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]

Who is running John Kiriakou? And to what end?

From History Commons:

April 28, 2009: Media Recalls False Claim by Former CIA Officer in Light of New Waterboarding Revelations

Following the release of a set of Bush administration memos about torture (seeApril 16, 2009) and the discovery that militant training camp facilitator Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times in one month (see April 18, 2009), some commentators recall comments made by former CIA officer John Kiriakou. 


Kiriakou's Media Blitz - In late 2007, shortly after the CIA admitted destroying videos of Zubaida (see November 2005 and December 6, 2007), Kiriakou toured media outlets, saying that Zubaida had only been waterboarded once (seeDecember 10, 2007 and December 11, 2007). New York Times reporter Brian Stelter writes the most comprehensive treatment of Kiriakou’s “media blitz,” in an article entitled “How ‘07 ABC Interview Tilted a Torture Debate.” He points out that Kiriakou’s claim of only one waterboarding was “repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs, and newspapers” and “quickly ricocheted around the media.” This despite the fact that Kiriakou was not present at the black site where Zubaida was interrogated, and only learned of his treatment from reading accounts from the field. This injected the claim of one waterboarding into the public debate without the CIA having to make it itself. When asked about the false claim, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano replies: “This agency did not publicly disclose the frequency with which the waterboard was used, noting only that it was employed with three detainees. If reporters got that wrong, they weren’t misled from here.” 

Waterboarding Was Necessary - In addition, Kiriakou said that at the time it did produce results and he had thought it was necessary then, statements that were repeated and amplified around the media. The net effect of his interjection in the debate was to make the torture seem much less harsh than it really was, diverting criticism away from the CIA. [NEW YORK TIMES, 4/28/2009] 

CIA Media Plant? - Numerous other commentators will make similar points. For example, in a piece entitled “John Kiriakou: CIA Media Plant?” Foreign Policy magazine commentator Annie Lowery says: “It all seems a bit strange to me, and leads to one obvious possibility: John Kiriakou—telegenic and well-spoken John Kiriakou, who never went to jail for blasting state secrets on television—was told the story to tell and released onto an unsuspecting public. It’s an impression the CIA will have difficulty dulling now.” [FOREIGN POLICY, 4/28/2009] 

Kiriakou Admits He Was Wrong - In 2010, Kiriakou will publish a book and in it he will mention in passing that his earlier claims were wrong. He did not take part in Zubaida’s interrogation and he was wrong about Zubaida being only waterboarded one time, and about him freely confessing afterwards. He will claim that he was a dupe used by the CIA to promote disinformation, writing, “In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own.” [FOREIGN POLICY, 1/26/2010]

Richard Clarke

What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005 by Rory Ridley-Duff (Dr)

What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005 by Rory Ridley-Duff (Dr)

"I was in Kings Cross right after the Piccadilly line blast and there was no problem calling into work to tell my boss that I would be late [a propos of whether mobile phones were working]. I then went into cafe to wait for the hubbub to die down. Over the radio we discovered that it was more than one bomb.

Just over an hour and a half later, there was a report on Radio 5 that some of the bombers were shot by armed response units in the Docklands. When I got home that evening, the news reports said that all the bombers died in the explosions."

"I heard it on the radio but when I got home and I sat in front of the tv for the rest of that evening, it was not repeated. It was in the cafe I heard the news report."


"A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time)."

Mcdaid

Salvaged from the Memory Hole...

 HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MAN??? 

If you have, please let us know

 immediately!!!

Martin McDaid - the friend

and supporter

of the

July 7 London bombers.     

  
 Martin McDaid is a UK passport holder who goes by the name of Martin

"Abdullah Mohammad" McDaid. His whereabouts is currently unknown.

As a convert to Islam, Martin McDaid, a British citizen,  holds fundamentalist

Islamist, quasi- fascist beliefs.  Martin McDaid intimately knew the July

7 London Underground  bombers.

   Martin McDaid was last seen in 2007 masquerading as an English Instructor

at Sohar College in Oman. His whereabouts is currently unknown but it is

suspected he is hiding out in Qatar or the Sudan.

  Above is a mug-shot of McDaid leaving a London Court in 2005.

Please visit our GUESTBOOK to add your comments!!  

