If you like this blog

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

Monday, May 31, 2010

Lying Zionist scum slaughter humanitarians, blame the victims

[Note: I will be appearing with Gilad Atzmon, who just wrote a terrific essay on the Free Gaza convoy massacre, and Jim Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, in London, UK, on July 14th, 6-9:30 PM, Friends House, Euston Road opposite Euston Station. Please spread the word! More details at Rediscover911. ]

The Israeli massacre of humanitarian aid workers in the Free Gaza convoy is shocking enough. But what is really shocking is the lies...and the way those lies are being parroted in the mainstream media.

Here is how CNN is reporting the event:

20 dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid convoy
(CNN) -- Israeli commandos killed at least 10 people in pre-dawn raids on a flotilla of six ships carrying aid for the Palestinian territory of Gaza early Monday, the country's military said."During the incident the soldier's lives were in danger," said a statement from the Israel Defense Forces. "They were attacked with severe physical violence, including live fire, bold weapons, knives and clubs."

Why do AMERICAN mainstream media trumpet even the most absurd Zionist propaganda? The short answer: Because, as Ariel Sharon said shortly after 9/11, "we Jews control America." How? By dominating the media, political cash, and organized crime; and by maintaining a vast army of sayonim -- American intelligence operatives sworn to work for the Israeli Mossad.

Actually it isn't Jews per se who control America, but Zionist criminal billionaires and those they have brainwashed. Honest Jews, like next week's radio guest Rabbi Weiss of Naturei Karta, know that Zionism is a criminal syndicate that violates the tenets of Judaism.

It's time to face facts: America's media is dominated by people loyal to a hostile foreign power--the power that attacked us on 9/11. Rather than whining about Middle Eastern news outlets that are telling the truth, maybe it's time to re-establish American control over American media. If the Antitrust Department can't do it, some day our military may have to. And if today's escalating Israeli insanity is any indication, that day may come sooner than you think.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Jonathan Kay's mendacious propaganda: Is this the only "argument" the anti-truthers have?

My old pal and radio guest Jonathan Kay is upset about Tuesday's interview with Alan Hart, which has gone viral during the past 48 hours.

In a piece headlined The Canadian Charger Magazine honours another 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Kay offers a perfect example of the debating technique of pro-Zionists and anti-truthers: (1) call your opponents names, and (2) lie shamelessly.

Kay begins his piece by labeling Hart a "9/11 conspiracy theorist."  In fact, anyone who thinks 9/11 was planned and carried out by more than one person must offer a theory about what is by definition a conspiracy. Therefore anyone who discusses responsibility for 9/11 is literally a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, this universal and thus completely empty term is often employed as an ad-hominem insult by those who have no rational or empirical arguments to back up their own conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs with box cutters and a guy in a cave on dialysis did 9/11. (Note: Even Alex "Oswald killed JFK" Cockburn is sick of this kind of anti-conspiracy-theory tripe.)

Kay also uses the ad hominem technique in labeling me a "truther." While I might accurately be called a member of the 9/11 truth movement, I doubt that Kay would label another Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist professor with a different opinion on this issue an "anti-truther" or "official story apologist." He is picking and choosing labels he thinks will be prejudicial--a classic use of the ad hominem fallacy.

After quoting my blog entry on the Alan Hart interview, Kay finishes his piece:

"Can someone please tell me why our human rights mandarins, who seem to have time to launch an investigation every time a Christian preacher writes a letter to the editor about homosexuality, give a free pass to Muslims and Marxists who blame the 'Zionists' for all the crimes known to humanity?"

Kay suggests that Hart (who is neither a Muslim nor a Marxist) and I (a non-Marxist Muslim) blame Zionists for all the crimes known to humanity. This is, of course, an outrageous lie. Neither Hart nor I have ever blamed Zionists for the U.S. slaughter of millions of Vietnamese, Pol Pot's atrocities in Cambodia, the CIA's torture-murder of a million Indonesians in the mid-1960s, the genocide of the Native Americans, the African slave trade holocaust...the list could go on until it included the vast majority of "crimes known to humanity" or at least to Hart and me.

Since Kay's statement follows his quote from my blog entry about the Hart interview, he is implying that the evidence that Hart and I blame Zionists for all the crimes known to humanity is to be found in that quote. The specific crimes mentioned in that quote are, in order of appearance:

1) The Israeli massacre of U.S.S. Liberty crewmen in 1967.

2) 9/11

3) The "loose nukes" attempt to steal nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in August, 2007.

4) The ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

All historians agree that Zionists -- meaning those actively attempting to create and maintain a Jewish state in Palestine --  are responsible for crimes 1 and 4.  As for crimes 2 and 3, there is very strong evidence for heavy Zionist involvement in crime 2, and enough circumstantial evidence to make the Cheney-Zionist cabal that did 9/11 prime suspects in crime 3.

Whether or not you agree with me about crimes 2 and 3, you must admit that neither Hart nor I have done anything remotely like "blaming 'Zionists' for all the crimes known to humanity." Kay's statement is a lie. A lie, used deliberately or recklessly in an attempt to denigrate a person, is called libel

Kay's piece also seems Islamophobic. By pejoratively calling the Canadian Charger "the folks who brought you the Canadian Islamic Congress" Kay seems to be suggesting that there is something wrong with being "Islamic." If a journalist for a major North American newspaper implied that the word "Jewish" is pejorative, by scorning "the folks who brought you the Canadian Jewish Congress," would that not suggest anti-Semitism? So why are the rules different for things Islamic?

