 1973 to J.M. Stubblebine, Head of the State of California Department of Mental Health.

There’s a letter by Dr. Louis Jolyon West, dated January 22nd 1973. The letter was written to J.M. Stubblebine.

Stubblebine was head of the State of California Department of Mental Health.

West wrote:

DEAR STUB: I am in possession of confidential information to the effect that the Army is prepared to turn over Nike missile bases to state and local agencies for non-military purposes. They may look with special favor on health-related applications.

Such a Nike missile base is located in the Santa Monica Mountains, within a half-hour’s drive of the Neuropsychiatric Institute.

It is accessible but relatively remote.The site is securely fenced, and includes various buildings and improvements making it suitable for prompt occupancy.

If this site were made available to the Neuropsychiatric Institute as a research facility, perhaps initially as an adjunct to the new Center for Prevention of Violence, we could put it to very good use. Comparative studies could be carried out there, in an isolated but convenient location, of experimental or model programs for the alteration of undesirable behavior.

Such programs might include control of drug or alcohol abuse, modification of chronic anti-social or impulsive aggressiveness.

The site could also accommodate conferences or retreats for instruction of selected groups of mental health-related professionals and of others (e.g. law enforcement personnel, parole officers, special educators) for whom both demonstration and participation would be effective modes of instruction.

My understanding is that a direct request by the Governor, or another appropriate officer of the State, to the Secretary of Defense (or, of course, the President) would be most likely to produce prompt results. Needless to say, I stand available to participate in any way that might be helpful.

Sincerely yours,

LOUIS JOLYON WEST, M.D.,
Medical Director

President Of The United States: "I have lost control of the government."

"Jimmy Carter is an innocent"
Former Vice President Walter Mondale, in conversation with Seymour Hersch, 2009

By Jim Marrs

"Toward mid-1979, President Carter was being chastised by critics within the media, as well as by the Republicans, as being wishy-washy on a variety of issues. They said his was a mediocre presidency. The mass media were already focusing on conservative California Gov. Ronald Reagan as the man of the hour. His nomination as GOP presidential candidate for the 1980 election seemed assured.

Carter asked for and was granted a national television spot during prime time and many media pundits predicted that he was about to announce sweeping changes in government as well as new initiatives which would move his upcoming presidential re-election campaign off high center.

But before his televised appearance, Carter journeyed to California where he was to address a Hispanic crowd in Los Angeles.s Civic Center Mall celebrating Cinco de Mayo, the Mexican Independence Day.

A few days later, a handful of newspapers carried a small story stating that a "grubby transient" had been arrested there and was being held on suspicion of the attempted assassination of the president. A Secret Service spokesman downplayed the arrest stating the incident was about as "nothing as these things get."

However, a few days later, another news item appeared which reported that the 35-year-old Anglo suspect was being held in lieu of $50,000 on charges of conspiring to kill the president.

Finally, a one-time story in the May 21, 1979, edition of Newsweek revealed more details of the incident.

It seems that the suspect was arrested after Secret Service agents noticed him "looking nervous." A .22-calibre, eight-shot revolver was found on the man along with 70 rounds of blank ammunition. A short time later, the suspect implicated a second man, a 21-year-old Hispanic who also was taken into custody and subsequently held in lieu of $100,000 bail.

The second suspect at first denied knowing the other man, but finally admitted that the pair had test fired the blank starter pistol from a nearby hotel roof the night before Carter.s appearance. Both men said they were simply local street people who had been hired by two Mexican hit men. They were to create a diversion with the blank pistol and the two hit men were to assassinate President Carter with high-powered rifles.

Lending credence to their story, both suspects led authorities to the shabby Alan Hotel located near the civic center. Here investigators found an empty rifle case and three rounds of live ammunition in a room rented under than name Umberto Camacho. Camacho apparently had checked out the day of Carter.s visit. No further trace of the hit men could be found.

The Anglo suspect was Raymond Lee Harvey and his Hispanic companion was Osvaldo Ortiz. This oddity of their names prompted Newsweek reporters to state, "References to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy were unavoidable."

