*0=>>>>New Old Ways<<<<=0*

John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties
By John Berlau
July 26, 2004

The Man from Beacon Hill's "New War" on the Constitution

For John Kerry, the specter of Attorney General John Ashcroft trashing Americans' civil liberties has been a useful campaign prop. In campaign stops, Kerry has promised to "end the era of John Ashcroft and renew our faith in the Constitution." In a Kerry administration, he promised the liberal group MoveOn in June 2003, "there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights." In his 2004 campaign book, A Call to Service, Kerry accuses Ashcroft and the Bush administration of "relying far too much on extraordinary police powers."

In contrast, Kerry positions himself as a civil libertarian—or at least as a proponent of a reasonable balance between liberty and security. "If we are to stand as the world's role model for freedom, we need to remain vigilant about our own civil liberties," Kerry writes in A Call to Service. He calls for "rededicating ourselves to protecting civil liberties."

Kerry, like every other senator in the chamber except Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11. Now he is now co-sponsoring the SAFE Act, a bipartisan measure that restricts some of the powers that the PATRIOT Act granted the government. Furthermore, he is critical of the package of proposals from Ashcroft's Department of Justice (DOJ) that has been dubbed Patriot II. Citing his experience as a prosecutor—he was an assistant district attorney in suburban Boston in the '70s—Kerry writes, "I know there's a big difference between giving the government the resources and commonsense leeway it needs to track a tough and devious foe and giving in to the temptation of taking shortcuts that will sacrifice liberties cheaply without significantly enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement. Patriot II threatens to cross that line—and to a serious degree."

This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.

But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.

In the meantime, the Clinton administration classified virtually all encryption devices as "munitions" that were banned from export, putting American business at a disadvantage. In 1997 Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain pushed the Secure Public Networks Act through his committee. This bill would have codified the administration's export ban and started a key escrow system. One of his original co-sponsors was his fellow Vietnam vet and good friend from across the aisle, John Kerry.

Proponents such as McCain and Kerry claimed that law enforcement could not get the key from any third-party agency without a court order. Critics responded that there were loopholes in the law, that it opened the door to abuses, and that it punished a technology rather than wrongdoers who used that technology. Some opponents argued that the idea was equivalent to giving the government an electronic key to everyone's home. "To date, we have heard a great deal about the needs of law enforcement and not enough about the privacy needs of the rest of us," said then-Sen. Ashcroft in a 1997 speech to the Computer and Communications Industry Association. "While we need to revise our laws to reflect the digital age, one thing that does not need revision is the Fourth Amendment... Now, more than ever, we must protect citizens' privacy from the excesses of an arrogant, overly powerful government."

But John Kerry would have none of this. He had just written The New War, a book about the threat of transnational criminal organizations, and he was singing a different tune on civil liberties. Responding directly to a column in Wired on encryption that said "trusting the government with your privacy is like having a Peeping Tom install your window blinds," Kerry invoked the Americans killed in 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. "[O]ne would be hard-pressed," he wrote, "to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one." Change a few words, and the passage could easily fit into Attorney General Ashcroft's infamous speech to the Senate Judiciary Committee in late 2001—the one where he declared, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberties, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists—for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

If Ashcroft was encryption advocates' go-to guy on the GOP side in the encryption debate, Kerry played that role for law enforcement among the Democrats. "John Kerry was always a pretty strong proponent of law enforcement and the military, and the NSA was not terribly crypto-friendly, and the FBI was extremely uncrypto-friendly," says Will Rodger, who covered the encryption debate for USA Today and is now public policy director at the Computer and Communications Industry Association. "John Kerry's support for limiting encryption wasn't a real shock to most people who had followed his voting record."

Eventually, the strength of the business and civil liberties opposition—plus the sheer impossibility of keeping up with encryption technology—led the Clinton administration and Kerry to accept relaxed encryption controls. Today it seems laughable that software would ever have been labeled as "munitions"; even Ashcroft's DOJ did not try to include a key escrow system in the PATRIOT Act.

"Get Their Ass and Get Their Assets"

The Bush administration is not likely to point out Kerry's position in favor of encryption control, because it is trying to paint him as soft on crime and terrorism. Kerry does hold many traditionally liberal views on crime, including a consistent opposition to the death penalty. But encryption was just one of many issues in Kerry's Senate career where he and civil libertarians were on opposite sides. And while Kerry is in some respects singing a different tune today on civil liberties, he has never walked away from his statements in The New War. In fact, he displays the book in an ad that began running in late June as evidence that he authored an antiterrorism strategy way back in the late '90s.

Although the encryption fight appears to be over, similar battles are being fought today. For instance, as with encryption, the FBI now wants preemptive design mandates so it can have an automatic mechanism to tap into Voice over Internet Protocol, the fledgling technology that allows people to make phone calls online. Once again, law enforcement wants tech firms to build a "back door" for the police. Wayne Crews, director of technology studies at the pro-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that Kerry has been silent on the FBI's efforts. "The only thing I've heard from Kerry on technology regulation is continued investment from the federal government," Crews says.

This isn't the only issue that could be worrisome for civil libertarians, given Kerry's record in the '90s. In general, whenever the ACLU was aligned with business interests, Kerry took the side of law enforcement against what he called "big money."

An example is the fight over asset forfeiture. In the 1980s war on drugs, the laws were stretched so that property that had been used for criminal purposes could be seized by law enforcement even if the owner of that property was innocent. If a drug dealer rode in your car or your airplane, for example, it was subject to seizure, and you would have to sue to get it back by proving you had no knowledge that a dealer had used it for illicit purposes. This was the case even if you had never been charged with any crime. The resale of impounded property became a source of revenue—and corruption—for local police departments. Even in cases where there were actual criminal convictions, governments would often seize assets that were not related to the crime or to compensating victims.

In the mid-1990s, a bipartisan movement arose to reform the forfeiture laws, with conservative Republican Reps. Henry Hyde of Illinois and Bob Barr of Georgia joining with such liberal Democrats as Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. They wanted to increase the burden of proof on the government when it seized property. As with encryption, there was stiff opposition to reform from Janet Reno's Justice Department.

What was Kerry's position? He thought U.S. asset forfeiture laws were working so well that he wanted to export them. "We absolutely must push for asset forfeiture laws all over the planet," Kerry wrote in The New War. "In the words of one plainspoken lawman, 'Get their ass and get their assets.'" There was, tellingly, no discussion at all of civil liberties issues.

Kerry added that we can't reasonably expect another country "to assist us in our struggle with crime if it does not see direct benefit for itself, especially if it is among the countries with highly limited funds for law enforcement." It didn't seem to occur to Kerry that, without safeguards, countries "with highly limited funds" might go after the assets of innocent people or third parties with only a tangential relationship to the criminal. Indeed, the only "dark and dangerous underside" of international forfeiture he identified was the possibility that criminals would give up assets in exchange for avoiding jail sentences. "We must ensure that asset forfeitures do not become a substitute for serving time," he wrote. (In 2000, after being watered down by the Reno Justice Department, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act passed the Senate by a voice vote and was signed into law by Clinton. Kerry did not object on the Senate floor; neither did Sen. Ashcroft.)

Even a semi-sympathetic review in the liberal Washington Monthly called The New War "a kind of international edition of Reefer Madness," referring to the notoriously overwrought anti-drug movie of the 1930s. Kerry is a drug warrior, and after having discovered some genuine instances of bad guys' stashing their money at the $23 billion Bank of Credit and Commerce International, an international financial institution that was shut down in 1991 by various countries' bank regulators, he became a crusader against banks holding "dirty money." (BCCI had dealings with drug lords, Saddam Hussein, the PLO, and the KGB.) While it may be too much to ask a major-party presidential candidate to ponder drug prohibition's contribution to dirty money, Kerry's solution to money laundering was—and is—to deputize banks and force them to spy on all their customers.

Many on the left and right worried about overreach from the federal "Know Your Customer" regulations of 1997-98, which would have required banks to monitor every customer's "normal and expected transactions." Those proposed rules were eventually withdrawn after the ACLU, the Libertarian Party, and other groups generated more than 100,000 comments in opposition. But from his writings and statements, John Kerry seemed worried that the regulations did not go far enough. "If the standards by which banks accept money were lived up to with the same diligence as that by which most banks lend money, the 'know your customer' maxim would have teeth," he wrote in The New War. "But too many bankers pretend they are doing all they can to know what money crosses their threshold and pretend they are not as key as they are to law-enforcement efforts."

Kerry then expressed his belief that bank customers are entitled to essentially zero privacy. "The technology is already available to monitor all electronic money transfers," he wrote (emphasis added). "We need the will to make sure it is put in place."

Has a politician who seven years ago proposed all electronic transfers be monitored changed his views on civil liberties? Officials from Kerry's Senate office and presidential campaign promised to have someone answer questions about his civil liberties positions, but no one ever had. A close look at his campaign's statements on the PATRIOT Act, however, reveals that there is less to his opposition than meets the eye.