Kay's fallacious, mendacious, seemingly-racist* piece ducks the real issue: Actual evidence for and against the proposition that 9/11 was a false-flag operation with heavy Zionist involvement. Most of the world's Muslims think it was (as do a great many non-Muslim experts). Most of the world's Jews, and those who get their information from Jewish-dominated media, disagree.

The way to settle this debate is by airing and arguing the facts -- not by lying, spinning, waxing racist, and using ad hominem attacks.

* * *

*While Islam is a religion of all races, in North America, Islamophobia is a form of racism, because Muslims are viewed as brown-skinned foreigners.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: "Here's what may have REALLY happened on 9/11"!

McFarland, WI 5/26/2010

Breaking his self-imposed rule against talking about 9/11, former Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author  Alan Hart described what he thinks may have really happened on that fateful day on yesterday's Kevin Barrett show.

Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a Security Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured by a top-level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000 experts willing to go on the record with the same opinion, see http://www.ae911truth.org).

During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel's record of engaging in outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)

Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.

Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the "loose nukes" rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war--which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself. 

When a warning this serious is delivered by a messenger with the stature of Alan Hart, the American people had better find a way around the news blackout imposed by the Zionist-dominated corporate and pseudo-alternative media. The only thing standing in the way of an Israeli false-flag nuclear attack on America, a disastrous US war on Iran, and a horrendous acceleration of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is the awareness of the American people. Please copy, post, and mass-email this story.

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

"Should I run for Congress" poll results tallied -- and the winner is...

A huge thank-you to everyone who responded to my query, Should I run for Congress?  The results were a lopsided 60-23 victory for "yes" over "no" (with twenty or so that were neither yes nor no). More importantly, there were lots of good ideas and advice offered by folks on both sides.

Overall I think the "yes" voters had better arguments. Their best argument was that I should run in order to raise awareness of important, suppressed issues such as 9/11 truth. Anyone who runs for Congress gets a media platform, and I'm well-known in Wisconsin and would therefore get an even bigger platform than most 9/11 truth candidates can. This is critically important, because the traitors who run our mass media have learned the hard way that "any publicity is good publicity" for 9/11 truth -- they tried bashing us in 2006 and it backfired, so they've retreated into full censorship mode, at least here in the USA. (Globally, the media is gradually opening up to 9/11 truth.) So forcing 9/11 truth into the media by any means necessary, short of the Unabomber method, is a huge plus for our movement.

Alongside 9/11 truth are the many other most-important-yet-suppressed issues, which boil down to the one big issue: The American political system, and much of the world system, have been subverted by an obscenely corrupt amalgamation of the New World Order financier elite, the military-industrial complex, and the Zionist lobby. It was these forces that pulled off 9/11; and they rig our elections, murder anyone who seriously stands in their way, and are intentionally dumbing down our people and destroying our economy in order to create a world of a few masters and a great many serfs.

While running for office as "infowar by other means" against these forces is laudable, I do think many "yes" voters overestimated my chances of winning the election. In fact, those chances are slim; since a victory by someone as outspoken as I am would present a serious problem for the NWO, they would mobilize their tremendous resources to prevent it. Here, the "no" voters were more realistic. But this does not detract from the value of running in order to call attention to critically important suppressed information.

My decision had to take into account not only this informal plebiscite, but also two other considerations: The fact that we already have an excellent pro-truth, anti-NWO District 3 candidate (Eric Sayward), and the feelings of my family members. After conducting what we Muslims call a "shura" or consultation with my family, I discovered that there is some resurgent ambivalence. Splitting the ambivalent votes in half, it came out to something like 3 to 1 or 2.5 to 1.5 in favor of running. That isn't good enough. If I run, they get more stress and less of my time and energy. So,  learning from previous mistakes, I decided it would have to be a consensus decision. Since the consensus isn't there, I'm not running.

I urge everyone who would have supported me to instead support two other 9/11 truth, anti-NWO candidates here in Wisconsin: Eric Sayward of We Are Change - Wisconsin http://www.wischange.org  in District 3 and Mark Wollum eats_funny(at)yahoo.com in District 6.  I will be doing everything I can to support them, and any other candidates who share the commitment to spreading the truth and struggling for justice.

I apologize for not getting back to most of you who commented or emailed me about this issue; if you have a question you want personally answered, please (re)send it.


Kevin Barrett

Summary of plebiscite results -- for the full responses, read the comments at http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/05/should-i-run-for-congress.html

Yes votes (total: 60)

Just plain yes. (23)

Run to win!

Run on a 9/11 truth platform - the mother of all issues. (2)

It's fun.

You could do well in Congress. (Because, like Ron Paul, you're a nice guy with radical ideas, ain't no politician, etc.) (3)

Run to beat the two-party system.

It's great to have at least one politician telling the truth.

Yes - and de-emphasize 9/11 etc., focus on the workingman's wallet. (2)

It's entertaining.

Yes - do it to raise awareness of issues like 9/11 truth. (11)

Yes - or consider running for State Assembly instead.

Run as a member of a new Zionist-free party.

Run as a Green Party candidate.

You might win the Democratic primary and then the election.

Run, because you finally answered my emails.

Run to get a bigger platform for your ideas, and then write a book about it.

Sure, you're no worse what what we have now.

We need principled/courageous/intelligent representatives. (3)

Run with a (third) party behind you.