"But it was still far from clear whether the authorities had a real conspiracy or a wild goose chase on their hands," they added.

No further news stories appeared and the disposition of the case against Lee Harvey and Osvaldo apparently has never been made public.

What did happen was that President Carter canceled his national TV speech and went into seclusion at Camp David, MD. 

After seeking advice from a lengthy line of consultants, including the Rev. Billy Graham, Carter was reported to have said, 
"I have lost control of the government." 

New York Times:

Article Preview
Reported Carter-Assassination Plot Given Credibility by New Evidence; Arrest Despite Disbelief
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PERMISSIONS
[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

LOS ANGELES, May 11 (UPI)--Investigators have found evidence, including a gun case, ammunition and corroborative testimony, that adds credibility to a reported plot to assassinate President Carter, originally dismissed as a tale spun by an intoxicated man.


TIME Magazine

Nation: Skid Row Plot

Monday, May 21, 1979

Skid Row Plot A scheme to kill Carter?

The man clearly was unstrung. He had a history of mental illness. He also bore an eerily resonant name for a person claiming to be part of a four-man plot to assassinate a President: Raymond Lee Harvey. At first, it all seemed too weird to be taken seriously.

Unemployed and a drifter, the Ohio-born Harvey, 35, claimed to have met three men with Latin names in downtown Los Angeles two weeks ago. On May 4 he was with the three in a third-floor room of the skid row...



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920351,00.html#ixzz2JtL7mZyJ

National Affairs
Newsweek
5/21/79, p. (34 or 54)

At first it seemed just a bum’s boozy fantasy. When a grubby transient named Raymond Lee Harvey was arrested 50 feet away from Jimmy Carter at a Los Angeles rally two weekends ago, he claimed to be part of a four-man conspiracy to assassinate Carter. Harvey carried only a blank-firing starter’s pistol, and the Secret Service said at the time that he had “all the characteristics of a derelict.” But investigators found new evidence last week that supported Harvey’s story—including a shotgun case and ammunition in a nearby hotel room—and once again raised the specter of a Presidential assassination plot.

The case is as bizarre and confusing as it is potentially serious. One curious twist is the names of the principals. Raymond Lee Harvey, who was held on $50,000 bail last week on a charge of conspiring to kill the President, and Oswaldo Espinoza Ortiz, who was held on $100,000 bail as a material witness. References to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of John F. Kennedy were unavoidable. Officials have also indicated that Harvey has a history of mental illness. Both Harvey and Espinoza now claim that Harvey was supposed to create a diversion by firing his starter’s pistol while two other men attempted to shoot Carter. But investigators say they have no clues to the whereabouts of the alleged accomplices and are not even certain of their identities. Accordingly, the authorities have been careful to stress their doubts about the case.

The mystery began when Harvey, 35, was arrested at the downtown Los Angeles Civic Center Mall just ten minutes before Carter was to speak at a Cinco de Mayo Mexican festival. Secret Service agents said they spotted him in the crowd “looking nervous,” searched him and found the 22-caliber, eight-shot revolver and 70 unspent blank cartridges. Espinoza, 21, who had been standing nearby, was taken into custody shortly afterward. According to government affidavits, Espinoza initially denied knowing Harvey but later corroborated his story that the two of them had gone to the roof of the shabby Alan Hotel near the Civic Center and test-fired the starter’s pistol on the night before Carter’s appearance. The plot, they said, was hatched along with two other men, both Mexican, who had rifles and were living in the hotel.

Checking out the story, police found an empty shotgun case and three rounds of live ammunition in a room that had been rented by a man named Umberto Camacho—who had checked out on the day of Carter’s visit.

TAKING IT SERIOUSLY: Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Etra was expected to make a decision on the case this week. “Unless it’s clear that the defendant has committed the crime with which he is charged, we’re not going to present the case to a grand jury,” he said. The FBI, meanwhile, continued its investigation—trying to find Camacho and the unnamed fourth alleged conspirator.

“Any time there’s a threat against a President or a possible (plot) against the President, we’re going to take it seriously,” (said) FBI spokesman (Sam) Shed. But it was still far from clear whether the authorities had a real conspiracy or a wild goose chase on their hands.

