If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Monday, November 30, 2009

Hey Obama: Surge THIS!


Since when did warmonger presidents start getting Nobel Peace Prizes?

Since 9/11.

Since when did America start staging Stalinist show trials?

Since 9/11.

Since when did American public universities blacklist people like Steven Jones and myself for pursuing "subversive" research?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the USA wage multiple simultaneous wars of naked aggression, in defiance of international law?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the international banksters think they could openly steal $26 trillion from the taxpayers and get away with it?

Since 9/11.

Since when did extremist Israeli Likudniks gain a complete lock over all three branches of the formerly American government?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the US government decide it could ignore the 4th Amendment prohibition of searches and seizures without a warrant?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the NSA decide its job was to spy on Americans?

Since 9/11.

Since when did Americans start torturing people as a matter of public policy, and using the false confessions extracted by torture in Stalinist show trials?

Since 9/11.

Since when did YOU decide you were going to put up with all this, instead of doing what the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine are doing and actually fighting back?

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Thank God for William S. Burroughs














May his truth-telling outweigh his sins on judgment day.

A Thanksgiving Prayer by William S. Burroughs

I once asked Burroughs about the eerie resemblance between the mind-control spooks in his books and CIA programs like MK Ultra and Operation Artichoke. Did he know about those programs back in the early 60's, when they were still secret? He replied in that slow, enigmatic, slightly scornful monotone drawl: "Most of these 'secrets' are not really so secret."

If he were alive today, he'd say the same thing about Operation 9/11.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

"James B" : Abject avatar of sheer feckless cowardice


Many people whose time really IS valuable are happy to join me on my radio shows.  These folks include regular guest Lynn Margulis, one of the most important scientists of the century (next appearance December 5th); John Cobb, one of the world's leading theologians; Richard Falk, a top international law expert who is very busy these days as the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur for Palestine; William Pepper and Francis Boyle, two other first-rank international law experts; critical 9/11 scholars David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Webster Tarpley, and many more; bestselling authors including John Perkins, Steve Alten, Jesse Ventura; a very long list of professors of a great many subjects; and...well, you get the idea.

Yet some parasitic nobody who calls himself "James B." pretends to be either too busy, or too ungenerous with his time, to debate me on the radio.  For the full record of our correspondence, go to the comments here and scroll down. Below is my disgusted goodbye to this embarrassing representative of his species.

Kevin Barrett has left a new comment on your post "Why KSM's Innocence Matters":


..."James B.," afraid to use his last name, takes cyber-cowardice to a new level. Hiding behind a monitor somewhere, he spends his life puking out scurrilous & vacuous attacks on the leaders of a movement he pretends to despise -- yet his whole identity depends on his parasitic relationship with that movement! Like all the other cyber-phonies and cyber-stalkers out there, he's afraid to even confront his targets voice-to-voice, much less face-to-face. He's just another celebrity stalker -- the pathetic nobodies who spend their lives writing angry letters to the famous people they have a secret crush on -- except that unlike them, "James B." is too cowardly to use his real name, or to even speak with his targets when they stoop to offer him the opportunity. As abject avatars of sheer feckless cowardice go, this guy is pretty impressive. This will be the last you hear from "James B." on this blog.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Case against KSM and five co-defendants is falling apart!

A colleague of mine is currently dismantling the charges against KSM and his False Confession Five. The detailed deconstruction of the whole absurd list of "criminal acts" the patsies are charged with, such as taking airline trips, sending and receiving money, and doing other things that just about everybody else does, will be published soon -- hopefully tomorrow -- right here at Truth Jihad Blog.

Meanwhile, don't miss Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's top economic advisor, ripping into the Stalinist show trials in NY:  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial Will Convict Us All by Paul Craig Roberts

My earlier article, Why KSM's Innocence Matters, is generating a lot of heated debate including a long list of comments--scroll down for my challenges to "debunker" James B. to debate me on the radio, and his unbelievably lame attempts to weasel out.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Webster Tarpley on current wave of false-flags & Islamophobia


Webster Tarpley will return to my radio show  Tuesday, December 15th, to discuss his important article Major Hasan of Ft. Hood: Patsy in a Drill Gone Live?, his diagnosis of expanding US false-flag bombings in Pakistan, and the question of whether all of this portends the long-awaited 911-2B.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Y9Hl2TyC4

Historian Webster Tarpley talks with Dina Gusovsky of Russia Today in Washington DC about very plausible Taliban charges that the CIA and Blackwater are behind the recent bombing atrocity in Peshawar, Pakistan. This attack is coherent with the US policy of provoking all-out civil war in Pakistan to break up that country to prevent it from serving as an energy corridor between Iran and China. The Pakistani Taliban are a proxy of the CIA. If the government in Islamabad collapses completely, or especially if Taliban forces appear to be taking control of some of Pakistan's nuclear forces, Wall Street could also get something it would like very much: a spectacular world shock that could send the world's hot money fleeing into the supposed safe haven of the US dollar, which is otherwise near collapse. Inside the US, a wave of Islamophobia is being ginned up with the Fort Hood shootings, the KSM trial in New York CIty, the seizure of allegedly pro-Iranian mosques, the Zazi case, and the incendiary anti-Moslem statements of Pat Robertson, the patron of the new reactionary governor of Virginia. Obama is expected to announce another massive escalation of US forces in Afghanistan within days.

If a Wall Street-CIA Operation Safe Haven is indeed at hand, it could also include a coup in Saudi Arabia, or a clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran over the civil war in Yemen. An Israeli attack on Iran, although much discussed, remains the least likely variation, with Pakistan still at the top of the US hit list.

Webster G. Tarpley is the author of Surviving the Cataclysm:Your Guide Through the Greatest Financial Crisis in Human History (2009), Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography (2008), and Obama: The Postmodern Coup - The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (2008). All are available through tarpley.net.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Zionist war on Islam is also a war on America




From Asia Times:

"The other regional players [read China] are busily setting the stage for exploitation of Afghanistan's natural resources, while the US remains bogged down with the war. This should change," (former CIA Pakistan Station Chief Milton) Bearden said (to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee).

Two weeks ago, when the Associated Press broke the story, it quoted leading American think-tanker and author, Robert Kaplan, "The world isn't fair. A worse outcome to staying and helping the Chinese would be withdrawing and losing a great battle in the war against radical Islam."