Run if you think you have a realistic chance of winning.

Run as part of a new anti-corruption/unity party. (2)

No votes (total: 23)

Just plain no. (2)

Your health comes first. (3)

You're doing well as a writer and radio host, don't mess with a good thing. (4)

If you win you'll be marginalized, ruined, or, failing that, assassinated. (3)

Congress is terminally corrupt. (2)

You won't win.

You're a bleeping moron who belongs in the nuthouse.

You've been there done that.

It's pointless. We need a revolution.

It's pointless because Zionists control the entire political system.

Don't run because you never answer my emails.

People still aren't ready to vote for independent candidates.

You wouldn't even win the Libertarian primary (despite landslide victory last time).

I'm a Christian and you're a Muslim so I can't support you.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Splitting-the-Sky facing up to two years in prison for arrest-Bush attempt

Splitting-the-Sky will be my guest on Truth Jihad Radio Saturday, June 5th. -KB

Canadian Man Could Be Sentenced to Two Years in Prison for Implementing the Law:

Former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark to Speak at the University of Calgary's Peace Consortium in Defence of Splitting the Sky The Man Who Attempted a Citizens' Arrest on George W. Bush

Joshua Blakeney
Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

“George Bush hasn't suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused...no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same or next day”

Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, 20081

Ramsey Clark will arrive in the Canadian oil-patch city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, this coming June 6th and 7th, mounting pressure on Judge Manfred Delong, who is presiding over the sentencing process in an epochal trial which some have dubbed: “The trial of Splitting the Sky versus George W. Bush.” Splitting the Sky (STS) on the advice of legal experts Ramsey Clark, Gale Davidson and Anthony J. Hall attempted a citizen’s arrest on George W. Bush on March 17, 2009 when the former US president was addressing an audience of business people at the TELUS Convention Centre in the downtown of Calgary.2 In his March 2010 trial STS invoked the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes legislation, which was enacted by the Canadian parliament in 2000, to submit to the court that he was implementing the law by seeking to apprehend Bush, and was unjustly arrested by police who were in effect “aiding and abetting a credibly accused war criminal.” Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney came to Calgary to attempt to testify in the March trial but was prevented from doing so as the judge shut down the trial earlier than anticipated. Instead McKinney spoke at the University of Calgary in support of Splitting the Sky.3 It is hoped by supporters of justice that the arrival of Ramsey Clark in Calgary will help to publicize this unprecedented case in Canadian legal history, the knowledge of which the state and their media accomplices have made a concerted effort to suppress and censor from the public domain.
Ramsey Clark has a long history of being a thorn in the side of those political elites who would seek to apply the law expediently rather than unanimously. Born in Dallas, Texas, the son of prominent jurist Tom C. Clark, Ramsey Clark witnessed as a young man the Nuremberg trials following World War II. Clark would go on to graduate from the University of Chicago law school and become Attorney General of the United States under the administration of Lyndon Johnson. Clark worked tirelessly throughout his career as an outspoken Civil Rights attorney advocating for many prominent activists and political dissidents. After the 1971 Attica Prison debacle Clark replaced William Kunstler as Splitting the Sky's legal advocate. STS's charges were acquitted as a result of Clark's relentless advocacy.
Clark took his human rights advocacy from the domestic realm to the international arena when he made a provocative visit to North Vietnam in 1972 as a protest against the illegal bombing of Hanoi by the US military. Clark's pro-human rights and anti-war stances led him to become the attorney for a number of political nemeses of the military-industrial-complex. Clark's clients included American Indian prisoner Leonard Peltier, members of the PLO, Camilo Mejia the US soldier who deserted his post in March 2004 in protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq, Slobodan Milosevic former president of Serbia, and Saddam Hussein former president of Iraq, to name a few. Clark has been particularly critical of those seeking to impose “victors justice” upon the vanquished opponents of Anglo-American expansionism. Of the “trial” of Saddam Hussein he stated: “it failed to respect basic human rights and was illegal because it was formed as a consequence of the United States' illegal invasion,” going on to call for an “absolutely fair” trial for the deposed Iraqi leader.4
In recent history, Clark was unflinching in his attempts to have George W. Bush impeached. In 2002, Clark founded “VoteToImpeach” an organization whose ostensible goal was to see members of the Bush administration brought before a court of law for their misdeeds. The Independent reported: “Clark said there is a website, www.votetoimpeach.org, dedicated to collecting signatures of U.S. Citizens who want President George W. Bush impeached, and that approximately 150,000 have signed to impeach.”5 Clark also helped found the protest organization A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).
On April 3, 2010 Clark was elected at a meeting of over 150 lawyers, legal scholars and human rights campaigners, to be the chairperson of a new international campaign to investigate the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Bush regime. Global Research reported: “Ramsey Clark emphasized that it is the imperative responsibility of the American people to relentlessly pursue this investigation, and to seek prosecution and indictment inside of the United States...Ramsey Clark made the point that all the war crimes and crimes against humanity flow from the commission of the most supreme crimes which he identified as the Crimes against Peace. This was the finding at the Nuremberg trial, and it is enshrined in the Nuremberg Principles.”6 Clark's reference to precedents set at Nuremberg, a German city once infamous for its right-wing extremism, encourages those of us who would like to see Calgary's image in the world evolve from one of Harperite cowboys and vulture-capitalists into a city where law enforcement agencies set precedents in human rights jurisprudence and international law with the support of the polity's residents. Perhaps such a paradigm shift would ignite a necessary atonement for the state-endorsed despoliation of the Indigenous Peoples of the region's ancestral resources, lands and waters which has been unpardonably gifted to mainly Texas-based oil and gas conglomerates.
How Judge Manfred Delong will be influenced by Clark's arrival in Calgary is yet to be seen. Will Judge Delong compound the Culture of Impunity afforded to credibly accused war criminals emanating from Anglo-America - which the Harper-minority government and their equivalents around the world have supported - by “setting an example” and sentencing STS to spend two-more years of his life behind bars and burdening him with a fine of up to $5000? Or will he realize the broader implications of this trial and dismiss the case before the court that STS “obstructed a police officer”?
The more citizens who mobilize in solidarity with STS the less able the state and their media accomplices will be to sweep the profound juridical questions being raised by STS, Clark and others, under the carpet. The proceedings are as follows:
Ramsey Clark arrives in Calgary, June 6, 2010. He will speak at the University of Calgary, Murray Fraser Hall Room 164, 4pm – 6.30pm.
The sentencing of Splitting the Sky commences on June 7, 2010 at the Calgary Courts Centre.