As noted above, Kerry is cosponsoring the SAFE Act, which would limit the circumstances under which "sneak- and-peek" warrants can be issued under the PATRIOT Act. (PATRIOT broadened the government's power to conduct such searches, in which the person whose property is examined is not notified.) It also put more brakes on PATRIOT provisions that give the FBI the power to search records on individuals held by third parties—such as libraries, bookstores, and Internet service providers—and the power to require the third parties to keep silent about the search. But Kerry signed onto the SAFE Act only after his right flank was protected; the bill's original co-sponsors included conservative Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) as well as Feingold. More tellingly, Kerry's support is premised on what he calls Ashcroft's abuses of the PATRIOT Act, not on PATRIOT itself. "John Kerry stands by his vote for the Patriot Act," says a March 11 campaign statement. "You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcroft... The real problem with the Patriot Act is not the law, but the abuse of the law."

In fact, the "real problem" is the law's provisions, which would be troubling in any administration. Responding to Kerry's statement, Gregory T. Nojeim, associate director of the ACLU's Washington National Office, says, "People from the left to the right agree that John Ashcroft is no civil liberties angel, but the problems of sneak-and-peek warrants and an overbroad notion of what constitutes terrorism are dangerous in the hands of any attorney general." Nojeim observes that the definition of terrorism is so broad that it could cover groups practicing civil disobedience, such as the anti-abortion Operation Rescue.

Meanwhile, Kerry continues to support intrusive efforts to stamp out money laundering. His campaign statement points out that Kerry "authored most of the money laundering provisions" in PATRIOT. Those provisions were largely based on an old money laundering bill that Kerry had introduced and which was opposed by economic conservatives and the ACLU. Kerry and other Democrats insisted that the money laundering provisions be attached to the PATRIOT Act. An October 2001 Associated Press article quoted Kerry as accusing Republicans of trying to remove the provisions "by fiat." The article noted that Kerry "underlined the political influence of Texas bankers."

The money laundering provisions, which became Title III of the PATRIOT Act, are some of the most privacy-threatening aspects of the bill. (See "Show Us Your Money," November 2003.) They go beyond the "Know Your Customer" rules of the late 1990s, bringing real estate brokers, travel agents, auto dealers, and various other businesses under the rubric of "financial institutions" that must monitor their customers and file "suspicious activity reports" on deviations from customers' normal patterns.

It was the Title III money laundering provisions that the FBI used in the much-criticized Operation G-String, an investigation of a strip club owner in Las Vegas accused of bribing local officials. The case had nothing to do with terrorism. Tellingly, Kerry—whose provisions allowed it to happen—has not cited this operation as one of Ashcroft's abuses, even though other Democrats have.

We have been told repeatedly that the world has changed since 9/11. Indeed, that is the explanation many have offered for Ashcroft's change of heart on civil liberties. But what about a candidate who, well before 9/11, consistently advocated measures that would have eroded those liberties? Would he be more or less constrained in the middle of a war on terror? To raise the issue is to take Kerry's own advice from his new book—that we "remain vigilant about our own civil liberties."

John Berlau is a writer for Insight magazine.

None of Your Business!
By Rep. Ron Paul,MD

You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The
national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded
to quench the federal bureaucracy's ever-growing thirst to govern every
aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is
taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And
it's not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning
matters that simply are none of the government's business, including your
job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status,
your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.

The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for
instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you
drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have
trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with
highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine
the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this
information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork,
which is reason enough to oppose it.

Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking
politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to
$1,000 per question if they refuse!

I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for
this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that
perhaps the American people don't appreciate being threatened by Big
Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most
members of Congress either don't care about or actively support government
snooping into the private affairs of citizens.

One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by
race. When government tells us it wants information to "help" any given
group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical
characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from
government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The
census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by
encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting
each other for a share of the federal pie.

The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal
data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private
businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information
available from one source, but it's hardly the duty of taxpayers to
subsidize the cost of market research.

At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is
more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by
Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken
every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and
apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means
a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that
numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders
never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American
people.

More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll
over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is
patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental
American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information
demanded in the new survey is none of the government's business, and the
American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes
entrenched.

From awarelaw awarelaw@ix.netcom.com

American Genocide

by Steven Malik Shelton

15 July 2004



"Modern, state sponsored genocide is, perhaps, the least obvious

because it is always shrouded in patriotic covers and obscured with

nationalistic platitudes and slogans. The mass media of nations that

systematically erode the humanity of others, is usually engaged to

simplify the process and to reduce the targeted people into objects."



The year 2004 commemorates the horror of the wide scale genocide that

occurred in Rwanda a decade ago. During this carnage, it is estimated

that close to a million Tutsi were methodically butchered by their

Hutu neighbors and countrymen. The slaughter was carried out over a

few months, marking it with the infamous distinction of being,

perhaps, the most intense and accelerated genocide in modern history.

In contrast it took the Nazi's several years to kill 14 million

people, approximately half of them European Jews.

Sadly, the horrendous stain and stench of genocide did not begin or

end with the demonic killing spree in 1994 Rwanda, and if we are to

make an earnest effort to examine these tendencies, learn from them,

and ensure that they are less likely to occur again, we must study

the dynamics, the ideologies, and the practices of a land that has

long posed behind a facade of liberty, democracy, and justice. We

must remove the blinders and peer into its unique and sordid legacy

of racism, sexism, flagrant greed, and genocidal policies and

practices.

* * * * *

The calculated murder of millions of indigenous people for the core

purpose of amassing land, wealth, and resources, was initially

carried out under the command of Christopher Columbus. In a brazen

attempt to find an expedient route to India, Columbus and his crew

(lost and half-starved) landed on the large island of what is now

called Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Columbus was impressed with the natives generosity, good manners, and

compassion, yet instead of being inspired by these qualities he

considered them signs of weakness, childishness, and inferiority. He

soon demanded that the natives turn over to him all their gold. When

they were unable to satisfy him, they were given quotas and forced to

work. Those that failed to produce enough for their enslavers were

tortured in fiendish ways. One of the most common was to cut off the

limbs. Ward Churchhill, explains in his revealing book, `Indians are Us':

"The tribute system, instituted by the Governor sometime in 1495, was

a brutal way of fulfilling the Spanish lust for gold and acknowledging

Spanish distaste for labor. Every Taino over the age of fourteen had

to supply the rulers with a hawk's bell of gold every three months

(or in gold-deficient areas, twenty-five pounds of spun cotton);

those who did were given a token to wear around their necks as proof

that they had made their payment; those who did not were, as

(Columbus's brother, Fernando) says discreetly "punished"- by having

their hands cut off, and left to bleed to death."[1]

Christopher Columbus spearheaded a system of chattel slavery and

systematic extermination that resulted in the deaths of 8 million

natives, virtually killing off the entire population in 50 years.

Over the next few centuries, the European penchant for greed and

violence, culminated in the elimination of over a hundred million of

the indigenous people in the land that became known as South America.

Genocide in North America

There are few episodes in human history as sad or as shameless as the

calculated mass murder, displacement, and plunder that was

perpetuated against the indigenous population of North America.

Although not as extensive in terms of total numbers killed as in

South America, for sheer sneakiness, underhandedness and bold-faced

hypocrisy, there are few eras that could rival it.

It was, in fact, among the British colonizers of the North American

hemisphere that the first documented instance of biological warfare

occurred. Sir Jeffrey Amherst, (commander in chief of the British

forces) and the correspondence sent between him and a junior officer

indicate that a fiendish plan was hatched to intentionally infect the

native population with small pox virus. This was facilitated through

the procurement of infected blankets and handkerchiefs from army

hospitals and the distribution of them to the natives in what was

ostensibly a humanitarian gesture. On June 24, captain Ecuyer, of the

Royal American British Army recorded in his journal: "...We gave them

two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope

it will have the desired effect."[2]

To better ensure that it did have the desired result, the natives

were then directed to return to their villages so that they would

(predictably) be in the ideal position to infect other members of

their tribes and nations and the small pox (one of the most dangerous

and painful sicknesses imaginable) would spread like wild fire.

Newspapers and eyewitness accounts verify that it did, making one

question how much of the spread of "white mans diseases" among the so-

called Indians were really just accidental.

Starvation was another tactic utilized by the colonizers. In many

reservations and internment camps, the natives were simply isolated

on desolate lands and had food and clothing withheld from, or sold

away to the highest bidder by unscrupulous Indian agents or camp

commanders. Moreover, the purposeful and wasteful killing of the

buffalo decimated the plains Indians by eradicating their major food

supply. Another method was to place bounties on the heads of natives,

regardless if the possessor was man, woman, or child. The Hollywood

depiction of United States cavalry soldiers protecting themselves or

peaceful white settlers from the savage onslaught of hostile Indians

are simply not true. More often than not, it was US army units who

were the marauders and they would routinely attack the sleeping

native encampments during the pre-dawn hours, slaughtering everyone

within.(A favorite practice to dispose of Native American infants was

to grab them by their ankles and to bash ! their brains out against

the trunks of trees).