Here we have two clashing views: the former American, the latter Zionist. The American, Milton Bearden, who oversaw the US-Islamist alliance against Soviet imperial-colonial repression of the Muslims of Central Asia during the 1980s, realizes that the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, is completely, self-destructively insane when considered from the standpoint of the U.S. national interest. The latter, Robert Kaplan, a Jewish Zionist agent who once wrote a virtual Mossad dossier on those Americans smart enough to learn Arabic and support the Arab anti-Zionist cause, doesn't care if the US destroys itself while destroying Af-Pak. The only thing Kaplan cares about is the "great battle in the war against radical Islam." That war, of course, is a war for Israel.

Anybody who has taken Geopolitics 101 knows that the prime US foreign policy objective is to prevent the rise of a nation or bloc that could dominate the Eurasian land mass. The rising nation today is China, a new superpower with a 10% growth rate. And the dangerous (to US interests) bloc is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which adds Russian energy resources and nuclear weapons to the mix.

If it were rationally pursuing its own interests, the U.S. would be trying to help other powers act as counterweights to the development of a potentially hostile Eurasian bloc. The only sensible way to do that would be to support "radical Islam," not fight it. Let me explain why.

When the Zionists and their dupes speak of "radical Islam," what they really mean is not the crazy, isolated terrorist groups, most of them run by Mossad and other Zionist-influenced intelligence agencies, that target their fellow Muslims. What the Zionists are mortally afraid of is the Islamic world becoming politically united and economically and technologically successful.

The movement to rebuild the Islamic nation, the umma, is supported by a strong majority of Muslims worldwide: "Two-thirds (of of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims) would even like to 'unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.'" (WorldPublicOpinion.org)


If the US really wants to support democracy in the Middle East, it should throw its support behind that majority of Muslims, and help pave the road to a newly-united Islamic umma. A newly-united caliphate would be the natural ally of the US, which would help it control and protect its energy resources against possible threats from energy-hungry China and nuclear-armed Russia and India. A newly-empowered, US-allied caliphate would use its oil wealth to become one of the world's top three superpowers, alongside the US and China, ahead of Russia and India. It would be a key stabilizing force in a peaceful multi-polar world order. And it would be, among the big powers, the closest US ally.

Why isn't the US actively helping the world's Muslims re-unite their umma? Why is the US in fact fighting a brutal and deceptive war to smash and destroy key parts of the Muslim world, and to prevent any such reunification and re-empowerment?

The answer is obvious: This war on Islam is being waged by a fanatical minority of Zionists who have used their power in finance, media, political money, and organized crime to essentially take over the US and turn it against its own interests, as well as the interests of the world's Muslims.

The Zionists know that if Muslims gain even a tiny fraction of the power they ought to have, relative to their proportion of the world's population, Israel as a Jewish apartheid state is finished.

That is why the heavily-Zionist-influenced media churns out Islamophobic fantasies 24/7/365. And that is why the Zionists have duped the U.S. into a war on Islam, disguised as a self-evidently-absurd "war on terror," launched by the 9/11 coup d'etat.

 It is time for patriotic Americans to rise up and overthrow the Zionist facist regime that overthrew our government and burned our Constitution on September 11th, 2001. And it is time for Americans to demand a rational foreign policy that takes account of American interests, rather than being subservient to the interests of Zionism.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Help Galileo give NIST the finger!

Facebook users: sign the petition to help Galileo give NIST the finger here


The recent discovery of Galileo's middle finger, chopped rudely from his corpse in 1737 and presumed lost since 1905, raises a thorny question: What should be done with the historic digit? Some say rebury it; some say put it in a museum. But I think that if Galileo were alive today, he would want to give it to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- by flipping it to them in the form of the digitus impudicus. 

NIST hasn't declared that the Sun revolves around the earth (not yet, anyway). But the NIST report on the Twin Towers, and the even more ludicrous one on World Trade Center Building 7, may be the most egregious examples of scientific fraud in history, dwarfing such cases as the phony stem cell research of a guy named Suk and his more than 15 accomplices. (If you think Suk's research sucks, wait till you see NIST's!) 

Galileo was endlessly annoyed by opponents who fallaciously argued from authority, refusing even to look through his telescope, while denying the existence of the moons of Jupiter. Likewise, NIST's case rests on authority ("would our leaders deceive us? we're scientists, believe us!") and the refusal to look at any of the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition, including molten metal, unexploded nanothermite in the WTC dust, explosive ejections of multi-ton steel beams, and much more. 

One-upping Galileo's opponents, NIST even had the gall to claim that it had found no evidence for controlled demolition because -- it later admitted -- it didn't look for it! The only conceivable response to that argument is to give NIST Galileo's middle finger.   

Help give NIST the finger -- sign the petition!

Friday, November 20, 2009

Why KSM's Innocence Matters


By opting to try 9/11 patsy-in-chief Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the left wing of the 9/11 cover-up team has made a huge, high-stakes gamble. They are, as Obama absurdly blurted out, betting that KSM will be found guilty by a jury. But they are also betting that the 9/11 truth movement--which knows that KSM cannot possibly have demolished the World Trade Center with nanothermite, held the president in a known location in Florida reading about goats to kids during an alleged surprise attack, and ordered a stand-down of the US Air Force--will not use the case to draw attention to its cause.

If they win their bet and the KSM trial ends in a guilty verdict, with no visible protest from the 9/11 truth movement, the history books will record that "confessed 9/11 mastermind KSM was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death." For most Americans, that will mean "case closed." The official story will stand in the history books. "Finally, we have closure."

If, on the other hand, 9/11 truth-seekers--joined by Constitution supporters, anti-torture advocates, and honest journalists who understand that KSM was tortured into demonstrably false confessions--make a hugely visible stink about this grotesque miscarriage of justice, history's verdict will not be so cut-and-dried. And if KSM is found innocent, as he clearly will be if the jury follows the law and uses logic and evidence to arrive at their decision, the 9/11 case will suddenly be wide-open again.