1Vincent Bugliosi, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” 2008. excerpt quoted: http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/excerpt3p1.php

2Anthony Hall, “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta to be Tried for International Crimes?” Voltairenet. March 9, 2009. http://www.voltairenet.org/article159233.html and Gail Davidson, “Barring Bush From Canada: Time for the Law to Step in.” Global Research.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15733

3Anthony Hall, “Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky.” Global Research.ca. March 14, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18115

4“Chaos Mars Saddam Court Hearing.” BBC News. Monday, 5 December 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4498102.stm

5 Josh Davidson, “Ramsey Clark Speaks Out Against War at College.” The Independent. March 19, 2003. http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2003-03-19/Front_page/013.html
6“Ramsey Clark Chosen to Head Commission to Investigate Bush Crimes.” Global Research.ca. April 14, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18610

Monday, May 17, 2010

Should I run for Congress?

Debating pro-war, pro-bankster-bailout Rep. Ron Kind in 2008

Yes, I'm asking YOU: Should I run for Congress?

Pro: We need truth-tellers like tomorrow's radio guest  Sander Hicks, NY Senate candidate to run for national office. My wife and family are  on board and enthusiastic this time. I could coordinate my campaign with Eric Sayward, who is running in District 3 as an independent; we could do a series of "debates" around the district bashing the New World Order bankster dictatorship and calling for a peaceful uprising.

Con: "Standing for Congress" requires a lot of standing, and I was recently diagnosed with end-stage osteoarthritis of both hips, presumably from Lyme disease. I can't be out there collecting the number of signatures I'll need (roughly 1500) so I'd have to pay signature gatherers. Also, maybe it would be better to just let Eric be the one anti-NWO candidate this time.

What do you think? Should I run?  If so, which issues should I emphasize? Please list the issues you'd like to see me run on in order of their importance. Here is a  list of issues from my 2008 campaign. (Note that this time my position on national health care is aligned with the Libertarians: I'm against Obamacare.)

Check out media highlights from my 2008 campaign here and here.

You can leave your feedback as a comment on this blog post, or email me at kbarrett[AT)merr(DOT]com

If you want to pledge to contribute [insert amount of money here] in the event I do decide to run, that would be "louder than words" as the Loose Change guys put it.

Thanks for your feedback!

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

PS Here's the latest example of the kind of stuff I can push into the mainstream if I do run:
Kevin Barrett: Psychological warfare campaign rages under the radar

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Nakba Day event in Beirut: Palestinian refugee kids set world's kafiyeh record

Last night's Nakba Day radio special with Franklin Lamb and Gordon Duff is already going viral. (Radiodujour.com, the "best of alternative radio" channel, picked it up within minutes.) Complete show archive: http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-051510.mp3

Note: "194" is the U.N. Resolution enshrining the Palestinian right of return.


From Debbie Menon, MyCatbirdSeat.com

Franklin does not write the best satire I have ever read, and he ought to stick to reporting and scholarly analysis, but he captures very well in this story, the British "away from home" character of "Jack" who, along with so many of his like insular brothers, should stay at home where no one can see them and they are unnoticeable among all the rest of the ignoramuses and self-inflated stuffed shirts and stiff upper lipped like him.

-- Debbie 

Franklin Lamb to Debbie Menon:

Dearest Debbie,

You asked about Nakba day in Beirut.  Well, the Guinness  Book of Records outfit showed up. It was not the largest bikini parade, or the largest chocolate sculpture, or some Scottish  Bulldog  leading a  group of  1000+ costumed dogs through a “Bark in the Park” event, or  the longest catwalk of naked Brazilian virgin  models, or the most people in a phone booth doing the hula hoop, or  even the fastest speed car race with blindfolded drivers. No.

But by God chicken it was a sight to behold!

The photos below will give you an idea of how the camp kids here broke the all time, world, repeat WORLD  undisputed ( old record held by Spain was a sickly 2000)! Record for the greatest number (6,500!) Palestinian kafiyeh exhibition layed side by side in formation i.e. "194!".

These photos show the ”194” collection from cite sportiff (covering another burial site from 1982 and other times!), the thirsty and lonely  Guinness team from England,  crowded media and officials and a performing troupe of  Palestinian youngsters.  Plus Jack the Adjudicator—a good if very serious guy.