Another genocidal technique was to force march the Indians (already

weak from starvation and hypothermia) for hundreds of miles to a far

off "reservation." Typically, as in the case of the Cheyenne nation,

half of them died along the way.

Most historians concur that there were between 12 and 50 million

Native Americans on the North American when the first European

explorers and settlers arrived. Four centuries later, the Native

population had been reduced to approximately 200,000.

African Genocide

The crimes perpetuated on African people during over three centuries

of chattel slavery are unimaginable in their cruelty and debauchery.

In fact, the deeds are so alternatively callous and vicious that most

people resort to a kind of psychic disassociation and denial.

The genocide against the Africans is unique in that it was designed

not only to systematically ravage and destroy physical bodies it

deemed rebellious or unsuitable and to exploit those that were

considered ideal for work and breeding.

It was like no other because it sought to completely destroy all of

the mental, and spiritual characteristics that make a person a human

being. The language, the religion, the institution of marriage, the

bonds between parents and children, and between siblings were all

methodically assaulted through a ghastly series of physical and

psychological torments that have no equal in the annals of human

history.

From the moment the Africans were captured they were subjected to the

most severe humiliation and torment. Shackled together in long slave

caravans, they were often marched for thousands of miles to the coast

where they were imprisoned like cattle inside giant holding pens.

Contrary to popular belief, usually about half of those captured were

children under the age of 16, with many being no more than toddlers.

Infants were summarily disposed of, for the slave raiders considered

them too bothersome to take along.

Once the time came for them to be loaded on the ships, they were

branded and chained together by their necks, hands, and feet. Many

had to be flogged and clubbed aboard, as they clung with all their

strength to the African soil of their ancestors.

Their condition in the bowels of the ship are too heinous to

adequately describe. Every available space in the hold was utilized,

and they were often laid on their sides spoon fashion or packed in,

head to foot, like sardines with hardly any room to turn or to sit

up.

Fettered with rusty iron cuffs, they lay for months in the stench of

urine, vomit, feces, blood, and mucus. The skin of their knees, hips

and backbones were quickly worn away by the friction of the wooden

slabs, exposing raw flesh,

The women and children were usually held in a separate hold, and they

had their own vile brand of horror to contend with. The African men

would listen helplessly to the frantic screams of their sisters,

their wives, their young sons and daughters, as the Europeans

enslavers fell upon them to satisfy their deviant sexual lusts.

Periodically, the captured Africans would be taken aloft (topside)

and ordered to jump and dance for exercise and to be examined for

injury and disease. At the first sign of serious illness, the

Africans would be thrown, still chained, overboard, where they would

inevitably be drowned and devoured by sharks.

Rumors would circulate among the chained Africans as they lay in the

coffin like hold feeling the pitch of the ship rise and fall, as to

the purpose of their capture buy these strange, alien, and pale

creatures. Some offered that their captors, although in the form of

men, were in fact demons on a unholy mission to transport them to

hell for some past mis-deeds. Others were under the impression that

they were to be skinned and their flesh used as leather for the

manufacture of shoes. Still others were certain that they were to be

fattened up like livestock and eaten. And from the ghastly treatment

they received from their captors, there was little to assuage these

concerns.

Yet, with all the torments, the chains, the guns, the clubs; yes even

the boiling vat of hot oil the whites kept ready to pour on them from

above the hold at the slightest sign of insurrection, the Africans

discerned in the eyes of their tormentors, a deep and abiding fear.

It is estimated that anywhere between 50 to 100 million Africans were

killed during the "middle passage." Millions more would endure

various forms of exploitation, oppression and death, once they

arrived in the wilderness of North America.

"I have studied with great interest the laws of several American

states concerning reproduction by people whose progeny would in all

probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."[3]

-- Adolph Hitler

American Influences on Hitler

Nazi Germany of the 1930's and 1940's has become synonymous with the

creed and practice of racial superiority, genetic manipulation, and

the wholesale murder of those considered weak, incompetent, and

inferior. Yet, neither Adolph Hitler or the racist philosophy and

infrastructure that he established came into existence out of thin

air. They were, in fact, well woven within the stained fabric of

American social and institutional life.

Regardless of which direction one turned, or into which institution

one peered, (whether legislative, executive, judicial, medical, or

academic) white racism stared back, ugly, irrational, insidious, and

smug.

Although Hitler utilized the modern tools of a highly propagandized

and industrialized nation to spring his assault on millions of people

that he stigmatized as sub-human, he borrowed his ideas of white

supremacy and genetic purity from the United States. Moreover, his

strategy and implementation of displacement, internment, slave labor,

medical experimentation on human subjects, and his fixation with the

mad science of eugenics, were also inspired by his knowledge of

American history.

Hitler and his underlings acquired a racist dogma and utilized it in

a quest to produce a blue eyed blond haired, "master race." He sought

to achieve this by several methods. He ordered that non-Nordics be

systematically annihilated through forced labor, starvation, gassing,

beating, and sterilization. He also enacted laws that making it

illegal, under penalty of severe punishment, for whites to marry non-

whites. Encouraged by an enthusiastic (white)German acceptance,

Hitler quickly set up the state machinery of segregation, removal,

internment, and murder of all those he perceived as sub-human and

undesirable.

A powerful tool of Hitler's fascist and racist system was the

pseudoscience known as eugenics. The eugenics movement, did not

originate with Hitler and the Nazis, but was conceived and

implemented in the United States at the beginning of the 20th

century, and financed and facilitated by powerful Americans in

business, politics, and the judiciary. The forerunner to Hitler's

twisted vision, American eugenics sought to terminate all other

racial, ethnic, and social classes that were deemed unworthy, or

burdensome. It began as a dogma hatched in the minds and spewed in

the boardrooms, classrooms, and lounges of some of Americas' most

respected businesses and most prestigious universities and social

clubs. It's adherents believed that those groups that possessed

inferior gene pools, should be eliminated, so as not to corrupt or to

circumvent those who were the carriers of superior genetic material.

Those who were categorically designated as inferior were always the !

Black, the Brown, and the Asian, but were not limited to them alone

but included any individual or group that had a perceived weakness,

whether it was poverty, mental retardation, or physical sluggishness.

Immigrants were also vigorously targeted, especially those from

eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

The American eugenic movement was subsidized and facilitated through

lofty private and public agencies and departments. Edwin Black writes

in his revealing book, `War Against the Weak':

The main culprits were the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller

Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with

America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious

universities as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, operating out of a

complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island.

The eugenic network worked in tandem with the US Department of

Agriculture, the State Department, and numerous state governmental

bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the US

Supreme Court.

They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as

agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe

away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior."[4]

Indeed, the seeds of ignorance, fear, and hatred that were the basis

of the eugenics movement can be traced back to the 15th century, and

the first contact of Europeans with the people of Africa and the

indigenous people of the American continent, for coupled with the

desire to plunder and to usurp, was the desire to justify these

actions by concocting outrageous racial doctrines and theories.

Eventually the descendants of those early conquerors, who had

inherited the wealth, the privileges, and the savage legacy of their

forefathers, began to develop wild theories of their own.

The cancer of racism, systemized to exploit, oppress, and repress a

group because of so-called racial characteristics, and genocide (the

mass killing of people for political, economic, and/or ideological

reasons) cannot be blamed on any single individual, though we scour

the history books , and attempt to isolate them from the social,

political and economic systems that molded them and enabled them.

Indeed, racism does not entrench itself in society except through the

establishment of institutions fed by cultural mores, and these

cultural icons and institutions turn out racists, as surely as a

diary factory will churn out cheese.

Contemporary American Genocide

Genocide is not a practice (or a condition) that is regulated to the

garbage heap of the past, or limited to some war torn and exotic

land, but is very much a part of the American political, economic,

educational, and legal landscape. Contemporary genocide in America is

a quiet force creeping silently and largely unnoticed by most. It,

nevertheless, has manifested itself in many insidious ways,

particularly among African and Native Americans.

It should be reiterated that the dynamics of genocide does not solely

pertain to the physical demise of a people, but includes all those

elements and effects that lead to or that cause a calculated assault

that weakens the targeted group in such a way that it results in

economic, medical, political, educational, or ideological death.

With this in view, we find that regardless of what decade or era we

examine, or with what statistics we analyze, there is evidence that

Black people in America are being systematically and methodically

strangled.

There is a climate of racial hatred in America (as there has been for

centuries) that is conducive to acts of genocide, by individuals, as

well as institutions. Somehow, the life of a Black man, or woman, or

child is perceived to be not as important or as worthy as that of a

White. Black children who are abducted or who are murdered, rarely

make the national news. This elite media service is apparently

reserved for whites only. Although the same media is very prompt and

adept at projecting Blacks as criminals, ignoramuses, and buffoons.