DENNIS WILLIAMS and
STRYKER McGUIRE, Los Angeles

Gary Sick - October Surprise Congressional Testimony, November 22nd 1991 from Paul Coker on Vimeo.

"...if the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government, it will come

from the CIA..."

President John F. Kennedy, October 2nd, 1963

Letter to the New York Times, 1948: Albert Einstein and leading Jewish Intellectuals Warn of Jewish Fascism in Palestine

Letters to the New York Times
December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party 
Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin�s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin�s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin�s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants - 240 men, women, and children - and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

(signed)

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, HERMAN EISEN, M.D., HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D., H.H. HARRIS, ZELIG S. HARRIS, SIDNEY HOOK, FRED KARUSH, BRURIA KAUFMAN, IRMA L. LINDHEIM, NACHMAN MAISEL, SYMOUR MELMAN, MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D., HARRY M. ORLINSKY, SAMUEL PITLICK, FRITZ ROHRLICH, LOUIS P. ROCKER, RUTH SAGER, ITZHAK SANKOWSKY, I.J. SCHOENBERG, SAMUEL SHUMAN, M. ZNGER, IRMA WOLPE, STEFAN WOLPE;

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

Telling the Truth About the Nazis and Gun Control

"It was in 1919, Germany passed the Regulations on Firearm Ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles. Firearm ownership was banned because the Allied Powers demanded they disarm as a conquored and vanquished nation.

The ban was so strict that, as mentioned by Stephen Halbrook in 2000, that in times of unrest the mere possession of a handgun could result in immediate execution.

It was only in 1928 that Germany started to restore gun ownership with the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This removed an outright ban on gun ownership, and instead required licenses for a multitude of firearms uses. A license on ownership. One to carry a gun with you. One to buy and sell. And gun sellers now were required to keep information about who they sold to and what serial numbers were sold.

It was an utter rebuke of the 1919 law, and restored gun ownership rights. Germany had gone from 'taking people's guns' to 'regulating gun ownership'.
And all of this before the Nazis took power in 1933.

That is not to say that the Nazis did not pass any laws relating to gun ownership while in power. In 1938, the German Weapons Act was passed to replace the 1928 law. So how much of a restriction was this on gun ownership?

The short answer: It was mostly an expansion. The longer answer: It was mostly an expansion as long as you weren't a Jew.

The only new restrictions in the law related to buying guns: you had to be someone whose 'trustworthiness is not in question' and could 'show a need for a permit'. Essentially there were background checks and you couldn't just buy a gun because it's a Tuesday and that's what you do on Tuesdays.

Also, Jews were now excluded from firearms manufacture, and in a law later that year would have the right to bear arms stripped from them.

The rest of the law?

-Lowered the age you could buy guns to 18.

-Lengthened how long firearm permits could go before expiration.

-People who held hunting permits or were members of the Nazi party were made immune from regulation.

-Permits to manufacture and sell guns were eliminated. The ability was no longer regulated by permits.

And interestingly the law deregulated all non-handgun purchases. If you wanted a shotgun or a rifle and ammo to boot, you didn't have any problems with the Nazi government
.
After World War II, gun ownership was banned again. The ban was to such a degree that German police could not bear arms. By request of the Allied Powers.

In 1956, private firearm ownership rights were restored to what was essentially the 1928 law.


The Nazis made it easier to own guns. Up to and including grenade launchers.

The only real asterisk to this statement is relating to the Jewish people, whose gun ownership rights were taken away two days following  Kristalnacht.

But even a few years earlier, the Nazi Party was starting to put pressure on the Jewish community. So while restricting gun ownership was certainly part of the Nazi's beginnings of its 'Final Solution', it is at best an ancillary piece of information when placed next to the seizure of businesses and property and the displacement of people from their homes."

Original Article on Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177643/-On-Gun-Control-and-Germans-Or-Why-the-Right-is-Wrong-about-Guns-and-Hitler

Opertion Northwoods - Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba

This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Operation Northwoods.

Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.