I hope Jack  is very well this morning!

Please note Jack Blackbank, the stiff upper lipped guy pictured in suit and tie and counting the 6,500 !! Kaffeyeh’s  and I think he said he was the  assistant lead Guinness Association’s  “adjudicator of World records.” A serious job.

Jack was impressed with what he recorded  but he wasn’t sure if he could get his superiors to accept a World Record for “Palestinians trying to visit Israel—( as in tourists of some sort he seemed to imagine!) "Is that what all these people want to do" ? he asked with a gaped jaw.”

When he was finished hearing my long explanation of the 1948  Nakba and  introducing him  to a few people from Shatila and Burj who vividly recall walking into Lebanon in May of ’48 Jack  became ashen…depressed he seemed to me.... and  after counting and filling at least a dozen official forms as some middle schoolers serenaded him with “ Biladi, my Biladi”  he asked me:   “ Mate,  it's been a f------ long day.. me and my team need a pint or two  and a woman”, just show us which direction ok?” 

After inquiring  if he meant one woman total or one each, Debbie ( you know dear how the devil is in the details). Of course I have no idea how to find either in this country  right? ... since I  basically  lay low and  stay in my rabbit hole doing my stuff  but I did arrange a taxi outside cite sportive next to Shatila Camp for Jack & Co, Ltd.

I asked the taxi driver if he would be kind enough to deposit his British ( as in Balfour Declaration)  group outside the Fadallah Hussaineyeh  Mosque in Haret Hreik and  never mind that they left their passports  at their hotel in East Beirut. I told the Adjudicator to ask the first three young guys with beards and  black caps and AK 47's he saw for help with both needs.

As you may know the last person who tried to sell alcohol in Dahieyh was quartered in about 1980 or so.  

I just hope the British Embassy was of more use to these blokes when hez busted them,  than the US Embassy is in getting their citizens out of a jam.

Anyhow, Jack's not in the local news so far as I  know.  I gave him my card in case we at the SSF  or PCRC could be of further assistance in any way.



 Guiness World Record Ajudicator counting kafiyehs.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Incendiary Nakba Day show: going boldly where truthers have rarely gone before

Many truthers are reluctant to face the evidence linking the Israeli Mossad and its American enablers to 9/11. And most don't know enough about the historical context of the destabilizing logic of Zionism to understand that Zionists control US Middle East policy (which 9/11 was, by other means) as well as Congress, the media, and much of organized crime and high finance, to the extent that those are separate categories. Even the good folks at the New York City Ballot Initiative aren't talking much about 9/11 criminal Larry Silverstein and cover-up judge Alvin Hellerstein not only having rhyming names, but being part of the same Zionist crime syndicate.

Today's Nakba Day show with Franklin Lamb and Gordon Duff is a must-listen for anyone who realizes that the 9/11 truth and Palestine liberation movements are two sides of the same truth movement...and even more of a must-listen for those who don't. You can listen to the second hour with Gordon Duff here; the first hour will soon be archived here.

Meanwhile, don't miss Gordon Duff's brand-new article  ASSASSINATION IN DUBAI,  ISRAELI’S WARNING TO THE WORLD, and the days-old one Times Square Bombing Part of CIA False Flag Against Pakistan.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Nakba Day special edition!

Tomorrow, Saturday, May 15th, is Nakba Day, marking the commemoration of the Palestinian holocaust. In honor of the occasion I am re-posting a couple of old favorites. Also, don't miss tomorrow's incendiary Nakba Special Edition radio show! -KB

Hamas Rescinds Nakba-Denial Law

(Gaza City - UPI) The democratically-elected government of Palestine, Hamas, has rescinded its new law making Nakba-denial a crime, citing fears that hundreds of millions of Americans and Europeans would be deported to Palestine for trial if the law remained on the books. (complete story: http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/hamas-rescinds-nakba-denial-law.html)

It's no joke! Israel criminalizes observation of Nakba

My satire, unfortunately, was not as outrageous as reality. Just a few days ago, the Israeli Knesset passed a law criminalizing observation of the Nakba! Not only have the Zionists made it illegal for anyone in Europe to doubt their version of their holocaust, they have now made it illegal for anyone in Israel, including the 20% who are Arabs and lost families in the Nakba, to publicly notice the holocaust on which the apartheid Jews-only state was built! (complete story: http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-no-joke-israel-criminalizes.html)

Saturday, May 8, 2010

A generals' revolt against Zionist domination of US policy?

Is the top US brass getting tired of working for the IDF?

Tonight's radio guest*, Religious Studies professor Ira Chernus, just published an article entitled Blood or Treasure: Obama's Crucial Choice in the Middle East. The article begins: "Writing about U.S. Middle East policy used to be a boring job. You'd start out with 'The U.S. supports Israel's stand on...' and then just fill in the details. No longer. Many pundits claim to smell the winds of policy change blowing from the White House."

Why the change? Admitting that there is little hard information, just "a riot of rumors," Chernus suggests that a "new message from the military elite" is pushing the Obama administration to confront the Zionists. According to Chernus, such top US military leaders as Gen. Petraeus are drawing a line in the sand between America's interests and Israel's interests.