This negative stereotyping , along with the American educational

system's penchant for ignoring Black genius and contributions, marks

Blacks as non-people, whose lives are not as important or as vital

and thus sets Blacks up to be beaten, choked-out, shot, locked up,

and locked out.

The judiciary system reinforces the concept that Blacks are un-people

by consistently giving out lighter sentences for offences against

Blacks, and harsher penalties for Blacks who have the temerity to be

convicted of crimes against whites. Also, overall Blacks are

consistently jailed, convicted, and sentenced disproportionately to

their national numbers. (Although Blacks make up approximately 13

percent of the nation, we average 60 percent of the jail and prison

populations). Black men in prison cannot be effective husbands and

fathers, or the protectors of their families or communities.

Abortions and other sterilization procedures are encouraged and

directed at young African American women in the social agencies and

in many inner city hospitals.

In fact, a "no cost" sterilization procedure is, perhaps, the only

operation in which a Black person need not worry about being billed.

The prospective client is assured by the hospital staff that the

process can take place with no charge.

Housing for most Black Americans is still segregated, dilapidated,

and unhealthy. Many situated near toxic waste dumps or the gigantic

chimney stacks of bellowing industrial complexes. Periodically, the

local newspapers will run horror stories of peeling paint and the

dire effects of lead poisoning on ghetto children.

Heath care is at best marginal, and in many instances, non-existent.

And in many of the country's larger cities, trauma hospitals (with a

primary Black patient base), are being moved out or shut down because

of "mismanagement" or "lack of funds," thus putting Black people in

the deadly predicament of having to traverse long distances to be

admitted into emergency care.

There is a dangerous revitalization in the proliferation of racist,

neo Nazi and American White supremacist groups. The so-called right

wing intelligentsia is also hard at work cranking out the time worn

drivel about inherent White superiority and Black inferiority.( The

racist theories in the popular best seller, `The Bell Curve' is one

example).

Beginning in the late 1960's (with a renewed assault in the mid

1980's and the advent of crack cocaine) the Black communities across

America have been saturated with a steady supply of the most

destructive drugs and chemical poisons.

Whether, heroin, crack cocaine, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes,

marijuana, or toxic pharmaceutical substances posing as medicines,

they all corrode both the quality and the quantity of Black life.

This despicable form of chemical warfare has plagued us, in one form

or another, for decades. Yet, few suspected how deliberate it was

until the 1994 revelation by a San Diego newspaper that the U S

government (through the Central Intelligence Agency had carried out a

scheme to spread crack cocaine across Black America. These

allegations prompted California Representative, Maxine Walters, to

start an investigation. She discovered that the allegations were,

indeed, supported by the facts.[5]

Since the mid-1980's, AIDS and HIV had silently devastated Black

America.

Several respected and renowned scientists, nutritionists, and medical

doctors have come forth with convincing evidence that these diseases

are man made biological weapons produced in government laboratories

for the purpose of decimating Black people world wide.

Dr. Jack Felder, a biochemist who was employed by the US army in it's

germ warfare program, discloses that the AIDS epidemic was planned

and commissioned with the sanction of the United States government

and the World Health Organization.[6] And Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz,

makes the case that HIV/AIDS, is the result of a national security

strategy hatched under the Nixon and Carter administrations to reduce

the populations of Black and Brown people.

Dr. Horowitz writes that Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry

Kissinger, called for massive third world depopulation, fearing that

overpopulation in third world countries would place a drain on

western resources and lead to the destabilization of the United

States. Later, under the Carter administration, the new head of the

NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, secretly drew up what was called National

Security Memorandum 46, authorizing the FBI and the CIA to initiate

genocidal policies and procedures.[7]

Conclusion

Modern, state sponsored genocide is, perhaps, the least obvious

because it is always shrouded in patriotic covers and obscured with

nationalistic platitudes and slogans. The mass media of nations that

systematically erode the humanity of others, is usually engaged to

simplify the process and to reduce the targeted people into objects.

Thus entire blocks, villages, cities, even countries, can be

obliterated with such euphemisms as "the neutralization of pockets of

resistance" or "winning the war on terror".

Statistics do not remotely give an account of the terrible carnage

and horror of genocide, for numbers do not reveal the twisted,

bloated bodies, they do not convey the burned off limbs, and they do

not echo the horror of a child's screams as it's body is riddled with

bullets, perforated with shrapnel, or blow apart by a strategic land

mine.

Very often genocide is made palatable, or at least tolerable, by

sophisticated propaganda networks that work at the behest of the

political/military machinery that drop the bombs, and shoot the

missals. It is usually hidden behind the bright facade of some noble

or humanitarian cause. Thus, the killing of 10,000 Somalian civilians

in 1992, was dubbed "operation breadbasket" and the massacre of tens

of thousands of Iraqis during the 2003 US led invasion was

labeled "operation Iraqi freedom". Even the systematic murder and

plunder of millions of Native Americans is described as "civilizing

the continent". Yet, apart from the physical toll, genocide

integrates itself within the land, and nests itself within the

consciousness, long after the bodies are buried and the screams are

silenced. It takes it greatest toll, perhaps, in the ghastly stain it

leaves on the human heart and psyche. It remains to be seen, whether

after years, or decades (or even after centuries) this terrible

imprint can be removed.

Notes and References:

[1]. Ward Churchhill, "Indians are Us," Common Courage Press, 1994

[2]. Ibin

[3]. "Ethnic Cleansing in Connecticut, Our State's Role in the Nazi

eugenics Movement" accessible online at:

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/ News/content.html?

oid=oid:32556

[4]. Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak," 2003

[5]. Barbara Reynolds, "A Conversation with Maxine Waters", Essence

Magazine, Jan. 1999

[6]. "AIDS Update", Global Africa Pocket News, accessible online at:

http://www.globalafrica.com/AIDSupdt.htm

[7]. Dr Leonard G. Horowitz, "Death in the Air: Globalization,

Terrorism, and Toxic Warfare", Tethahedron Publishing Group, 2001

American Genocide

by Steven Malik Shelton

15 July 2004



"Modern, state sponsored genocide is, perhaps, the least obvious

because it is always shrouded in patriotic covers and obscured with

nationalistic platitudes and slogans. The mass media of nations that

systematically erode the humanity of others, is usually engaged to

simplify the process and to reduce the targeted people into objects."



The year 2004 commemorates the horror of the wide scale genocide that

occurred in Rwanda a decade ago. During this carnage, it is estimated

that close to a million Tutsi were methodically butchered by their

Hutu neighbors and countrymen. The slaughter was carried out over a

few months, marking it with the infamous distinction of being,

perhaps, the most intense and accelerated genocide in modern history.

In contrast it took the Nazi's several years to kill 14 million

people, approximately half of them European Jews.

Sadly, the horrendous stain and stench of genocide did not begin or

end with the demonic killing spree in 1994 Rwanda, and if we are to

make an earnest effort to examine these tendencies, learn from them,

and ensure that they are less likely to occur again, we must study

the dynamics, the ideologies, and the practices of a land that has

long posed behind a facade of liberty, democracy, and justice. We

must remove the blinders and peer into its unique and sordid legacy

of racism, sexism, flagrant greed, and genocidal policies and

practices.

* * * * *

The calculated murder of millions of indigenous people for the core

purpose of amassing land, wealth, and resources, was initially

carried out under the command of Christopher Columbus. In a brazen

attempt to find an expedient route to India, Columbus and his crew

(lost and half-starved) landed on the large island of what is now

called Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Columbus was impressed with the natives generosity, good manners, and

compassion, yet instead of being inspired by these qualities he

considered them signs of weakness, childishness, and inferiority. He

soon demanded that the natives turn over to him all their gold. When

they were unable to satisfy him, they were given quotas and forced to

work. Those that failed to produce enough for their enslavers were

tortured in fiendish ways. One of the most common was to cut off the

limbs. Ward Churchhill, explains in his revealing book, `Indians are Us':

"The tribute system, instituted by the Governor sometime in 1495, was

a brutal way of fulfilling the Spanish lust for gold and acknowledging

Spanish distaste for labor. Every Taino over the age of fourteen had

to supply the rulers with a hawk's bell of gold every three months

(or in gold-deficient areas, twenty-five pounds of spun cotton);

those who did were given a token to wear around their necks as proof

that they had made their payment; those who did not were, as

(Columbus's brother, Fernando) says discreetly "punished"- by having

their hands cut off, and left to bleed to death."[1]

Christopher Columbus spearheaded a system of chattel slavery and

systematic extermination that resulted in the deaths of 8 million

natives, virtually killing off the entire population in 50 years.

Over the next few centuries, the European penchant for greed and

violence, culminated in the elimination of over a hundred million of

the indigenous people in the land that became known as South America.