That's why the psy-oppers in the front lines of the 9/11 cover-up team are terrified by Obama's decision to give KSM a jury trial. They are afraid that visible protests by the 9/11 truth, anti-torture, and Constitution movements, and/or a not-guilty verdict, could deal a mortal blow to their cover-up operation. That is why the decision to try KSM has aroused so much hysterical opposition, for example:


The mayor who oversaw rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan [9/11 criminal and fireman-murderer Rudy Giuliani, who admitted he was told in advance that the Towers would come down, then lied about it] told "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.

9/11 perp-in-chief Cheney's daughter is also whimpering hysterically at the prospect of a KSM trial, presumably at the thought of dear old dad's possible execution.

Those who want to see KSM convicted without visible protest, and the official 9/11 big lie sanctified for the history books, are trying to terrorize the 9/11 truth movement into shutting up.  The best-known 9/11 coverup propaganda website is, as usual, trying to scare truthers away from taking effective action, playing on fears and insecurities among those truthers who are hypersensitive about the verbal attacks they endure...but it's the coverup artists' own fear that shines through these lines:

I just hope the troofers finally put there money where their mouth is. I want to see a free KSM movement, just as powerful as the free Mumia nuts. If they really believe what they say they believe, they have no excuse not to do something. Perhaps Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin can appear as expert witnesses or something?

The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.

Interestingly, Jon Gold, who moved in on the family members shortly after 9/11, insulated them from such glaringly obvious truths as the controlled demolition of the WTC, fought long and hard against the controlled demolition evidence and other evidence proving that Muslims didn't do 9/11, and has been working overtime ever since to preserve the "evil Muslim terrorists" myth and obscure Zionist responsibility for 9/11, using such cointepro-style tactics as provoking flame wars and issuing vicious personal attacks, is now working overtime to stop the truth movement from joining the Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in KSM's defense. Take a look at the email exchange below and draw your own conclusions.



Dave Slesinger writes to a list of 9/11 truth-seekers proposing leaflets citing evidence against the official story but saying we don't really know whether KSM is innocent or guilty. Subject header: Re: Draft proposal for presence in NYC for KSM trial
I respond:

Kevin Barrett:

Personally I think this is too weak a response to an outrage this extreme.

If someone is tortured into a demonstrably bogus confession, that person may safely be assumed to be innocent. And if the torturers then destroy the recordings of the torture sessions, the assumption should be upgraded to accepted fact.  That is essentially what Bob Baer says, only slightly between the lines:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/031107Baer.htm

Here's my response, which is proportionate to the outrage.

In any case, the proposed leaflet should focus on the abundant evidence that KSM is innocent. The question of who is really guilty should be secondary. In other words, the nanothermite evidence should be cited primarily to clear KSM.  Remember, there is a  real chance that a jury will find KSM not guilty. If leaflets citing evidence of his innocence were distributed in mass quantities targeting the prospective jury pool, the likelihood of acquittal would rise -- and any response by the government would trigger useful publicity.

Saying "we're not sure KSM wasn't involved" is exactly like saying "we're not sure David Slesinger wasn't involved." The main difference is that the torture, along with other evidence, clears KSM, whereas no equally strong evidence has yet surfaced that clears Dave  ; )

Kevin

[Various emailers joke about "yeah, we should definitely torture Dave" and "I've had my suspicions about Dave for a long time" etc. etc.  Others support the position that we should defend KSM's innocence.]



Jon Gold:

We need a real criminal investigation into 9/11. I am not defending KSM, nor do I think people in the 9/11 Truth Movement should.

Jon

[emailer disagrees with Jon, who responds:]

We must NOT come across as "terrorist sympathizers." There are MANY in the 9/11 Truth Movement who would like us to do just that. That would be a PR DISASTER. My approach recognizes that 9/11 was a crime, and that there are MORE suspects than just the 5 being brought to NYC.

Here is the available evidence I know of against KSM.

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/d20080211chargesheet.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/csrt_ksm.pdf

The "debunkers" are calling for us to do it.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/11/ksm-4-others-coming-to-new-york-for.html

It is important to note that KSM allegedly confessed to the crime before he was captured.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=4400#a0402foudainterview

KSM IS a "terrorist."  Project Bojinka ring a bell to anyone?  It would be absolutely foolish for us to give our opponents ammunition to call us "terrorist sympathizers."  I am not a "terrorist sympathizer."  I would hate to be painted with a "terrorist sympathizer" brush because certain people are sympathizing with terrorists.

Jon


Kevin Barrett:

That's "evidence" against KSM?!  The guy they made a human vegetable through nonstop torture, then destroyed the interrogation tapes?! Please.

And "terrorist sympathizers"?! As my book Questioning the War on Terror explains and documents, even if we consider 9/11 a "terrorist attack," you are thirty times more likely to be struck by lightning, and ten times more likely to drown in your bathtub, than to be killed by an anti-government "terrorist." So "terrorism" in the sense of al-Qaeda, the Weathermen, the Puerto Rican freedom fighters, etc. is a complete non-issue. We need to ruthlessly mock the whole idiotic "fear the terrorists" meme -- not worry about being called a "terrorist sympathizer"!  Most of the people labeled terrorists, in fact, are heroes fighting against extreme injustice and government terrorism. We SHOULD sympathize with freedom-fighters fighting war criminals in Afghanstan, Iraq, and Palestine. If you don't, Jon, what the hell kind of human being are you?

Governments and their militaries, for their part, murdered roughly 100 million people during the 20th century, most of them civilians. They're the only terrorists that matter.

So I agree that we must not come across as "terrorist sympathizers" by showing any sympathy whatsoever with the US government, the biggest terrorist organization on earth.

And from a PR standpoint, it would be great to have Dave Slesinger carrying a huge sign reading "Torture me, I'll confess too!" in front of the courthouse where KSM is being tried, with hundreds of supporters with similar signs behind him.  A large, visible movement supporting KSM's obvious innocence would help annihilate the "we're all terrorist-hating patriots here" consensus hallucination the Zionist MSM and Jon want to impose on us.

Kevin


Jon Gold:

Kevin Barrett is not someone that should be taken seriously or trusted.  He obviously has an agenda which is not in the best interests of this cause.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21271

Jon

P.S. I live in a world of reality.  I do not proclaim everything to be fake because it doesn't coincide with what I think happened on 9/11.  As I mentioned KSM allegedly confessed BEFORE being tortured.  I also pointed out that the 9/11 Commission was HEAVILY based on his tortured confessions.  An indication that the 9/11 Report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

* *  *

Okay, that's enough of Jon Gold. I'll spare you Jon's illiterate obscene grunts sent to me off-list, which I am used to by now. If I had a dollar for every four-letter-word Jon has emailed me since he started stalking me a few years ago...well, I wouldn't exactly be a rich man, considering the fall of the dollar, but I could at least buy everybody a cup of coffee!