Next week's radio guest** Gordon Duff, suggests that the source of this generals' revolt is the rapidly spreading knowledge among the US military elite that 9/11 was a Zionist false-flag operation. Duff, editor of Veterans' Today and self-styled key source for leaks from high-level US military figures, told me last week that more and more US officers are aware of and unhappy about Israel's 9/11 false-flag attack on America and continuing Mossad sponsorship of such follow-up false-flag events as the underwear bombing escapade. He added that Obama has sided with the generals against the Israelis, who, he says, are trying to cover their 9/11 tracks through a "flight forward" into a wider Mideast war, presumably one ignited by another big false-flag attack on America. (Duff's prediction of an immanent false-flag event was quickly followed by the Times Square episode, another pathetic "bomb that couldn't possibly blow up" song-and-dance presumably sponsored by the usual suspects.)

Duff suggests Obama and the newly 9/11-savvy military leaders are up against near-complete Zionist control of Congress and the media.

Is Duff right about 9/11 truth being the key factor turning the generals, and with them the Obama Administration, against the Zionist regime of 9/11 suspect Benjamin Netanyahu? Listen to my interviews with Chernus tonight, and Duff next week, then decide for yourself.

* * *

* Truth Jihad Radio tonight, Saturday, May 8th 5-7 pm Central on AmericanFreedomRadio

** Truth Jihad Radio Saturday, 15th, Nakba Day, 5-7 pm Central on AmericanFreedomRadio

Friday, May 7, 2010

Got Cognitive Diversity? Take the Barrett-Sunstein "Crippled Epistemology Quiz" !

How Crippled is YOUR Epistemology?

In 2008 Harvard professor Cass Sunstein "co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-'independent' advocates to 'cognitively infiltrate' online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems 'false conspiracy theories' about the Government" (Greenwald). Sunstein's main target: 9/11 "conspiracy theories."

Sunstein, who has not responded to my request for an interview, argues that by undermining 9/11 truth groups through cointelpro-style infiltration, or even banning "conspiracy theories" altogether, the government would be doing the "conspiracy theorists" a favor, by helping heal their "crippled epistemology" by providing them with much-needed "cognitive diversity."

Wait a minute, Cass...just what do you mean by "crippled epistemology" ?

Take NIST's WTC-7 report...please. Now THAT is crippled epistemology! Setting out to explain the "collapse" of WTC-7 while refusing to consider the most likely hypothesis -- controlled demolition -- is like cutting off both legs before learning to walk.

So "crippled epistemology" means believing just about any damned thing, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it fits your preconceived worldview (or the demands of your paymasters)...and rejecting any new information, no matter how well-supported, if it doesn't. Another word for this is "confirmation bias."

Let's face it--all of us suffer to some degree from confirmation bias. And those of us in the 9/11 truth community, having learned just how deep the rabbit hole goes, sometimes have a hard time distinguishing satire from reality.

To find out whether YOUR epistemology is crippled or healthy, take the Barrett-Sunstein Crippled Epistemology Quiz!

Barrett-Sunstein Crippled Epistemology Quiz

1. Which of the following articles about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an actual news report, and which one is satire?

A) Ahmadinejad plugs Truth Jihad 

B) Ahmadinejad: 'Osama bin Laden is living in Washington'

2. Which of the following articles is an actual news report about Sen. Joe Lieberman, and which one is satire?

A) Joe Lieberman introducing bill to strip suspected terrorists' citizenship 

B) Lieberman's "draft Americans for Israel" bill

3. Which of the following two articles on Goldman-Sachs shorting the Gulf of Mexico was intended as satire and which one was serious?

Goldman Sachs Reveals it Shorted Gulf of Mexico

No joke: Goldman Sachs shorted Gulf of Mexico

4. After reading them both, do you think Goldman-Sachs shorted the Gulf of Mexico?

A) Definitely - I'd bet the farm on it.
B) Quite possibly - I wouldn't put anything past them, and there seems to be some evidence for it.
C) I doubt it, but who knows?
D) Of course not! That's just a crazy conspiracy theory!

Feel free to submit your answers as comments on this blog, or by emailing me at kbarrett(AT]merr.com.

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Lieberman's "draft Americans for Israel" bill

"Eliminate the Middleman" proposal gains support on Capitol Hill

On the heels of his proposal to strip U.S. citizenship from Americans who oppose Israel and Zionism, Sen. Joe Lieberman has introduced a new bill to re-introduce the draft. Unlike other conscription bills, however, Lieberman's would draft Americans directly into the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) rather than  its proxy, the US Armed Forces.

Lieberman's bill, S-2211, states that in the event of an (Israeli) "national emergency," the Prime Minister would authorize the IDF to begin directly drafting Americans who have registered with US Selective Service.

At a press conference Thursday, Lieberman claimed his bill would "eliminate the middleman" and strengthen anti-terrorism efforts. "The bill I introduced a few days ago, which strips US citizenship from those who belong to organizations defined as 'terrorist' because they oppose Israel, does not go far enough. Even though the US has invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel, invaded Afghanistan to secure pipeline routes for the Israeli-owned gas of Turkmenistan, and invaded Pakistan to destabilize it and eliminate the Islamic bomb's threat to Israel, it remains a possibility that Israel will some day be forced to fight for its own survival -- whether by driving the Arabs across the Jordan, or by taking on Iran," Lieberman said. "If and when that day comes, obviously we will need Americans, not Israelis, to be in the front lines."