Genocide in North America

There are few episodes in human history as sad or as shameless as the

calculated mass murder, displacement, and plunder that was

perpetuated against the indigenous population of North America.

Although not as extensive in terms of total numbers killed as in

South America, for sheer sneakiness, underhandedness and bold-faced

hypocrisy, there are few eras that could rival it.

It was, in fact, among the British colonizers of the North American

hemisphere that the first documented instance of biological warfare

occurred. Sir Jeffrey Amherst, (commander in chief of the British

forces) and the correspondence sent between him and a junior officer

indicate that a fiendish plan was hatched to intentionally infect the

native population with small pox virus. This was facilitated through

the procurement of infected blankets and handkerchiefs from army

hospitals and the distribution of them to the natives in what was

ostensibly a humanitarian gesture. On June 24, captain Ecuyer, of the

Royal American British Army recorded in his journal: "...We gave them

two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope

it will have the desired effect."[2]

To better ensure that it did have the desired result, the natives

were then directed to return to their villages so that they would

(predictably) be in the ideal position to infect other members of

their tribes and nations and the small pox (one of the most dangerous

and painful sicknesses imaginable) would spread like wild fire.

Newspapers and eyewitness accounts verify that it did, making one

question how much of the spread of "white mans diseases" among the so-

called Indians were really just accidental.

Starvation was another tactic utilized by the colonizers. In many

reservations and internment camps, the natives were simply isolated

on desolate lands and had food and clothing withheld from, or sold

away to the highest bidder by unscrupulous Indian agents or camp

commanders. Moreover, the purposeful and wasteful killing of the

buffalo decimated the plains Indians by eradicating their major food

supply. Another method was to place bounties on the heads of natives,

regardless if the possessor was man, woman, or child. The Hollywood

depiction of United States cavalry soldiers protecting themselves or

peaceful white settlers from the savage onslaught of hostile Indians

are simply not true. More often than not, it was US army units who

were the marauders and they would routinely attack the sleeping

native encampments during the pre-dawn hours, slaughtering everyone

within.(A favorite practice to dispose of Native American infants was

to grab them by their ankles and to bash ! their brains out against

the trunks of trees).

Another genocidal technique was to force march the Indians (already

weak from starvation and hypothermia) for hundreds of miles to a far

off "reservation." Typically, as in the case of the Cheyenne nation,

half of them died along the way.

Most historians concur that there were between 12 and 50 million

Native Americans on the North American when the first European

explorers and settlers arrived. Four centuries later, the Native

population had been reduced to approximately 200,000.

African Genocide

The crimes perpetuated on African people during over three centuries

of chattel slavery are unimaginable in their cruelty and debauchery.

In fact, the deeds are so alternatively callous and vicious that most

people resort to a kind of psychic disassociation and denial.

The genocide against the Africans is unique in that it was designed

not only to systematically ravage and destroy physical bodies it

deemed rebellious or unsuitable and to exploit those that were

considered ideal for work and breeding.

It was like no other because it sought to completely destroy all of

the mental, and spiritual characteristics that make a person a human

being. The language, the religion, the institution of marriage, the

bonds between parents and children, and between siblings were all

methodically assaulted through a ghastly series of physical and

psychological torments that have no equal in the annals of human

history.

From the moment the Africans were captured they were subjected to the

most severe humiliation and torment. Shackled together in long slave

caravans, they were often marched for thousands of miles to the coast

where they were imprisoned like cattle inside giant holding pens.

Contrary to popular belief, usually about half of those captured were

children under the age of 16, with many being no more than toddlers.

Infants were summarily disposed of, for the slave raiders considered

them too bothersome to take along.

Once the time came for them to be loaded on the ships, they were

branded and chained together by their necks, hands, and feet. Many

had to be flogged and clubbed aboard, as they clung with all their

strength to the African soil of their ancestors.

Their condition in the bowels of the ship are too heinous to

adequately describe. Every available space in the hold was utilized,

and they were often laid on their sides spoon fashion or packed in,

head to foot, like sardines with hardly any room to turn or to sit

up.

Fettered with rusty iron cuffs, they lay for months in the stench of

urine, vomit, feces, blood, and mucus. The skin of their knees, hips

and backbones were quickly worn away by the friction of the wooden

slabs, exposing raw flesh,

The women and children were usually held in a separate hold, and they

had their own vile brand of horror to contend with. The African men

would listen helplessly to the frantic screams of their sisters,

their wives, their young sons and daughters, as the Europeans

enslavers fell upon them to satisfy their deviant sexual lusts.

Periodically, the captured Africans would be taken aloft (topside)

and ordered to jump and dance for exercise and to be examined for

injury and disease. At the first sign of serious illness, the

Africans would be thrown, still chained, overboard, where they would

inevitably be drowned and devoured by sharks.

Rumors would circulate among the chained Africans as they lay in the

coffin like hold feeling the pitch of the ship rise and fall, as to

the purpose of their capture buy these strange, alien, and pale

creatures. Some offered that their captors, although in the form of

men, were in fact demons on a unholy mission to transport them to

hell for some past mis-deeds. Others were under the impression that

they were to be skinned and their flesh used as leather for the

manufacture of shoes. Still others were certain that they were to be

fattened up like livestock and eaten. And from the ghastly treatment

they received from their captors, there was little to assuage these

concerns.

Yet, with all the torments, the chains, the guns, the clubs; yes even

the boiling vat of hot oil the whites kept ready to pour on them from

above the hold at the slightest sign of insurrection, the Africans

discerned in the eyes of their tormentors, a deep and abiding fear.

It is estimated that anywhere between 50 to 100 million Africans were

killed during the "middle passage." Millions more would endure

various forms of exploitation, oppression and death, once they

arrived in the wilderness of North America.

"I have studied with great interest the laws of several American

states concerning reproduction by people whose progeny would in all

probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."[3]

-- Adolph Hitler

American Influences on Hitler

Nazi Germany of the 1930's and 1940's has become synonymous with the

creed and practice of racial superiority, genetic manipulation, and

the wholesale murder of those considered weak, incompetent, and

inferior. Yet, neither Adolph Hitler or the racist philosophy and

infrastructure that he established came into existence out of thin

air. They were, in fact, well woven within the stained fabric of

American social and institutional life.

Regardless of which direction one turned, or into which institution

one peered, (whether legislative, executive, judicial, medical, or

academic) white racism stared back, ugly, irrational, insidious, and

smug.

Although Hitler utilized the modern tools of a highly propagandized

and industrialized nation to spring his assault on millions of people

that he stigmatized as sub-human, he borrowed his ideas of white

supremacy and genetic purity from the United States. Moreover, his

strategy and implementation of displacement, internment, slave labor,

medical experimentation on human subjects, and his fixation with the

mad science of eugenics, were also inspired by his knowledge of

American history.

Hitler and his underlings acquired a racist dogma and utilized it in

a quest to produce a blue eyed blond haired, "master race." He sought

to achieve this by several methods. He ordered that non-Nordics be

systematically annihilated through forced labor, starvation, gassing,

beating, and sterilization. He also enacted laws that making it

illegal, under penalty of severe punishment, for whites to marry non-

whites. Encouraged by an enthusiastic (white)German acceptance,

Hitler quickly set up the state machinery of segregation, removal,

internment, and murder of all those he perceived as sub-human and

undesirable.

A powerful tool of Hitler's fascist and racist system was the

pseudoscience known as eugenics. The eugenics movement, did not

originate with Hitler and the Nazis, but was conceived and

implemented in the United States at the beginning of the 20th

century, and financed and facilitated by powerful Americans in

business, politics, and the judiciary. The forerunner to Hitler's

twisted vision, American eugenics sought to terminate all other

racial, ethnic, and social classes that were deemed unworthy, or

burdensome. It began as a dogma hatched in the minds and spewed in

the boardrooms, classrooms, and lounges of some of Americas' most

respected businesses and most prestigious universities and social

clubs. It's adherents believed that those groups that possessed

inferior gene pools, should be eliminated, so as not to corrupt or to

circumvent those who were the carriers of superior genetic material.

Those who were categorically designated as inferior were always the !

Black, the Brown, and the Asian, but were not limited to them alone

but included any individual or group that had a perceived weakness,

whether it was poverty, mental retardation, or physical sluggishness.

Immigrants were also vigorously targeted, especially those from

eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

The American eugenic movement was subsidized and facilitated through

lofty private and public agencies and departments. Edwin Black writes

in his revealing book, `War Against the Weak':

The main culprits were the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller

Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with

America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious

universities as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, operating out of a

complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island.

The eugenic network worked in tandem with the US Department of

Agriculture, the State Department, and numerous state governmental

bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the US

Supreme Court.

They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as

agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe

away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior."[4]

Indeed, the seeds of ignorance, fear, and hatred that were the basis

of the eugenics movement can be traced back to the 15th century, and

the first contact of Europeans with the people of Africa and the

indigenous people of the American continent, for coupled with the

desire to plunder and to usurp, was the desire to justify these

actions by concocting outrageous racial doctrines and theories.