    Here are several links to his grubby background and involvement with the

terrorist bombers:

 http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=666266&page=52

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/16022011pm.htm

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-mohammad-sidique-khan.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2005/07/21/exclusive-bombers-and-the-special-forces-soldier-115875-15760968/

 http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/priorknow/surveillance/240606GuardianGilbertson.html

 http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=martin_mcdaid_1

 http://www.terroronthetube.com/2009/12/tribute-to-%E2%80%98postman-patel/

  Here is an excerpt from one of the above websites:
"Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid did most of the talking, most of the ranting and raving; and as an ex-Marine, he knew about matters military. Two of those who later became bombers on July 7th - Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer - were regular type - but the talk around me, all the conversation between themselves and their 'brothers', was about Jihad, Jewish conspiracy, how the Holocaust was a fake, the 'Great Satan' America - and Britain's alliance with the Satanic USA. Bush's word 'Crusade' triggered them off - triggered off their ranting about the 'Jihad', and we used it in the presentations - very effectively, I would add."

  You can find more information about Martin McDaid by typing his name into any search engine.
  I personally knew this dangerous fellow back Sohar College during
2006-7.  We all thought there was something odd about him. He didn't
quite fit  in,  preferring to keep his distance from us, the so-called 
"kafirs" (non-Muslims).

  "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."  ^{[Qur'an 5:51]}
  
One day he brazenly brought his CD player into our office to play Koranic chants quite loudly. As usual, his strange behavior disturbed the rest of us who were trying to work. A little later, we noticed tears streaming down his bushy face (Muslim fundamentalists often have beards - it seems to be a job requirement). He started shaking and mumbling to himself. It was as if he were possessed. I got up and walked towards him. I put my hand on his shoulder. I shook him gently and asked what was wrong?  
  He didn't seem to hear me so I shook him again, saying, "Martin, what's wrong? What's wrong?" Still not getting a coherent response, I switched off the CD player. Almost immediately he came out of his self-induced trance. I sat the poor fellow down and offered him a glass of water.       
    Soon after his sudden departure from Sohar College, a scurrilous teacher by the name of Martin Hill (referred to as, "the Undertaker" because of his freakish appearance and demeanor) did a Google search on him and discovered the above sites. It was only then we realised  that McDaid was intimately involved with the London Underground July  7, 2005 bombers, belonging to the same Muslim school and mosque in Beeston, UK. We couldn't believe it at first, but then it all made sense.  Martin McDaid was just another crack-pot Jihadist waging a life and death struggle against the evil satanic West, which I guess means you and me.
   We welcome all contributions, suggestions, opinions and information from the public.
SPECIAL NOTICE: If he is identified, please report his
location to the nearest British or American Consulate in
your country of abode.
 Please visit our Guestbook section to leave your
worthwhile comments. 
  

McDaid giving one of his jihadist sermons again.

" One question: Is the assassination wing continuing under President Obama? Seymour Hersh: How do I know? I hope not.

Amy Goodman: Yesterday, CNN interviewed Dick Cheney's former national security adviser, John Hannah. Wolf Blitzer asked Hannah about Sy Hersh's claim.

Wolf Blitzer: Is there a list of terrorists, suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated?

John Hannah: There is clearly a group of people that go through a very extremely well-vetted process, inter-agency process, as I think was explained in your piece, that have committed acts of war against the United States, who are at war with the United States, or are suspected of planning operations of war against the United States, who authority is given to the troops in the field and in certain war theaters to capture or kill those individuals. That is certainly true.

Wolf Blitzer: And so, this would be, and from your perspective -- and you worked in the Bush administration for many year-- it would be totally constitutional, totally legal, to go out and find these guys and to whack 'em.

John Hannah: There's no question that in a theater of war, when we are at war, and we know -- there's no doubt, we are still at war against al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and on that Pakistani border, that our troops have the authority to go after and capture and kill the enemy, including the leadership of the enemy.

Amy Goodman: That's John Hannah, Dick Cheney's former national security adviser. Seymour Hersh joins me now here in Washington, D.C., staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. His latest article appears in the current issue, called "Syria Calling: The Obama Administration's Chance to Engage in a Middle East Peace."

OK, welcome to Democracy Now!, Sy Hersh. It was good to see you last night at Georgetown. Talk about, first, these comments you made at the University of Minnesota.

Seymour Hersh: Well, it was sort of stupid of me to start talking about stuff I haven't written. I always kick myself when I do it. But I was with Walter Mondale, the former vice president, who was being amazingly open and sort of, for him -- he had come a long way … since I knew him as a senator who was reluctant to oppose the Vietnam War. And so, I was asked about future things, and I just -- I am looking into stuff. I've done -- there's really nothing I said at Minnesota I haven't written in the ( New Yorker). Last summer, I wrote a long article about the Joint Special Operations Command.

And just to go back to what John Hannah, who … I think ended up being the senior national security adviser, almost -- if not the chief of staff, deputy chief of staff for Dick Cheney in the last three or four years, what he said is simply that, yes, we go after people suspected -- that was the word he used -- of crimes against America. And I have to tell you that there's an executive order, signed by Jerry Ford, President Ford, in the '70s, forbidding such action. It's not only contrary -- it's illegal, it's immoral, it's counterproductive.