Anyway, does Jon really believe "The 'debunkers' are calling for us" to defend KSM's innocence? Or is he working with those very "debunkers" to spread fear in the truth movement and PREVENT us from taking action? Feel free to post a comment voting either "yes he's stupid enough to believe it" or "no, he's working for the other side."

I'll let Sander Hicks, a brilliant yet cautious and meticulous researcher, have the last word.


Sander Hicks:

Jon Gold, you are wrong. Neo-Zionist ideology = ONE BIG ZERO.

Why are you trying to instill a fear in us?

Sorry, let them called me a "terrorist sympathizer." I have already been called worse. KSM deserves a legal defense. I hold that we activists of good faith need to assemble an "Amicus Brief" and file it through an attorney.

Kevin Barrett has more substance to his argument, on the basis of legal jurisprudence, common sense, morality, ethics, due process of law, standards of evidence, etc.

The USA's eagerness to violate international laws against evidence garnered under torture itself shows desperation. International legal scholars point out that the confession from torture is inadmissable: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/349

It violates the UN Convention Against Torture, see Article 15
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Yet, let's not place any hope in the NY Courts, we saw how quickly they dispatched 80,000 signatures from NYC CAN.

YES there IS a strange allegation that KSM "confessed" before his apprehension in Pakistan.

However, this "confession" was witnessed by only one source, the writer Yosri Fouda. His connections to the establishment media (and possible intelligence assocations) destroy Fouda's credibility. His book "Masterminds of Terror" is a lightweight flake of chaff. KSM says in an off hand way "yes we did it" at the end of a chapter. It's rather unclear: We did WHAT?

Look at Fouda on the History Commons timeline:

Financial Times states: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’” [Financial Times, 9/11/2002] ... After being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002] US officials believe the voice on that cassette is “almost certainly” bin Laden, but one of the world’s leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]

Thursday, November 19, 2009

CIA torturers & nanothermite perps should be tried, convicted, and executed


Obama should call for the execution of the true 9/11 perps--not torture victim KSM

Obama says Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who allegedly confessed under torture to masterminding 9/11 (as well as many other crimes he could not possibly have committed) will be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has abolished the presumption of innocence -- the bedrock on which our system of justice rests -- then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized the denial of habeus corpus rights to a criminal suspect (and one who happens to be demonstrably innocent) then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized torture, then he (and the rest of the political class guilty of legitimizing torture) should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President has approved the CIA's destruction of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed torture tapes -- which would undoubtedly show the torturers forcing Mohammed to falsely take the blame for the 9/11 inside job, as former key CIA operative Robert Baer suggests --  than he should be tried, convicted, and executed.

All of these crimes against the Constitution of the United States of America are immeasurably more heinous than the crimes of which Khaled Sheikh Mohammed has been so preposterously accused. Blowing up three World Trade Center buildings with high-tech nanothermite explosives is a terrible crime -- but blowing up the Constitution of the United States of America is immeasurably worse.

But it isn't just the President, a mere puppet of the deep state, who should be brought to justice.

It is the CIA operatives who tortured Khaled Sheikh Mohammed into giving a demonstrably false confession to 9/11 and other crimes, including crimes committed while he was incarcerated, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

It is the intelligence operatives, be they CIA, Mossad, or both, who blew up the World Trade Center with high-tech nanothermite explosives, then engineered a follow-up anthrax attack, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

It is the rogue network operatives who lied us into war -- including folks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, Libby, Bush, and many more -- who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

I oppose capital punishment in principle. But the 9/11 coup d'etat against the Constitution, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, taken together, are the worst crime ever committed on earth. Yes, Stalin and Hitler (not to mention Churchill and Roosevelt) murdered more people. But the Russian and German states they inherited were not all that great to begin with. Stalin and Hitler simply made bad situations worse.

The USA was once an anti-imperialist democratic republic -- an imperfect one to be sure, but one with a Constitution that guaranteed basic rights, a tradition of avoiding foreign wars and entanglements, and a political system that did not completely overlook the interests of its ordinary citizens. The 9/11 coup d'etat, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, murdered that America.

Those murderers, unlike the lesser murderers who have disgraced this planet since time immemorial, ought to be tried, convicted, and--yes--executed.

* * *


From the "it only hurts when I laugh" department:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses To Confessing Under Torture

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses: I Killed Jesus!

American Muslims To Fort Hood Shooter: 'Thanks A Lot, Asshole'



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Warning! We're in the false-flag red zone for 911-2B

Here is the warning I just sent to my list:

Greetings,

As "9/11 conspiracy theorists" go I'm not much of an alarmist, but I do think that we are in the red zone right now for another potential 9/11 style false-flag event. Here's why.

Israel and its allegedly American cheerleaders are desperate to attack Iran ASAP, while Pentagon hawks are yearning to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In other words, the folks who brought us 9/11 and the 9/11 wars want a momentous escalation of those wars. And they want it NOW.

But the American people aren't on board. Polls show that the war on Afghanistan is more unpopular than ever. And the level of destruction unleashed by a Zio-American attack on Iran would make our current economic chaos look like the Golden Age.

To get people to accept this kind of massive escalation, another major false-flag event demonizing Muslims, and thereby legitimizing escalations against the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran, may be in the works.

The Ft. Hood probable false-flag attack (see Jerry Mazza's article) seems to have been timed to coincide with the decision to try (the individual claimed to be) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 patsy-in-chief. All of this appears to have been orchestrated to evoke memories of 9/11 and reinforce the official story--a necessary preliminary to any 911-2B.  In other words, they may be softening us up for something big.

Remember folks, what we're dealing with here is a war on Islam and Muslims launched and sustained by a whole series of false-flag events, not just 9/11-anthrax but also the attacks on Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai, and now (apparently) Ft. Hood. There is no reason to think these people are going to stop any time soon.