Eventually the descendants of those early conquerors, who had

inherited the wealth, the privileges, and the savage legacy of their

forefathers, began to develop wild theories of their own.

The cancer of racism, systemized to exploit, oppress, and repress a

group because of so-called racial characteristics, and genocide (the

mass killing of people for political, economic, and/or ideological

reasons) cannot be blamed on any single individual, though we scour

the history books , and attempt to isolate them from the social,

political and economic systems that molded them and enabled them.

Indeed, racism does not entrench itself in society except through the

establishment of institutions fed by cultural mores, and these

cultural icons and institutions turn out racists, as surely as a

diary factory will churn out cheese.

Contemporary American Genocide

Genocide is not a practice (or a condition) that is regulated to the

garbage heap of the past, or limited to some war torn and exotic

land, but is very much a part of the American political, economic,

educational, and legal landscape. Contemporary genocide in America is

a quiet force creeping silently and largely unnoticed by most. It,

nevertheless, has manifested itself in many insidious ways,

particularly among African and Native Americans.

It should be reiterated that the dynamics of genocide does not solely

pertain to the physical demise of a people, but includes all those

elements and effects that lead to or that cause a calculated assault

that weakens the targeted group in such a way that it results in

economic, medical, political, educational, or ideological death.

With this in view, we find that regardless of what decade or era we

examine, or with what statistics we analyze, there is evidence that

Black people in America are being systematically and methodically

strangled.

There is a climate of racial hatred in America (as there has been for

centuries) that is conducive to acts of genocide, by individuals, as

well as institutions. Somehow, the life of a Black man, or woman, or

child is perceived to be not as important or as worthy as that of a

White. Black children who are abducted or who are murdered, rarely

make the national news. This elite media service is apparently

reserved for whites only. Although the same media is very prompt and

adept at projecting Blacks as criminals, ignoramuses, and buffoons.

This negative stereotyping , along with the American educational

system's penchant for ignoring Black genius and contributions, marks

Blacks as non-people, whose lives are not as important or as vital

and thus sets Blacks up to be beaten, choked-out, shot, locked up,

and locked out.

The judiciary system reinforces the concept that Blacks are un-people

by consistently giving out lighter sentences for offences against

Blacks, and harsher penalties for Blacks who have the temerity to be

convicted of crimes against whites. Also, overall Blacks are

consistently jailed, convicted, and sentenced disproportionately to

their national numbers. (Although Blacks make up approximately 13

percent of the nation, we average 60 percent of the jail and prison

populations). Black men in prison cannot be effective husbands and

fathers, or the protectors of their families or communities.

Abortions and other sterilization procedures are encouraged and

directed at young African American women in the social agencies and

in many inner city hospitals.

In fact, a "no cost" sterilization procedure is, perhaps, the only

operation in which a Black person need not worry about being billed.

The prospective client is assured by the hospital staff that the

process can take place with no charge.

Housing for most Black Americans is still segregated, dilapidated,

and unhealthy. Many situated near toxic waste dumps or the gigantic

chimney stacks of bellowing industrial complexes. Periodically, the

local newspapers will run horror stories of peeling paint and the

dire effects of lead poisoning on ghetto children.

Heath care is at best marginal, and in many instances, non-existent.

And in many of the country's larger cities, trauma hospitals (with a

primary Black patient base), are being moved out or shut down because

of "mismanagement" or "lack of funds," thus putting Black people in

the deadly predicament of having to traverse long distances to be

admitted into emergency care.

There is a dangerous revitalization in the proliferation of racist,

neo Nazi and American White supremacist groups. The so-called right

wing intelligentsia is also hard at work cranking out the time worn

drivel about inherent White superiority and Black inferiority.( The

racist theories in the popular best seller, `The Bell Curve' is one

example).

Beginning in the late 1960's (with a renewed assault in the mid

1980's and the advent of crack cocaine) the Black communities across

America have been saturated with a steady supply of the most

destructive drugs and chemical poisons.

Whether, heroin, crack cocaine, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes,

marijuana, or toxic pharmaceutical substances posing as medicines,

they all corrode both the quality and the quantity of Black life.

This despicable form of chemical warfare has plagued us, in one form

or another, for decades. Yet, few suspected how deliberate it was

until the 1994 revelation by a San Diego newspaper that the U S

government (through the Central Intelligence Agency had carried out a

scheme to spread crack cocaine across Black America. These

allegations prompted California Representative, Maxine Walters, to

start an investigation. She discovered that the allegations were,

indeed, supported by the facts.[5]

Since the mid-1980's, AIDS and HIV had silently devastated Black

America.

Several respected and renowned scientists, nutritionists, and medical

doctors have come forth with convincing evidence that these diseases

are man made biological weapons produced in government laboratories

for the purpose of decimating Black people world wide.

Dr. Jack Felder, a biochemist who was employed by the US army in it's

germ warfare program, discloses that the AIDS epidemic was planned

and commissioned with the sanction of the United States government

and the World Health Organization.[6] And Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz,

makes the case that HIV/AIDS, is the result of a national security

strategy hatched under the Nixon and Carter administrations to reduce

the populations of Black and Brown people.

Dr. Horowitz writes that Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry

Kissinger, called for massive third world depopulation, fearing that

overpopulation in third world countries would place a drain on

western resources and lead to the destabilization of the United

States. Later, under the Carter administration, the new head of the

NSA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, secretly drew up what was called National

Security Memorandum 46, authorizing the FBI and the CIA to initiate

genocidal policies and procedures.[7]

Conclusion

Modern, state sponsored genocide is, perhaps, the least obvious

because it is always shrouded in patriotic covers and obscured with

nationalistic platitudes and slogans. The mass media of nations that

systematically erode the humanity of others, is usually engaged to

simplify the process and to reduce the targeted people into objects.

Thus entire blocks, villages, cities, even countries, can be

obliterated with such euphemisms as "the neutralization of pockets of

resistance" or "winning the war on terror".

Statistics do not remotely give an account of the terrible carnage

and horror of genocide, for numbers do not reveal the twisted,

bloated bodies, they do not convey the burned off limbs, and they do

not echo the horror of a child's screams as it's body is riddled with

bullets, perforated with shrapnel, or blow apart by a strategic land

mine.

Very often genocide is made palatable, or at least tolerable, by

sophisticated propaganda networks that work at the behest of the

political/military machinery that drop the bombs, and shoot the

missals. It is usually hidden behind the bright facade of some noble

or humanitarian cause. Thus, the killing of 10,000 Somalian civilians

in 1992, was dubbed "operation breadbasket" and the massacre of tens

of thousands of Iraqis during the 2003 US led invasion was

labeled "operation Iraqi freedom". Even the systematic murder and

plunder of millions of Native Americans is described as "civilizing

the continent". Yet, apart from the physical toll, genocide

integrates itself within the land, and nests itself within the

consciousness, long after the bodies are buried and the screams are

silenced. It takes it greatest toll, perhaps, in the ghastly stain it

leaves on the human heart and psyche. It remains to be seen, whether

after years, or decades (or even after centuries) this terrible

imprint can be removed.

Notes and References:

[1]. Ward Churchhill, "Indians are Us," Common Courage Press, 1994

[2]. Ibin

[3]. "Ethnic Cleansing in Connecticut, Our State's Role in the Nazi

eugenics Movement" accessible online at:

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/ News/content.html?

oid=oid:32556

[4]. Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak," 2003

[5]. Barbara Reynolds, "A Conversation with Maxine Waters", Essence

Magazine, Jan. 1999

[6]. "AIDS Update", Global Africa Pocket News, accessible online at:

http://www.globalafrica.com/AIDSupdt.htm

[7]. Dr Leonard G. Horowitz, "Death in the Air: Globalization,

Terrorism, and Toxic Warfare", Tethahedron Publishing Group, 2001

Buried Beneath an Avalanche of Lies
By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net

Chronicle of a Battle for the Truth That Has Now Been Lost

I remember the day when the Berlin Wall fell and everybody immediately started talking about a Peace Dividend, money that would be diverted from making weapons and invested in social improvements. And I remember that bright and hopeful turn of the millennium into the two thousands, when eager optimists predicted that a new kind of humane society would sweep the earth to make wars obsolete and living sweet. Neither, of course, has come to pass. Or will anytime soon.

Instead, the new millennium has brought with it a return to unapologetic barbarism, in which the human aspirations of compassion and understanding have been crushed in the maw of raw power. Instead of leaping ahead into a new 21st century of enlightenment, the human species has apparently decided to lurch backwards into the 19th century, where the only things that really matter are the size of your guns and your bank account.
Where the outstretched hand of those in need is greeted with a bullet to the face, accompanied by some smug justification about survival of the Chosen Few. No, this is not what I call evolution.