These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

Author James Bamford writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Jesse Jackson wanted to castrate Obama - but then again, he helped kill Martin Luther King Jr.

He knew that mic was live.

Wake Me Up When September Ends - The Fox Network and Prior Knowledge

Someone at Fox knew what was coming.

Leaked Karl Rove email

Aug. 24, 2011

From: KR

To: All Internet Operatives and Interns

Re: Internet Operations -- For Immediate and Aggressive Implementation

CONFIDENTIAL -- EYES ONLY

Hello Gang,

You've all been working hard, and it's paying off. Obama's numbers are plummeting as I type this. Congratulations all around. But we can't afford to be complacent now.

I just want to briefly go over a few Mission Points with you.

1. Main mission: Infiltrate all liberal web sites, posing as disaffected liberals with liberal-sounding user names, icons and signatures. (Reference Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, FDR, Smedley Butler, Bill Clinton, etc.)

2. Express. Disappointment. With. Obama. (Whining pays double!) (jk!)

3. Push primary challenge. Push third party. Push Green. Push Socialist. Push write-in voting. Push non-voting to "send a message."

4. Effective memes/talking points:

"Obama is a DINO."
"Obama is no different than a Republican."
"Obama has sold us out."
"It feels good to vote your conscience."
"It feels good to stick to your principles."
"Don't be trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils."
"We need to punish Obama and the Democrats by not voting."
"We'd be better off with a Republican in the White House."
"Obama is a war-mongering, torturing, corporatist shill."

I simply cannot emphasize this point enough: No meme is too extreme or radical. "Obama is worse than Bush!" "Obama is a war criminal!" Remember: the reader thinks he is reading the opinion of a fellow liberal. It's all about peer suggestibility, people. Keep expanding the Overton Window. The more you push a radical notion, the more likely a slightly less radical notion becomes acceptable. Someone else said it this way: "The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it."
So take it over the top. Absolutely nothing is outside the realm of plausibility. "Obama is an alien from the planet Negron." I like it!

The libs are disappointed that Obama hasn't turned America into a socialist paradise by now, but they're lazy and spoiled, not savvy and proactive like us. They think that by whining on a liberal web site they're engaging in some sort of "activism." They're "holding Obama's feet to the fire." They actually believe that DC policymakers or their staffers somehow have the time to read every ridiculous liberal blog. They don't get it that the only ones reading their whiny little rants are--wait for it--other liberals. So they're actually doing a whole lot of heavy lifting for us with all their dis-motivating buzz-kill, and we want to encourage them as much as possible. When your enemy is engaged in a circular firing squad, pass them the ammo!

Look, we suckered all those nutjob Christian fundies out of their votes and their money. LIberals are almost as easy to fool!

You've done great work so far. At this point, many of the liberal blog sites are virtually indistinguishable from RedState. (And can you imagine us on RedState trashing our own candidate? Riiiight.) On most liberal sites, anyone praising Obama is hounded and laughed out of town. Seeya later, blackwaterdog! We, with the help of the libs, have made it uncool to approve of or admit to liking Barack Obama on a liberal web site! Obama-trashing is now in vogue! Is this a great country, or what?!

Remember, in 2000, the Greens helped us put George in the White House by chanting that Al Gore was the same as Dubya! That George W. Bush was the same as the biggest liberal around! And libs bought that! They've obviously got a serious masochistic streak, so let's hand them a whip! (Can you imagine what America would be like today if we'd had that commie wuss Al Gore in the White House for eight years? Gives me goosebumps!)

The Internet was liberals' most effective weapon against us, for spreading lies and motivating other libs to vote and volunteer and donate, but not any more! Now the only effect of liberal blog sites is to sap enthusiasm and deter liberals from voting, period. We have monkey-wrenched our enemy's strength and turned it into a liability. The Republican Party owes Karl's Keyboard Kommandoes a huge debt of gratitude. You were instrumental in keeping Democrats home last November, and look what happened: we took back the House! I only wish I could thank you all in person. Mmmwahhh!