Please consider getting proactive by stockpiling "Inside Job" plastic roll banner signs, to be publicly deployed in the event of a major false-flag event.  I still have a couple of rolls of these, so please email me if you want some.  Also, don't forget that you can get ten copies of my book Questioning the War on Terror for only $50 to pass around.

Thanks for listening, and keep up your efforts for truth and justice.

Kevin

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Nauseating Ft. Hood Wimpery on "Arab-American" Radio Show Almost Blows My Gasket...

...and nearly nets me a speeding ticket!

I was listening to the local Arab-American show "Salamat" on WORT a few hours ago while driving. Bad idea.

The hosts spent about ten minutes falling all over themselves piously and ultra-apologetically parroting the official story of the Ft. Hood shootings, endorsing the official story of 9/11 in the process. They even claimed that Nidal Hasan "killed innocent civilians." They wanted everyone to believe that Arab-Americans are just as patriotic as the next American war criminal.

My wife and I couldn't take it. We started ranting about the pathetic, cowardly lies being broadcast over an allegedly Arab-American radio show on an allegedly alternative radio station in this town of lying war criminals, in this nation of lying war criminals.

Suddenly a stroboscopic cherry-top exploded in my rear-view mirror. I pulled over, cursing my idiocy in letting pathetic, cowardly lies on the radio boil my blood and net me a speeding ticket.

I wanted to explain the whole thing to the officer, about how 9/11 was an inside job, and the 9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not only genocidal, but actually worse than genocidal, because they're wars of aggression, which is the worst crime a human being, or a nation, can commit.

"Do you have any idea why I pulled you over?" the cop asked politely. I said yes, I was driving too fast. But instead of explaining why, I just said we were heading for a Laos-Thai restaurant to celebrate my son's 15th birthday.

After running my license, he let me go with a warning, which was decent of him, since I had been going 50 in a 30 zone.

This cop, unlike the one that shot Jim Duensing, seemed like a nice guy. I suppose some of the war criminals who got shot at Ft. Hood were nice people too. Heck, even the US soldiers in Iraq who sodomized kids in front of their parents to torture the parents might have been nice people if they hadn't been conned by the 9/11 publicity stunt into giving up their humanity. It's really sad how so many decent folks in this country have been turned into war criminals, and enablers of war crimes, by the lying psychopaths who staged the 9/11 inside job, the bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, and Mumbai, and the false-flag friendly fire at Ft. Hood, among so many other crimes.

I'm going to contact the hosts of the Salamat radio show and tell them that their on-air lies are a traffic safety hazard, and that they need to check out these links ASAP:

Major Hasan of Ft. Hood: A Patsy in a Drill Gone Live? by Webster G. Tarpley


Fort Hood Shooting 'Oddities'
By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org Updated: 15 Nov 2009


* * *



Thursday, November 12, 2009

I finally catch the flu conspiracy bug


Many readers and listeners have asked why I'm not banging the drums about the alleged Bilderberg-NWO conspiracy to kill billions of us off using bio-engineered flu, deadly vaccines, or some combination thereof.

The answer: I'm congenitally immune to gloom-and-doom fearmongering. Tell me that the Bilderbergers are planning to kill us off by the billions, and you'd better have some serious evidence behind you, otherwise I'll find something slightly less outlandish, or at least better-substantiated, to worry about. (The 9/11 inside job, and the Zionist takeover of the former USA, will do. Tune in to my radio show this Saturday for that.)

Despite my heightened immunity, after 30 minutes of intimate video contact with a brilliant and lovely M.D. nun (dig that hijab!) named Teresa Forcades, I'm afraid I've finally caught the flu conspiracy bug. Sticking to mainstream sources and avoiding speculation, Ms. Forcades raises some stunning questions:

Why did the pharmaceutical giant Baxter manufacture large quantities of lethal "flu vaccines" that were discovered only by a freak accident?
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14709

Why would these "vaccines" contain a 100% lethal (in lab animals) mixture of non-attenuated bird flu (60% mortality in humans) along with non-attenuated A strain?

Had these "vaccines" been used as apparently intended, and injected into tens or hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people, what would have been the result?

Why hasn't the mainstream media jumped all over this?

Why did the WHO change its definition of "pandemic" this year so this year's H1N1 flu, which is less lethal than the average year's flu, could become a source of panic (and billions of vaccines)?

Why have they pushed through new laws this year giving both governments and pharmaceutical corporations immunity from lawsuits based on vaccine side-effects?

Why has there been a global push for mandatory H1N1 vaccinations (taken up with a vengeance by Massachussetts legislators) even though this year's H1N1 flu is one of the least lethal flus ever?

In short, what is this non-event "pandemic" really about? What the hell is going on?

Don't vaccinate me bro, I'm just trying to ask a few questions!

Monday, November 9, 2009

"Ft. Hood - 9/11 link" echoes DHS attempt to set up Muslim 9/11 truth activist

The recent FBI attempt to link Ft. Hood patsy Nidal Hasan to 9/11 has elicited plenty of eyeball-rolling among Americans accustomed to extreme government duplicity and mendacity. But so far nobody has noticed that the alleged Nidal Hasan - 9/11 link echoes an attempt just over a month earlier to frame a leading Muslim 9/11 truth activist as a "terrorist sympathizer."

The Washington Post informs us:

"Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church in 2001, when its spiritual leader was Anwar al-Aulaqi, a figure who crossed paths with al-Qaeda associates, including two Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, one senior U.S. official said."

This isn't the first government effort to frame an antiwar Muslim by suggesting an association with the "pro-terrorist" Al-Aulaki. On September 24th, Muslim Marine-vet 9/11 truth activist Muhammed Abdullah was raided by an apparently DHS-coordinated team of over 10 government agents on a transparently bogus pretext. According to Abdullah, the agents repeatedly asked him about whether he might commit a terrorist act, and what he thought about Al-Aulaki. Abdullah says he felt the agents were trying to set him up.

The raid on Abdullah shows that the authorities were targeting antiwar and 9/11 truth activities of a Muslim veteran, and trying to smear that veteran by linking him to Al-Aulaki, more than a month before the shootings at Ft. Hood.

Was the Ft. Hood incident a psychological operation designed to discredit a group that the government fears -- Muslims who oppose the war and support 9/11 truth? Was it also intended to have a pro-war effect on public opinion, by portraying war resisters as "radical Muslim mass killers"?