AIPAC, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, endorsed Lieberman's proposal, but said it did not go far enough. According to AIPAC Director Marvin Feuer, "(The Lieberman bill) is better than nothing, but what we really need is to start drafting Americans into the IDF immediately." An Israeli lobby spokesman explained on condition of anonymity: "Sure it's wonderful that the goyim, who make up 99.8% of the US military, are dying for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. So why shouldn't the IDF itself also be 99.8% Jew-free? Since we lost six million in the Holocaust, why should we have to spill any more precious Jewish blood? Anyone who opposes this (draft Americans for Israel) proposal is obviously a Nazi anti-Semite and probably a conspiracy theorist as well."

Philip Zelikow, author of the 9/11 Commission Report, added: "9/11 was intended to 'seal in blood' the special relationship between the US and Israel, and this bill continues that effort. It will go a long way toward protecting us against the threat that dare not speak its name. Oops! I think I just spoke it."

Opposition to the bill was muted, as the two Congressional Representatives who failed to sign on as co-sponsors were  discovered hiding under their desks, blubbering fearfully but unintelligibly about "the Lobby" coming after them.

The 5,425 American servicemen who have already died for Israel in the 9/11 wars could not be reached for comment.

A bold new idea from "Traitor Joe" is on the fast-track to success!

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

US Senator Barbara Boxer: Wellstone assassination was "a warning"

The good guy is dead, while the treasonous, cowardly scum live on.
Left to right, Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). 

* * *

by Kevin Barrett, TruthJihad.com
Tuesday 5/4/2010

Scholar-activist Four Arrows, co-author of American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone, today revealed for the first time a reported conversation in which U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) confirmed that the Wellstone plane crash was an assassination, not an accident.

As Four Arrows recounted on today's edition of The Kevin Barrett Show (beginning somewhere around the 20 minute mark): a trusted friend of his, during a conversation with Sen. Boxer, was surprised when the Senator asked "are you a friend of Four Arrows?" The friend said yes. Boxer said "tell him he doesn't know how right he is. (The Wellstone assassination) was meant as a warning to all of us." Sen. Boxer went on to say that if asked, she would deny the statement.

Sen. Boxer, who other sources report has confidentially admitted that she knows 9/11 was an inside job, has publicly confirmed that she does not trust the 9/11 Commission version of events, specifically the official narrative of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. The following exchange took place between Senator Boxer and myself on Wisconsin Public Radio's program "Conversations with Kathleen Dunn" on December 5th, 2005 (click here for archive -- note that the text below is a summary, not a transcript):

Barrett: Senator Boxer, I’d like to thank you and Senator Feingold for hanging in there after 9/11...(Boxer: “You’re welcome.”) Now as you may know, Congressman Kurt Weldon has been screaming from the rooftops that we need a new 9/11 Able Danger investigation focusing on what US intelligence agencies knew about Mohammad Atta and when they knew it. Newsweek and other mainstream publications have written that Mohammad Atta was trained at the Foreign Officer’s school Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. And Daniel Hopsicker’s book Welcome to Terrorland makes it clear that Hoffman Aviation in Venice Florida, where the so-called hijackers trained, was actually a CIA drug import facility—it was a flight school in name only. Now Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer has blown the whistle—he says he and his colleagues in military intelligence identified Atta as a terrorist in 2000, but they were gagged and ordered to “forget they had ever heard of Atta.” Are you among the 245 senators and representatives who have signed Congressman Weldon’s letter demanding a Congressional investigation into what US authorities knew about Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Senator Boxer: That isn’t what the 9/11 Commission Report said—but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I haven’t seen Congressman Weldon’s letter yet, but...we need to pursue the truth about 9/11 wherever it leads. The truth should be the only priority. And we need the truth. My main focus now, though, is to end the war in Iraq.

According to Four Arrows, Sen. Boxer and other high-visibility people know that if they cross certain lines, they and/or their families will be assassinated. He offered this as a possible explanation of the reluctance of various well-known people, including Noam Chomsky, to speak the truth about 9/11.

Near the end of the show, Four Arrows suggested a "white armband" campaign for the 10th anniversary of 9/11, proposing that on that day, all those who do not believe the official version of events should wear a white handkerchief tied around their arm. 

Listen to my interview with Four Arrows by visiting the Kevin Barrett Show archives and clicking on the link for the Tuesday, May 4th show. (You'll have to mute the live stream first.) More information on the show, including links to Four Arrows' work, here.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Game-changers: Why "conspiracy" issues matter most

by Kevin Barrett, truthjihad.com

In his lecture "Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11," David Ray Griffin quickly proves that the war is both illegal and unjustified by 9/11, regardless of whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. He then spends the majority of his lecture demonstrating that 9/11 was in fact an inside job. Why?

Griffin explains that the dominant public perception of the war in Afghanistan, which excuses or overlooks that war's illegality, depends on the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) of 9/11. President Obama knows this. As Jason Leopold wrote of Obama's escalation speech: "The commander-in-chief repeatedly invoked 9/11, attempting to justify his plan to escalate the eight-year-old war, which calls for the rapid deployment of 30,000 additional US troops to the region by next summer."

As Obama himself put it: "We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more."

Despite 9/11 being the only thing keeping us in Afghanistan, Noam Chomsky argues in so many words that it doesn't really matter whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, and that those who focus on this issue are undermining the antiwar movement. He uses the same "doesn't really matter" argument about political assassinations, such as those of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, and Paul Wellstone.

Chomsky is wrong, and Griffin is right. It does matter. Here's why.