I know most of you work at home, but here at Crossroads I sometimes hear you guys yelling across your cubicles. "Hey, rec me on Kos! I'm owning those liberal schmucks! That's another Prius-load of Dims staying home! Spurn, baby, spurn! It's a beautiful thang!"

Gotta love that energy!

But we can't let up now. Now is the time to work even harder to sow and fertilize discontent out there in lib-land. The debates have begun and soon a front-runner will emerge for the libs to focus on and sling their mud at, instead of their own guy. (Go Ricky! Either or both! The Ricky/Ricky ticket! Anybody but that grotesque, hideous beotch from the Klondike!)

If Obama manages to steal a second term, he could be an unfettered loose cannon and inflict irreparable damage on our Republic. Two words: Supreme. Court. We just can't afford to let Obama pack the SCOTUS with liberal activist judges.
The long-overdue Citizens United decision means that finally our friends in business will no longer be muzzled from speaking out politically, so now our voices will have the full force of our resources behind them. Here at Crossroads we're poised to spend $20 million for ad campaigns spreading the truth, and the sky's the limit.

And we also have to acknowledge the work of our fellow patriots at the RNC and Heritage and CFG and AEI, etc., and all the private grassroots blog-warriors out there as well, such as the excellent Advantage Consultants. You guys are our Republican Underground, freedom fighters prosecuting our mission in the trenches on a daily basis. And don't think we don't recognize your commendable job of scrubbing all the filthy liberal lies out of Wikipedia.

Here are some helpful answers to your Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: Some libs are wise to us. A Rand Paul staffer got caught on Daily Kos last year. What if I am called out as a mole or troll?
A: No problem; actually an opportunity. Simply accuse the accuser of being a troll for Obama and the DNC, of trying to stifle dissent. (Libs are suckers for that kind of stuff.)
Say, "It's not a crime to criticize the president!" Or, "So I'm not allowed to say anything bad about Obama?" It's a straw man that works every time. Try this: "Nobody's gonna shut me up! I'm gonna keep on speaking out! Attica! Attica!"

Q: What do I do if the libs confront me with Obama's accomplishments? What if they start rattling off all the liberal crap he's foisted on the American people?
A: Just come back with the "warmongering corporatist torturer" bit (I know--he's a piker, he sucks at it, but some of them will actually believe that). Mere laughing dismissal is often very effective. Usually all it takes is an LOL. Call your attackers "Obamabots." Accuse them of mindless fawning, of worshipping their "saviour." Dismiss the positive, accentuate the negative. Reference Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald. We know Obama hosed us on the debt ceiling deal, for example, but the libs think he sold out. That's the spin we want to push. And it won't hurt to ramp up the vitriol and nastiness. We want to make every liberal site an unpleasant place to visit.

Q: What if some of this criticism does reach Obama's radar and he starts going even more leftist or tries to kick Republican butt? Won't that backfire on us?
A: Nothing would be better! Bring it, O man! We've already managed to inform a big chunk of the electorate that Obama is in truth an angry, racist, America-hating communist. If we can goad him to the point where he stops playing rope-a-dope with us and starts acting like the thuggish, belligerent, socialist dictator we know him to be in reality, we win. We want nothing more than for him to lose his temper and get all pushy and uppity (I love that word!) and uncompromising. Heck, if he gets uppity enough, we might have some traction on an impeachment move. Admittedly, it's frustrating that he has kept his cool no matter what we throw at him. His phony act of being so consistently goddamned adult and steady and reasonable and sober and bipartisan is what has made all our people in comparison look like stubborn, childish, maudlin, jingoistic, perverted, hypocritical, narcissistic, grandstanding, demented, ignorant, freak-show corporatist whores who don't give a shit about America. And they're not. Not at all. Nope. Not all of them. No way, Hozay!

Q: Is our work really that effective? I mean, how many people actually read these liberal blogs?
A: Your work is very effective, or we wouldn't be paying you. True, the people who visit these liberal sites might be a tiny percentage of the population, but they are the most political, the most likely to get involved in organizing, volunteering and fundraising. In other words, the core. If we can raise enough doubts among the core, and constantly reinforce those doubts through peer suggestibility, we will in essence drive a stake through the heart of the Democrat party. And that is a good day's work, my friends!