Muslims and others are already questioning the highly-improbable official version of the Ft. Hood incident. The way the Ft. Hood "Al-Aulaki 9/11 connection" echoes an earlier attempt to frame  9/11 truth activist Muhammed Abdullah adds to those suspicions.

* * *

Shaykh Anwar Al-Aulaki, demonized by the 9/11 perps for defending the right of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan to defend themselves against criminal wars of aggression...and for telling the truth about 9/11. "Al-Awlaki and his followers blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks. 'There is an expectation that Muslims should apologize for something that they never did,' al-Awlaki told National Geographic magazine in September 2001."

Saturday, November 7, 2009

My Introduction to Nick Kollerstrom's "Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7"

Nick Kollerstrom was my second-hour guest today on Truth Jihad Radio,  5-7 pm Central, www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com. The show will be archived a few days later here.  My complete radio schedule is here. [Note: the last half-hour of the show did not broadcast because I lost my internet and phone service from 6:30 to 7:10 p.m. Charter Communication tells me that over 100 houses in my neighborhood, including mine, lost service for some unknown reason at that time. Maybe somebody in NSA/MI6/Mossad doesn't like Nick?]

INTRODUCTION to Nick Kollerstrom's Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7

by Kevin Barrett, www.truthjihad.com

It is often said that knowledge is power. But this simple three-word sentence can mean different things to different people.

For the followers of Malcolm X, it means empowerment through self-education. For the followers of Foucault, on the other hand, there is no such thing as knowledge per se, apart from the workings of power; what we take to be knowledge is simply a shadow on the wall of our cave, cast by an infernal blaze of power that is always hidden somewhere behind us, just out of view.

The conflict between these two positions is what is really at stake in today's terror wars. The first position is the foundation not just of Islam, but of all true religions--and all true philosophy as well. Religion, after all, teaches us that (metaphysical) truth is indeed available to those who strive for it; while philosophy means "love of wisdom" and likewise involves the quest for truth, restricting itself (as religion does not) to critical methods.

The other position, that knowledge is an illusion created by the play of power, derives from Nietzche and reaches its absurd extreme in the judeo-nazism* of Leo Strauss. Strauss, the top student of leading Nazi philosopher Carl Schmidt, taught Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the rest of the neocons that there is no truth, no good, and of course no God, and that justice is simply what the strong seize for themselves. According to Strauss, the elite--that is, the neocons--are exempt from morality, and ought to take power covertly and rule by foisting big lies upon the masses.

The first position--that truth is real and available to those who sincerely seek knowledge--is a torch being carried today by many people of diverse outlooks--and also by the religion of Islam, the core of a (re)-expanding civilization.  (In Islam, God is also known as al-haqq, "the Truth," and the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, has famously urged us to "seek knowledge even unto China.")

The second position--that there is no truth, just power--is a dark message being broadcast not just by the neocons and postmodernists, but also by universities, think tanks, and the controlled corporate media, all of which unabashedly shy away from truths that cut too sharply against the grain of power. This situation reflects a decadent civilization's loss of faith in truth, in knowledge, even in existence itself.

The masters of illusion who fabricated the "clash of civilizations" often frame this alleged event as a clash of civilization per se, identified with the West, against the uncivilized barbarism of non-Western peoples, especially Muslims. The reality is rather the reverse. Civilization rests on a bedrock faith in truth and knowledge. When that bedrock is shaken, civilization collapses. Those who have fabricated the big lie known as the "war on terror" are the real barbarians. Like termites, they are gnawing away at the foundations of civilization. The civilized people, the defenders of civilization, are those who seek knowledge and proclaim the truth.

Nick Kollerstrom is among the planet's leading defenders of civilization, and his book on the London bombings is exemplary in its willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. And here, as in the case of 9/11, it leads very quickly to a very uncomfortable place.

As Kollerstrom shows us, with regard to the 7/7 London bombings, knowledge is indeed Power--first name Peter. By simply googling "Peter Power 7/7" any bright twelve-year-old can quickly learn, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 7/7 bombings were an obvious, bald-faced inside job.

Peter Power, for those who have not yet googled him, is the Scotland Yard terror chief who, on July 7th, 2005, was head of the British security firm Visor Consultants. In the evening of July 7th, 2005, Peter Power appeared on television and stated that on that very morning, he, Peter Power, as part of his work with Visor Consultants, had been running a "terror drill" that perfectly mimicked the actual terror attacks, including the exact times and locations where the bombs went off. Unfortunately Power did not reveal the name of the agency that hired him to run the drill. Subsequently, Power apparently realized his mistake, and began offering a series of ludicrously unconvincing retractions.

For the benefit of those unable to see that two and two make four, Kollerstrom painstakingly calculates that the odds of a terror attack randomly matching an exercise of this kind are about one in a billion.

Unlike Nafeez Ahmed, the author of the only other critical work on the London bombings, Kollerstrom follows the ugly truth exposed by Power's revelation (and by reams upon reams of other evidence) to its logical conclusion: We now know that 7/7 was an inside job designed to frame Muslims and hype the bogus "war on terror."

But what good is it to know something like that? Isn't it more advantageous to simply "raise questions about the official version of events" as Ahmed pretends to be doing--even as the questions he raises, and the information he presents, blow the official story out of the water and reveal the event as an obvious false-flag operation? After all, by pretending to be simply raising questions, Ahmed has been able to undermine the "war on terror" while keeping his university teaching position. Some of us who have spoken more plainly have not been not so lucky.

Despite its pecuniary drawbacks, plain speaking has the advantage of enabling action in a way that "simply raising questions" does not. In ordinary life, when we know something, we are prepared to take action. For example, if mere questions have been raised about the likelihood of rain, we may not yet feel compelled to find an umbrella before venturing outside. When we finally conclude that we know it is raining--perhaps by looking for ourselves--we take appropriate action.

Likewise, it is fairly easy to question the official version of 9/11 or 7/7 without feeling the need to act. "It will turn out to be like the JFK case," such people often say. "We will never really know what happened." The unspoken corollary to this position is: If I knew it was an inside job, I would have to take action. Taking action would be uncomfortable, even painful. Therefore I must ensure that I don't really know that it was an inside job. I had better not learn too much about this case. And I had better use every available psychological defense mechanism to remain unconvinced by those who claim they do know. I will begin by believing that anyone who knows something like this must be a "conspiracy theorist." That way I can dismiss the whole argument without even having to consider it, simply by mindlessly accepting a pejorative portrayal of the person who advances it. And if anyone tells me I'm falling for the ad hominem fallacy, I'll just say I don't speak Latin.