The events of September 11, 2001 changed the tone of civilized society, perhaps forever. As people around the globe poured out admiring sympathy for the victims of the atrocity in New York, the leaders of the U.S. embarked on a fateful course: to start shooting at the rest of the world until everybody everywhere fell into line in submissive gestures of terrified subservience.

Small matter now that a small number of people immediately smelled a rat, reasoning that rifle-carrying religious zealots in faraway Asian caves could have mastered the complex necessities of paralyzing military defenses and skirting well-established airport strictures to pull off such a bold caper all by themselves. Even as the anomalies of that day multiplied into full-blown suspicions, the American public relations goliath silenced all skepticism, and preserved the scripted accounts as patriotic gospel to justify the new plan to start killing innocents in the name of revenge. It was the American modus operandi of cowboys killing Indians at its bloody best.

Intelligent people immediately marvelled at the clumsiness of the official lies, and wondered how it came to be that the American people, whom the media apparatus continually reminded us were the most intelligent in the world, could be duped by such a flawed fable.

Some of those people immediately protested that the government's account of 9/11 was surely a fake. Four hijacked planes flying free for an hour? Why did we spend all that money on the defense budget? How could this have happened? But these questions were immediately shouted down by flag-waving mourners. Show some respect for the dead, they snarled, muttering murmurs of treason and applauding those who suspended their Constitutional rights in a frenzied hunt for more so-called terrorists.

These bereaved and outraged flag-wavers didn't really give it a second thought when the rubble of the World Trade Center - the best evidence we had to ferret out the real truth about the attacks, and perhaps identify the method and maybe even the perpetrators of the attacks - was summarily carted off and made to disappear. Most people didn't notice when our indignant leaders claimed they had no idea such a preposterously bold attack could ever happen - even when those same leaders provided the names of the alleged culprits less than two days after the atrocity happened.

Few pondered the inconsistency. Top government officials said they didn't know it could happen. But they knew the names of those who did it.

Those who did notice this flaw began digging deeper. But the vast majority applauded when we started bombing other countries in a quest to annihilate the purported perps. Those digging deeper also noticed that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had been planned long before 9/11 happened, and tried to tell people, but were mostly shouted down amid cries of "treason!" That didn't stop those digging deeper from digging even deeper, because they were on the trail of real treason. And they certainly noticed when Pakistan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a neutral country that America declined the offer.

Yet even as it became clear that the reasons for American mass murder from high in the sky were shameless lies, the American people clung to their grief, their outrage, and their bloodthirsty craving for retribution, so they really didn't give it a second thought that they were sending their sons and daughters to die in a senseless effort to get satisfaction by killing thousands of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime that had enraged them in the first place.

And damned few made the logical connection that if our leaders lied about the reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, it was highly unlikely that they were telling the truth about 9/11.

But the war machine marched on to the media's hydrophobic applause, people kept waving their flags, and innocents are still dying, every day, because of it.

The early resistance to the 9/11 coverup was led in America by Mike Ruppert, who quickly pointed out that timely bets that certain airlines stock would plummet revealed a foreknowledge of the tragedy that could reveal who the true perpetators of this colossal crime actually were. And the work of Jared Israel revealed the bungling of America's defenses in such meticulous detail that many people began to realize the attacks could have been prevented by even a modicum of military competence on that fateful day.

Still, most flag-waving Americans refused to notice that the people in charge during the nation's greatest failure of its military defenses were promoted instead of being censured or fired, never mind being put on trial.

As time passed and sorrow began to heal into sadness, other researchers came forth with penetrating questions casting doubt on the government's version of events. German researcher Eric Hufschmid focused on why the government prevented a forensic examination of WTC rubble - an unbelievable and inexcusable dereliction of public responsibility, especially considering that in the case of aircraft disasters the government puts even the tiniest detail under the microscope to find out what actually happened.

Then former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow and British politician Michael Meacher made startling public declarations that they believed the American government had to be involved in order for such a complex operation to have been carried out.

The French researcher Thierry Meyssan first pointed out that the hole in the Pentagon could have in no way been caused by a giant jet airliner, and this argument was taken to much deeper levels by dogged researchers such as Dick Eastman to prove to anyone with a brain than no giant passenger jet had caused that explosion in Washington.

Consider this: the government says that an extremely intense fire that burned only eight minutes completely vaporized an entire passenger airliner, yet did not burn hot enough to prevent Pentagon officials from proclaiming that they had identified the DNA of every single passenger on the plane. Pardon me, but do you want to buy a bridge?

Furthermore, the FBI confiscated security camera video from a nearby gas station that could easily clear up the mystery, but they have refused to release it - along with voice recordings from the doomed airliners - in the name of national security. What does your sniffer tell you? Do you remember the TV detective story maxim: those who work to cover up the crime are the ones who most likely committed it?

Upon hearing the endless stories of distraught cellphone calls from passengers to relatives, retired Canadian professor A.K. Dewdney rented a plane and did some experimenting about making cellphone calls from the air. He concluded that many of the calls purported by the government to have been made could not be replicated under similar conditions.

Websites created by Jim Hoffman, Jeff King, and Rosalee Grable focused on the photographs of the 9/11 tragedy in New York and concluded that from the distance the rubble was propelled directly outwards that explosions had to have taken place. Evidence that the planes weakened the skyscrapers and caused their collapse was quickly debunked by Bill Manning and Jerry Russell.

Archives of all manner of critical analyses of the official story were quickly set up by Ken Vardon of the American Patriot Friends Network and Peter Meyer of the Serendipity website, with many brilliant commentaries about how the government had to have lied, and these were followed by hundreds of other sites which emulated their efforts.

Numerous timelines, the earliest being those by Paul Thompson and Mark Elsis, revealed every tiny detail of what had happened, and those with the tenacity to examine them discovered more flaws in the government's stories.

Carol Valentine, known for her intense research into the debacle at Waco, unleashed an anonymous interview that asserted the killer planes were remote controlled. But another major researcher, experienced pilot Ralph Omholt, weighed in with the opinion that some of the maneuvers before the crashes could not have been accomplished without an expert pilot. And researcher Jon Carlson has always insisted the planes were controlled by a helicopter that hovered nearby.

A little later on, researchers Gerard Holmgren and Woody Box noticed the records of flight numbers on the ill-fated aircraft revealed more inconsistencies in the official story, to the point where Holmgren could later declare that two of the supposedly doomed flights never even got off the ground that day.

Two and a half years later, researchers scheduled a two-part conference that was supposed to delve into the delicate details of 9/11, but it was hijacked into other issues and suffered from low attendance and a lack of publicity. Perhaps the high point that came out of the Toronto end of it was Michel Chossudovsky's essay that the dreaded al-Qaeda were no more than an evil fantasy creation of U.S. intelligence services, and for my money, that remains the central issue in the debate about the future of America.

Everyone knows by now that President Bush reluctantly appointed an investigative commission that was not charged with identifying the perpetrators - those were named at the outset without a shred of public evidence - and the panel accomplished nothing except a few hollow headlines. Despite incisive reports by Nico Haupt and Michael Kane and the constant complaining of the 9/11 victims' families, the big questions were never answered and disinformation specialists like Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clark spun their tales of self-justification. At the end, a kind of ignorant incompetence had replaced intent as the reason for the tragedy, and the bad guys got away.

Of the many relevant issues that the Kean Commission simply ignored, perhaps the most glaring was what our military defenses were actually doing on 9/11. Barbara Honegger's timely story about the counterterrorist wargame exercises planned for that very day raises all sorts of questions about how they impeded the response of our nation's air defenses, yet the commission never once admitted that the subject even existed.

Neither did it address numerous reports - particularly one from a worker in the building, Scott Forbes - that WTC security was profoundly compromised the weekend before the tragedy.
So, as time passed and the alternative theorists delved into their material more deeply, distortions developed, followed by charges of disinformation, increasing suspicions, and eventually the scrambling of the entire 9/11 truth movement.

From intense analyses of slow-motion video of the event, Grable, a.k.a. The Webfairy, developed a theory that the use of holograms was involved in the 9/11 deception. This assertion ignited a firestorm of complaints from other researchers who protested that Grable's assertions were fantasies of an overactive imagination, at best. Yet researchers such as Holmgren, Scott Loughrey and Michael Elliott refuse to totally discount her findings because her analyses, interpretations aside, had been accomplished in a credible way.

Radio rapper Alex Jones produced one of the earliest videos questioning the official story about 9/11, but made two signal contributions later with his startling interview of the German politician von Buelow, who insists the American government was surely involved in the crime, and his chat with the maverick retired arms dealer, Col Donn de Grand Pre, who said that there were no hijackers on the planes (an opinion shared by many 9/11 researchers), that the bodies of the passengers are somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, and that he personally knows the names of the Air National Guard pilots who shot down Flight 93.