Q: He got Osama bin Laden. How the hell do we spin that?
A: Easy: "Obama assassinated a foreign leader without a trial." "Obama should be tried for murder before an international court of law." "They didn't even read bin Laden his Miranda rights, or offer him counseling!"

People, the bottom line is that I don't care what you do, or what it takes. We get it. The libs don't. We know it's all about votes, and the money and enthusiasm and volunteering that gets votes. The guy who goes to the White House in 2013 will have either an R after his name, or a D. Do we want the party of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi and Sherrod Brown in our house, or do we want the party of Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers? So, all eyes on the prize, which is: Keeping those godless, America-hating libs away from the voting booths!

We want to make this the new theme song of the Democrat party:
(To the tune of the In-N-Out jingle)

Sit it out!
Sit it out!
That's what a Dem-ocrat is
All about!

***
Onward to the Hundred-Year Majority!

And remember: The month's top poster wins a dream lunch with KR!

Yours in liberty, free enterprise, and purity of purpose,

KR

*
*
*
*

8:26 PM PT: Wow, 50 HRs and counting. I stepped into a nest of rattlesnakes, I guess. I used to love this site years ago, but now I'm sick over what it has become. All I tried to do was hold up a mirror, and maybe some here didn't like what they saw. When so much of the work here is so closely aligned with that of our enemies (yes, the Republican party is my enemy), then I think we need to question what effect we're having. Of course this is interpreted by some (defensively, I feel) as an admonition to stop criticizing President Obama, and that is completely missing the point. We are talking mostly to each other here, so a constructive purpose of dissent on DK would be to rally others to action. What action are we rallying our fellow Kossacks to take?


8:51 PM PT: My greatest disappointment: Apparently no one got the reference of "Spurn, baby, spurn!" Didn't anyone here see "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"?

The Deep Politics of the Syrian Civil War - The View from Baghdad and CENTCOM

Nixon and Democracy, the CIA and Fascist Subversion

Nixonalia Nixon and Democracy, the CIA and Fascist Subversion from Paul Coker on Vimeo.

“I have decided,” Nixon replied, “You give us a plan, we’ll carry it out.” Nixon then vowed that “we’re going to play it very tough with him [Allende],” and that he had “decided we’re going to give Allende the hook.”

Connally egged the President on, admonishing him to take tough action against the “enemy” Allende: “The only thing you can ever hope is to have him overthrown, and, in the meantime, you will make your point to prove, by your actions against him, what you want, that you are looking after American interests.”

When Nixon promised to make an example of Allende, Haldeman observed that, “It would earn a bit with the right‑wing in this country.”

After Connally left, Nixon provided a recap for Kissinger’s benefit: “I said, ‘All right, you give us a plan. I’m goin’ to kick ‘em. And I want to make something out of it.’ That’s my view.”

When asked for Kissinger’s opinion, Kissinger replied, “I would go to a confrontation with him; the quicker the better…Maybe not in a brutal way, but in a clear way.” He also agreed to work with Connally in order “to figure out the confrontation.

Conversation No. 584-003
Date: October 5, 1971
Time: 9:12 a.m. – 1:11 p.m.
Location: Oval Office
Participants: Nixon, Haldeman, John Connally, and Henry Kissinger

Who is the real Abu Hamza? Radical Cleric or Porn Cinema bouncer?

From History Commons:

 "When he married Valerie Traverso, a pregnant single mother of three, in May 1980, she was still married to her first husband and the marriage to Abu Hamza was therefore bigamous; 

 When Traverso gave birth to a child fathered by her real, but estranged, husband four months later, Abu Hamza falsely registered himself as the father. 

Abu Hamza was able to obtain leave to stay in Britain based on the illegal marriage and fraudulent birth certificate, even though he was arrested in a raid on the porn cinema where he worked as a bouncer and identified as an illegal immigrant. The leave to stay is later made indefinite, and he obtains citizenship seven years after arriving in Britain.
 [O'NEILL AND MCGRORY, 2006, PP. 4-13]