Kollerstrom's book is not for that kind of person. Only those brave enough to risk their easy equanimity will dare approach it.

The knowledge that we have been lied to so horribly is heartbreaking. So are all the horrors that grew from the lie: The mass murder of more than a million innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, the assault on freedom, the torture and persecution of tens of thousands of people whose only crime is to profess the religion of Islam. The only way to even begin to atone for such horrors is to confront the lies that produced them. And we must confront those lies head on, with no equivocation or blathering excuses.

Kollerstrom's forthright discussion of 7/7 is followed by an equally acerbic look at the fake terror show trials that followed. As a chemist, Kollerstrom is in a good position to know that even Muslims, with all the power of Allah behind them, cannot turn drugstore hydrogen peroxide into a high explosive by fiddling with it in the lavatory of an airliner. Everyone who has been inconvenienced by the insane "no liquids or gels" so-called security measures adapted in the wake of the liquid bomb hoax needs to read Kollerstrom and weep--whether with grief, laughter, or some combination thereof.

In the end, the reader of this book will understand that the post-Cold War West is being terrorized not by Muslims, but by the Western state apparatus itself. This is hardly surprising, since we now know that it was NATO (under the command of the Pentagon) that was carrying out the worst "terrorist attacks" against Europeans during the Cold War. What makes it even less surprising, for those capable of independent thought, is that the very definition of the state is "that bureaucracy which can plausibly claim a monopoly of violence in a given territory."

How can we make the transition to a form of civilization not based on violence? That is the question that must be answered, and soon, if humanity is to succeed in its role as God's vice-regent on earth, preserving our planetary home as a garden paradise, and venturing forth to explore other worlds.

By exposing the fact that the expression "state terror" is redundant--virtually all the terror that humans inflict on each other is inflicted by states--Nick Kollerstrom and his colleagues in the truth movement are laying the foundations of a Copernican revolution in consciousness and social organization. Once we find that we can do without the terror of the state, and that we can live together in joy rather than apart in fear, we will look back at the so called war on terror as the last gasp of a psychopathic elite. And we will look back on Nick Kollerstrom as one of the brave pioneers who first stepped outside the fear-mongerers' illusion into the light of truth...and beckoned for us to join him.

* * *


* "judeo-nazism  -  too provocative in my view: why not zionist-influenced crypto-nazism or zionist- and nazi-infuenced doctrines of Leo Strauss ?"  (editorial suggestion by the late, great Keith Mothersson)


Keith may have been right, as he so often was. The expression, while provocative, is meant as a mirror image to the equally provocative "islamofascism" which, unlike "judeo-nazism," is both completely inaccurate, and widely used in polite society and the mainstream media.  


Since "fascism" means "the merger of corporate and state power in a militarized society," and since Islam is generally opposed to both corporate AND state power, the expression "islamo-fascism" is an Orwellian misnomer.  As for Strauss's judeo-nazism, Shadia Drury has explained that Strauss's post-religious Jewish identification, as well as his training as the ultra-radical #1 student of top Nazi philosopher Karl Schmidt, makes "judeo-nazism" an accurate description of Strauss's philosophy.




Thursday, November 5, 2009

Cop who shot Jim Duensing linked to terrorist group?



The Las Vegas cop who shot Libertarian senatorial candidate Jim Duensing in the back may be linked to terrorism, according to internet sleuth "Guy Fawkes." A post at Veterans for Secure Borders by a "David Gilbert, Nevada, E-6, US ARMY, 12" offers proof that a police officer named David Gilbert from Nevada was a long-time member of the world's leading terrorist group. This terrorist group, which calls itself "the U.S. Armed Forces," has been implicated in the recent Ft. Hood shootings as well as the deaths of many millions of people around the world. (For evidence that the US military is by far the world's biggest and nastiest terrorist group, listen to William Blum on my radio show or in print.)

If this is the same Nevada cop named David Gilbert who shot Jim Duensing, he apparently doesn't like Hispanic people much more than he likes Libertarian 9/11 truthers.  In the post at Veterans for Secure Borders, Gilbert writes:

If you don't speak spanish you'll end up with extra onions when you ask for none. As a cop, I almost always get the standard reply to my request for "drivers license, registration and insurance please" of any hispanic person...."Uh, me no speak english, you get some one who does"; "I no talk to you till spanish here"....We just need to lose the same political correctness that is killing us here.


Maybe he decided to taze-and-shoot first, and ask questions later, because he thought Jim looked like he had some Mexican ancestry? 

Additionally,  Gilbert may have reason to dislike lane-changers. (Duensing was tazed and shot after he was pulled over for a lane-change violation). According to a 2005 news story, a Las Vegas police officer named David Gilbert was injured in an accident involving a motorist who failed to yield the right of way.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

K-Talk host Mark Maxon comes out for 9/11 truth!

The Maxon Show, the best talk show in Utah, draws a big audience on the major mainstream station K-Talk (KTKK-AM, Salt Lake City).

Mark had me on for a two-hour 9/11 truth interview last Friday, and guess what? This guy is for real. Fearless. A terrific radio host, and what's more, a true patriot.

I was on the show Monday October 26th for an hour, as well as Friday October 30th for two hours. Every single caller except one was pro-9/11 truth.

Kudos to Mark Maxon and the callers and listeners. 

Listen to the show archive here: http://themaxonshow.com/

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Jim Duensing Shooting Story Grows Legs


This blog's report about the outrages visited on Jim Duensing by cops and Libertarians alike is raging across the internet, beginning with PrisonPlanet.com, and was even picked up as a source today by the Las Vegas Review Journal!

The Review-Journal report finished with:  "A blog item on DailyPaul.com, a site supporting former presidential candidate Ron Paul, called Duensing a 'Libertarian 9/11 truth leader,' referring to those who doubt the official story of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." In fact, the DailyPaul story was a cut-and-paste copy of yesterday's TruthJihad blog entry, which first refered to Jim as a "Libertarian 9/11 truth leader."