The really BIG issues, the ones that get tarred with the dreaded "conspiracy" label, are the game-changers. They're the crimes the ruling elite will never be able to explain away...the crimes that, if they are exposed, will destroy that elite's stranglehold on power.

Chomsky may be right in his claim that the murder of millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, Indonesians, and so on are vastly greater crimes than the murder of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11...or of one American president on 11/22/63. But the former crimes are relatively easy for the criminals to explain away to the satisfaction of most of the American public. Vietnam? Sure it was awful, but we had to stop Communism...or at least we thought we did. Same with Indonesia. And even though there were no WMDs in Iraq, and things have gone very wrong there, well, Saddam really WAS a bad guy. The Taliban violates women's rights. In any case, we're just killing foreigners, as one always does in war. It's the way of the world. C'est la vie.

But once the American public knows that CIA-Mossad (or is it Mossad-CIA) killed Kennedy and the others, blew up the World Trade Center, bombed the Pentagon, and so on...the jig is up.  As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon in December,  1992,  "If the American people knew what we had done,  they would chase us down the street and lynch us."

"Conspiracy" issues--the real ones, the ones that are demonstrably true--are the game-changers. That's why they are suppressed in the first place, by psychological warfare operatives brandishing the "conspiracy" label.

Is Chomsky one such psychological warfare operative? That's what Barry Zwicker suggests in his book chapter "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left."  Besides leading THE critical segment of the American public -- the educated left -- away from the game-changers discussed above, Chomsky also works overtime against all potential game-changers in the Israeli-Palestine conflict: Exposure of the treasonous Zionist fifth column that owns Congress and the media, showing that Israel is not and never has been a legitimate state, using the term apartheid to refer to Israel (a comparison that is unfair to South African apartheid), calling for an end to the Jewish regime in Palestine, and demanding  boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) are some of the key game-changers that Chomsky seems to want to suppress.

Based on my own correspondence with him, I am convinced that Chomsky is either a psychological warfare operative or a madman. Last week's radio guest Jeff Blankfort also seems to lean in that direction. Tomorrow's guest, Four Arrows, disagrees. Tune in tomorrow, Tuesday, May 4th, 11 a.m. Central, NoLiesRadio.org to find out why.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

David Ray Griffin: Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?

Watch the video :http://edwardrynearson.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/is-the-war-in-afghanistan-justified-by-911/

Fifteen-city lecture tour schedule: http://www.ts911t.org/DavidRayGriffinAprilMay2010TourInfo.html

My discussion with tour organizer Matt Naus and several local event organizers, broadcast last night on Truth Jihad Radio: http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html 

Canada: 9/11 Truth Storm in Mainstream Media: http://www.911blogger.com/news/2010-05-01/canada-911-truth-storm-mainstream-media

* * *

Another great lecture by the Dean of 9/11 studies, author of eight books on 9/11 and two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee! A huge thank-you to Matt Naus, who spearheaded this fifteen-stop tour, and to all the other local organizers who made it happen.

I enjoyed introducing David in Milwaukee and chatting with him afterward. He said that while he used to prefer doing radio interviews over the phone, he has come to enjoy lecture tours "because I meet so many wonderful people." That's what my wife also noticed during our Northern California book tour: 9/11 truth supporters are self-selected for intelligence, moral qualities, outside-the-box creativity, and spiritual depth. If you want to meet the best people from any given location, just get in touch with the truthers.

For more information on David Ray Griffin, visit DavidRayGriffin.com

Saturday, May 1, 2010

al-Aulaqi is right: Jihad is obligatory -- not just for Muslims, but for all Americans

Bimillah ar-rahman ar-raheem,

According to the article linked above, Muslim cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi has been quoted as saying: "I have come to the conclusion that jihad against America is a duty for me, as for every Muslim who can do it." Just for having allegedly expressed such sentiments, al-Aulaqi, a US citizen, has been put on a CIA hit list. There is not a shred of evidence that he has ever committed a crime. Simply because he is an eloquent Muslim leader speaking the truth about the criminal Zio-American war on Islam, and Muslims' religious obligation to resist it, the war criminals want to kill him.

By putting out a hit on al-Aulaqi, a US citizen, the war criminals have murdered our Constitution, which clearly states that no-one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and enshrines the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers under a presumption of innocence.  Since the misprision of treason law requires us to report evidence of treason to the relevant authorities, you are obliged to report the CIA and the Obama Administration as traitors for this flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights. If they cannot be brought to justice due to being protected by other traitors, it is your duty to use any means necessary to restore the Constitution. That includes, of course, armed struggle -- which was how we got the Constitution in the first place. 

It is therefore the duty of all Muslims AND all Americans to use any means necessary, up to and including armed struggle, against the murderous Zionist-puppet regime that seized power in the 9/11 coup d'etat, overthrew the Constitution, and declared war on Islam. 

This is my opinion as an informed American citizen, a Muslim, and an Islamic Studies scholar.  It explains why I am waging a truth jihad fi sabili Llah on behalf of Islam, the world's Muslims, international law, the U.S. Constitution, and the future of humanity. (I am not a traditional Islamic scholar, and would be interested to hear from Islamic scholars who feel that resisting the current war on Islam is not obligatory.)

If you don't like my opinion, or al-Aulaqi's, you are free to disagree -- whether by leaving a comment, or by targeting me with a killer drone--the ultimate coward's weapon.

Got that, traitors and war criminals? If you want to kill al-Aulaqi, you're going to have to go through me.