Matching de Grand Pre for astonishing assertions in recent days has been the website of Phil Jayhan, which has come out with three stunning observations based on photographic analyses of the original footage: that the plane that hit the South Tower had a pod on its bottom (if that were true, and it appears to be true from the photographs, then the government's story is gone for good) and that the plane fired a missile just before it hit the building; that that particular plane had no windows (ditto last parenthetical comment); and then he proceeded to name the pilot de Grand Pre had referred to, the one who shot down Flight 93 (ditto again).

Now. Let us divert ever so briefly into the meaning of that oft-used but frequently misunderstood word - "disinformation." It differs ever so slightly from the word "lie" in that it is a lie generally grouped with a series of facts that may be true, thereby ruining the credibility of the truths within the grouped series of facts.

It is used frequently on the web when one person disagrees with another person's assertions. I've often had the intuition that the people who most frequently use the term - are you listening, Dick Eastman? - are very likely the ones who are spinning it to begin with. On the other hand, Eastman has been right a good deal of the time, particularly in regard to John Judge and Kyle Hence, two questionable figures who have shadowed the bogus Kean Commission hearings and pretended to be influencing the proceedings.

The classic example of disinformation specialist these days is probably Michael Moore, whose celebrated film has created a stir in plastic society. He has convinced the world that the Saudis' relationship with the Bush family is the great secret behind 9/11, even though more developed minds clearly see that since the Saudis didn't really benefit from 9/11 (though they may have had some supporting role in it), it had to have been Israel that was the silent partner in the greatest crime in American history, through Silverstein (and Marvin Bush) rigging the towers with explosives, providing the faux hijackers (Atta's most fluent language was Hebrew, according to his girlfriend, as reported by Daniel Hopsicker), and even providing the two single suicide pilots (according to Dewdney's Operation Pearl theory).

Regarding Israel there is the little matter that only three Israelis died that day in the biggest Jewish city in the world - and two were on the planes. Not to mention Jewish ownership of virtually every major news outlet in the United States. And not to mention the Jewish men who have crafted American foreign policy under the last four (at least) American presidents.

But there is disinformation out there, theories and reports that touch on legitimate evidence but include deliberately preposterous assertions so that the whole group of evidence is disregarded and ridiculed. Some say the new 9/11 video by Riley and von Kleist, which features the work of Jayhan, falls into this category, though I'll reserve final judgment until I see it.

I am always reluctant to make the charge of disinformation, first, because, I don't want to hurt anyone who is really trying to tell the truth, and second, because most of the time, I am simply not intelligent enough to make a certain judgment on the issue at hand, so it's more prudent to keep my doubts to myself.

This frame of thought has come up repeatedly with the Webfairy's hologram assertions, but having talked with her, and knowing researchers I respect also respect her, I can't call her efforts disinformation just because I don't agree with what she's saying, because I know I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the details.

Perhaps the oddest of all the internecine 9/11 arguments involves two websites both called "9/11 review." Michael Elliott's 911review.org arrived on the scene a little late and began to bill itself as a coordinating site to other links as well as possessing a certain degree of engineering expertise. Elliott remains quick to criticize other sites such as Dewdney's physics911.org and Russell's 9-11strike.com for "bad science."

But computer whiz Jim Hoffman, who had already distinguished himself with his extraordinarily clear Power Point-type presentations on wtc7.net and in other places, quickly created 911review.com to blast Elliott for his superficiality, dead links, promotion of suspect theories, and unwillingness to ask the hard questions. Elliott's response has been to label Hoffman a government agent. The two remain archenemies to this day, though both have substantial followings, as well as intriguing websites.
In the minds of some, Jayhan's recent revelations fall into the same suspicious category. I'd love for his observations to be accurate and his assertions true, but I simply sense that I don't have the expertise to make the call, so I don't. I can't.
I leave it up to you in the links below. Sorry if you think that's copping out. That's just the way it is.

What I do know for certain is that the hologram issue and other recent spectacular aspects of 9/11 information have actually hurt the effort to convince the public that 9/11 was an inside job, which in my mind it most certainly was.

But the evidence for this charge is not simple, like for instance the government's disinformation campaign to defame Muslims.

"Arab hijackers did it, we have the evidence but we can't give it to you because of national security, so let's bomb the hell out of them."

Simple. The dumbed-down public could get it, and fixate their hatred on the intended target, which of course is Islam.

None of these splitting hairs like you can't make cellphone calls from above a certain altitude, or the Twin Towers were demolished because the pattern of ejecta indicates explosions, or the hole in the Pentagon isn't big enough, or they deliberately took away the evidence so we couldn't see what really happened.

No. Arabs did it. Let's kill 'em.

That sounds very much like what the Israelis say about the Palestinians, doesn't it?

So the truth has lost again. And the lies have prevailed. There are thousands of people in this country, most in very powerful positions, who know exactly what happened on 9/11. Because they profited from it. But we can't find out who they are, because protecting the rich, no matter what they do, has always had a much higher priority in the country - and for that matter the world - than mere justice for the common folk. The FBI says there was nothing suspicious about the "put" options. And for want of a whistleblower, that's the end of it.

The real murderers of 3,000 people in New York have gotten away with it.

Game over.

The most damning evidence is the behavior of the Bush administration and its motley cast of sociopathic characters (including John Kerry) that produced that totally staged, utterly facile, pseudoinvestigation which never attempted to identify the perpetrators. The hijacker fantasy held up. The people of the Muslim world were made legitimate targets, which was exactly the purpose of the 9/11 caper to begin with.

Now, at the exact moment in time that the American public and the people of the world are most willing to entertain the notion that something is wrong with the government's story, the 9/11 truth movement has faltered, badly. Unable to come up with the goods.

Totally stonewalled by the robotic phalanx of plastic presidential candidates too terrified to utter a single peep about the 9/11 coverup, Zionist control of America, the lies that created our so-called preemptive wars, or the continuing shakedown of the world by the Federal Reserve.

Totally blacked out by puppet media who claim our dead children are fighting for freedom but won't photograph their coffins or their illnesses.

So forget about it. Go home, watch TV, pick your nose. Hey, vote in the next election, if you delude yourself into believing that will make a difference. Wait docilely for the next hammer to fall.

I am reminded of that Russian proverb, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

You are now the nail.
The truth of 9/11 lies buried beneath an avalanche of lies, just like the souls of those unsuspecting passengers on routine domestic airline flights and those ordinary folks who trudged off to work that day to the Twin Towers lie buried forever in that smoldering heap of uninvestigated rubble. And just like the futures of you and me lie buried in an endless heap of fake terror alerts, anthrax scares, police-state laws, and self-righteous fabrications of dark-skinned terrorists lurking demonically on every street corner in America.

John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world. More recently he has published "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," a 48-page booklet written for those who still believe the government's version of events. For more information about both, check outwww.johnkaminski.com/

Relevant links (in order of appearance):
* Mike Ruppert: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
* Jared Israel: http://www.tenc.net/
* Eric Hufschmid: http://www.erichufschmid.net/
* Andreas von Buelow: http://www.prisonplanet.com/jones_report.html
* Michael Meacher: http://truthout.org/docs_03/090703A.shtml
* Thierry Meyssan: http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/05/23/29196.html
* Dick Eastman: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
* A.K. Dewdney: http://physics911.org/
* Jim Hoffman: http://911research.wtc7.net/
* Jeff King: http://911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml
* Rosalee Grable: http://thewebfairy.com/911/
* Bill Manning: http://www.rense.com/general18/firefighter.htm
* Jerry Russell: http://www.911-strike.com/
* Ken Vardon: http://www.apfn.org/
* Peter Meyer: http://www.serendipity.li/
* Paul Thompson: http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/
* Mark Elsis: http://www.911timeline.net/
* Carol Valentine: http://www.public-action.com/
* Ralph Omholt: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm
* Jon Carlson: http://www.rense.com/general54/flight93crashwitnesses.htm
* Gerard Holmgren's "The Truth About Sept. 11": http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren/holmgren2.htm
* Woody Box: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
* Michel Chossudovsky: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
* Nico Haupt: http://ny911truth.org/articles/stop_coverup.htm
* Michael Kane: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=387
* Barbara Honegger: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=641
* Scott Forbes: http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
* Scott Loughrey: http://www.rense.com/general50/amy.htm
* Alex Jones: http://www.prisonplanet.com/
* Col. Donn de Grand Pre: http://www.warfolly.vzz.net/nohijackers.htm
* Phil Jayhan: http://www.letsroll911.org/
* John Judge: http://www.septembereleventh.org/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=742&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
* Kyle Hence: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/fake_opposition.htm
* Michael Moore: http://www.counterpunch.org/lodge09172003.html
* Daniel Hopsicker: http://www.madcowprod.com/
* A.K. Dewdney: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
* Riley/von Kleist: http://www.thepowermall.com/
* Michael Elliott: http://911review.org/
* Jim Hoffman: http://911review.com/