Along with avoiding all mention of TruthJihad.com, the Review-Journal studiously neglected to mention the VERY IMPORTANT FACT that Jim Duensing IS RUNNING FOR SENATE AGAINST THE SENATOR FROM LA COSA NOSTRA, HARRY REID

Got that, mainstream journalists? (Please use that phrase verbatim, too!)

My working assumption is that God saved Jim's vital organs from those bullets for a reason. Please visit and contribute at Jim's Senate Campaign website:

http://hellforharry.com/

* * *

Quote of the Week Regarding Jim Duensing by MelissaWV:

"Holy wow this guy is Rambo! He was simultaneously running, holding his pants up, pulling a handgun AND pulling a folding knife! These cops were certainly in mortal danger, because someone this awesome was OBVIOUSLY going to shoot over his shoulder, like in the movies, and hit one of them squarely between the eyes, while flinging his knife and piercing the other one's heart. Then he was going to leap into a getaway vehicle driven by a beautiful woman, and threaten our freedom!"

Monday, November 2, 2009

Libertarian 9/11 truth leader Jim Duensing shot in the back by cops...


...then stabbed in the back by local Libertarians! (scroll down for updates)


Jim Duensing, 2008 Congressional candidate and founder of the Libertarian 9/11 truth caucus Libertarians for Justice, is in critical condition after being repeatedly shot in the back and arm by a Las Vegas cop. Our prayers go out to Jim, who is recovering with his wife in the hospital and thankfully is expected to survive.

The standard police line about how the suspect was supposedly reaching for a gun, blah blah blah, was contradicted by an eyewitness: "They shot him in the back," she said. "He was just running."

 If you don't like this post-9/11 post-Constitution USA where uniformed thugs feel free to shoot people in the back, please support Jim's two big causes, libertarianism and 9/11 truth.

Here's wishing Jim a speedy recovery. I'm looking forward to having him back on my radio shows ASAP God willing.

AFTERNOON UPDATE: Jim explains what happened here. According to Jim, the cop electrocuted him with a taser while his arms were raised in the air, and he fled in a panic reaction:
With my hands raised above my head, the cop shot me with a taser in the chest. As I have had heart problems since my premature birth, I believe a Taser to be a lethal weapon. Several people without heart conditions have been killed by this weapon.
When the taser began electrocuting me, instinct took over….
I immediately turned to my left and began moving away from the source of the electrocution. By the time I got to the back of the vehicle, I had reached up with both hands, grabbed the electrodes, and pulled them away from my chest. The juice then flowed through my arms – not my heart. As I lay here in my hospital bed, I firmly believe this instinct saved my life.
I continued running away from the taser. I heard the cop fire it again, but did not feel an additional shock. I was running down the sidewalk with empty hands. I heard three pops from behind me.
Meanwhile the local Libertarian Party, adding insult to injury, has stabbed Jim in the back with this statement, reported on LewRockwell.com: "The Libertarian Party of Clark County does not advocate fleeing the police as a means of peaceful conflict resolution. Raymond 'Jim' Duensing, although a past officer of the party, holds no official standing within our party as an elected officer. Our thoughts go out to Jim Duensing, his family, and the officer involved in this incident (emphasis added)."

My thoughts too go out to this officer, and they are most unpleasant.

If Jim and the witness are telling the truth -- and I know Jim to be an honest, idealistic, upright, sensible individual -- it sounds like he was either the victim of a lunatic taser-crazy rogue officer who should be fired, tried, and jailed for at least a few decades...or, conceivably, he could even have been set up for torture- and attempted murder-by-cop, a la Roland Carnaby.

Tasers are lethal weapons, and should only be used in lieu of even more lethal weapons. Since so many cops are apparently too dumb or evil to figure that out, we obviously need to get tasers the hell out of the hands of these bullies-in-blue. And since rogue cops operate with complete impunity in almost all US jurisdictions, we need to start posting their home addresses and phone numbers on the internet as a deterrent to this kind of behavior. If anyone can obtain this officer's address and phone number, feel free to either post it as a comment, or give it to me and I'll post it.

Duensing asks that, instead of flowers, please send contributions to his campaign at HellForHarry.com. Give 'em hell in the next election, Jim! I hope you'll win a multi-million dollar lawsuit and send a message that the cops had better watch out -- the next person they decide to torture and/or murder might be a lawyer.

Meanwhile, more information is emerging on the apparent premeditated, Fred Hampton-style police assassination of Muslim leader Luqman Ameen Abdullah. I thought this stuff went out with the 1960s.

Tuesday, Nov. 3rd update: "The officer, David Gilbert, has been with the department since 1993. He has been placed on routine paid administrative leave." (Source: Las Vegas Journal-Review story.) Someone please find his address and phone number so we can post it all over the internet and conduct peaceful protests of this criminal action. The Constitution guarantees us the right to assemble and petition for redress of grievances, and that is exactly what we should be doing in front of this guy's house.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Time to re-name "ham ass" ?

Re: Mary Rizzo - Hamas: They're not bad, they're just drawn that way

Scott B writes: While there most certainly is a "fear trigger", this is largely Hamas' own doing. The party name may also be an acronym, meaning "zeal" in Arabic, but it can't have escaped notice of those selecting that name that in Hebrew (as transliterated) it means "violence". (Cf. Gen. 6:11, etc.) ...Though now at quite a late date, it would behoove them to rename (or at least retransliterate)
their party more appropriately.


My response:

Scott,

You missed the real problem with the name "Hamas."  In English, it sounds like "ham ass." This is obscene, unkosher, and un-halal all at the same time!

Since English is the world's dominant language, Arabs should select names for their groups based on the connotations of the English transliteration, not the Hebrew one. And of course they shouldn't give a rat's ass, or even a ham's ass, about what the name means in the original Arabic.

Anyway, now I understand why the English-speaking governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia don't support "Ham Ass." As you suggest, the party needs to be renamed for the sake of Arab unity if nothing else.

Best,

Kevin

PS The name of the Jewish/Israeli language "Hebrew" sounds like "he brew" in English, meaning "he make beer." While here in Wisconsin most folks don't have a problem with that, the world's anglophone Muslims are profoundly miffed. I suggest that you start a movement to change it to something less offensive. Imagine, the third Muslim holy land invaded and occupied by people whose language is named after beermaking! That's probably the main cause of conflict in the Middle East, now that I think about it.