The problem with having military go kill people when they're not directly in combat, these are asking American troops to go out and find people and, as you said earlier, in one of the statements I made that you played, they go into countries without telling any of the authorities, the American ambassador, the CIA chief, certainly nobody in the government that we're going into, and it's far more than just in combat areas. There's more -- at least a dozen countries, and perhaps more. The President has authorized these kinds of actions in the Middle East and also in Latin America, I will tell you, Central America, some countries. They've been -- our boys have been told they can go and take the kind of executive action they need, and that's simply -- there's no legal basis for it.

And not only that, if you look at Guantanamo, the American government knew by -- well, let's see, Guantanamo opened in early 2002. "Gitmo," they call it, the base down in Cuba for alleged al-Qaeda terrorists. An internal report that I wrote about in a book I did years ago, an internal report made by the summer of 2002, estimated that at least half and possibly more of those people had nothing to do with actions against America. The intelligence we have is often very fragmentary, not very good. And the idea that the American president would think he has the constitutional power or the legal right to tell soldiers not engaged in immediate combat to go out and find people based on lists and execute them is just amazing to me. It's amazing to me.

And not only that, Amy, the thing about George Bush is, everything's sort of done in plain sight. In his State of the Union address, I think January the 28th, 2003, about a month and a half before we went into Iraq, Bush was describing the progress in the war, and he said -- I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close -- he said that we've captured more than 3,000 members of al-Qaeda and suspected members, people suspected of operations against us. And then he added with that little smile he has, "And let me tell you, some of those people will not be able to ever operate again. I can assure you that. They will not be in a position." He's clearly talking about killing people, and to applause.

So, there we are. I don't back off what I said. I wish I hadn't said it ad hoc, because, like I hope we're going to talk about in a minute, I spend a lot of time writing stories for The New Yorker, and they're very carefully vetted, and sometimes when you speak off the top, you're not as precise.

Amy Goodman: Explain what the Joint Special Operations Command is and what oversight Congress has of it.

Seymour Hersh: Well, it's a special unit. We have something called the Special Operations Command that operates out of Florida, and it involves a lot of wings. And one of the units that work under the umbrella of the Special Operations Command is known as Joint Special Op -- JSOC. It's a special unit. What makes it so special, it's a group of elite people that include Navy Seals, some Navy Seals, Delta Force -- what we call our black units, the commando units. "Commando" is a word they don't like, but that's what we, most of us, refer to them as. And they promote from within. It's a unit that has its own promotion structure. And one of the elements, I must tell you, about getting ahead in promotion is the number of kills you have. Of course. Because it's basically devised -- it's been transmogrified, if you will, into this unit that goes after high-value targets.

And where Cheney comes in and the idea of an assassination ring -- I actually said "wing," but of an assassination wing -- that reports to Cheney was simply that they clear lists through the Vice President's office. He's not sitting around picking targets. They clear the lists. And he's certainly deeply involved, less and less as time went on, of course, but in the beginning very closely involved. And this is the elite unit. I think they do three-month tours. And last summer, I wrote a long article in The New Yorker, last July, about how the JSOC operation is simply not available, and there's no information provided by the executive to Congress.

Amy Goodman: What countries, Sy Hersh -- what countries are they operating in?

Seymour Hersh: A lot of countries.

Amy Goodman: Name some.

Seymour Hersh: No, because I haven't written about it, Amy. And I will tell you, as I say, in Central America, it's far more than just the areas that Mr. Hannah talked about -- Afghanistan, Iraq. You can understand an operation like this in the heat of battle in Iraq, killing, I mean, taking out enemy. That's war. But when you go into other countries -- let's say Yemen, let's say Peru, let's say Colombia, let's say Eritrea, let's say Madagascar, let's say Kenya, countries like that -- and kill people who are believed on a list to be al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-linked or anti-American, you're violating most of the tenets.

We're a country that believes very much in due process. That's what it's all about. We don't give the President of United States the right to tell military people, even in a war -- and it's a war against an idea, war against terrorism. It's not as if we're at war against a committed uniformed enemy. It's a very complicated war we're in. And with each of those actions, of course, there's always collateral deaths, and there's always more people ending up becoming our enemies. That's the tragedy of Guantanamo. By the time people, whether they were with us or against us when they got there, by the time they've been there three or four months, they're dangerous to us, because of the way they've been treated …

Amy Goodman: One question: Is the assassination wing continuing under President Obama?

Seymour Hersh: How do I know? I hope not.

Nixonian 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