Friday, February 16, 2007

Theory of Everything (17)

----david iCke -
( - David Vaughan Icke (pronounced "IKE") (born April 29, 1952) is a British writer. A former professional football player, reporter, television sports presenter, and spokesman for the Green Party, he has devoted himself since 1990 to researching "who and what is really controlling the world." [1] He is the author of 20 books explaining his views.
Icke argues that he has developed a moral and political worldview that combines New Age spiritualism with a passionate denunciation of what he sees as totalitarian trends in the modern world. His views have been described as "New Age conspiracism." [2]
At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3]HYPERLINK \l "_note-standard"[4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie. [3]HYPERLINK \l "_note-Ronson2"[5]
According to Political Research Associates, Icke's ideas are popular in Canada, where the New Age aspect of his philosophy overshadows his more controversial beliefs. [6] During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a five-hour speech at the University of Toronto, [7] while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress. [8]

--charlie sheen -
( - On March 20, 2006, Sheen revealed during an Alex Jones interview that he questions the "official story" concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Sheen stated during the interview, "There was a feeling, it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother, 'Call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?'" [3] Sheen further stated "It seems to me like, you know, 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory." [4]
Sheen's remarks were subject to some mainstream media coverage. CNN's Showbiz Tonight discussed Sheen and his theories on March 22, 23 and 24 2006.
In June 2006, Sheen appeared and spoke at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium in Los Angeles, California, a conference organized to discuss various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

---alex jones
( - Views
Alex Jones believes that certain elements of the United States Government are intent on weakening the United States and its sovereignty. These elements are "paid off" in an effort to shift the balance of power toward the European continent,[2] which is in turn under the control of the World Bank, beyond the scope of nation states.[3] Jones refers to the World Bank and their "minions" as Globalist forces, military industrial complex or the Illuminati.[4]
Alex Jones believes that unless action is taken, the lower and middle class will be put in a global plantation and the United States will be put under martial law.[citation needed]

[edit] Career
Though Jones was born in Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas,[5] and grew up in the suburb of Rockwall,[6] he began his career in Austin with a live call-in format cable access television program. In 1996, Jones switched format to KJFK, hosting a show named The Final Edition.[7] In 1997, he released his first documentary film, America Destroyed By Design. In 1999, he won that year's "Best of Austin" poll as radio host, voted by Austin Chronicle readers. Later that year, he was fired from KJFK-FM. According to the station's operations manager Jones was fired because his viewpoints made the show hard to sell to advertisers and he refused to broaden his topics. Jones argued:"It was purely political, and it came down from on high," and, "I was told 11 weeks ago to lay off Clinton, to lay off all these politicians, to not talk about rebuilding the church, to stop bashing the Marines, A to Z."
Alex started his radio career in 1996 on Austin's talk station KJFK 98.9 FM. His shows were picked up on shortwave as far back as 1997 as "The Alex Jones Show" on Republic Radio. Jones is still on WWCR Nashville shortwave and as of late 2006. He also appears on with regular reports, as well as his Austin access TV show. Jones can be heard on Emmis Communications' powerful KLBJ 590 AM in Austin every Sunday afternoon from 4-6pm. This show is being nationally syndicated.[8]
In 2000, Jones and an assistant infiltrated the Bohemian Club and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the Cremation of Care, which he says has Druidic and Pagan backgrounds. His footage can be viewed in his documentary "Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove." A different - and less conspiratorial - interpretation of the ceremony was reported by their fellow trespasser, the British liberal journalist Jon Ronson in his book Them: Adventures with Extremists and documentary series Secret Rulers of the World.
In June 2001, Jones launched
On July 1, 2002, Jones started the Save The Bill of Rights Campaign to repeal the Patriot Act.[9] Further in 2002, Jones released 9-11: The Road to Tyranny. In 2005, he released another film, Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State.

---steven jones
( ) - Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. He is known for his work on cold fusion and for his involvement in the controversy over the experiments of Pons and Fleischmann, which differed substantially from his own. In 2005, Jones became known for his hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled explosive demolition, which has become central to many 9/11 conspiracy theories.[1]HYPERLINK \l "_note-1"[2]HYPERLINK \l "_note-2"[3] Jones announced his retirement from Brigham Young University on October 20, 2006, amid controversy surrounding this recent research interest.[4
WTC collapse controversy
At a department seminar held on September 22, 2005, Jones presented the substance of the paper that would become "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?".[13] His hypothesis is that on September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center towers and Seven World Trade Center collapsed as a result of controlled demolition, not the impact of the airplanes that hit them or the fires that followed. The paper does not claim to prove this hypothesis, but calls for further scientific investigation to test it along with the release of all relevant data by the government. Shortly after the seminar Jones made the paper available on the website of the physics department of Brigham Young University. It would eventually be published in a book of essays critical of the official version of the September 11, 2001, attacks, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[14]
Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances, including the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, which was held in Los Angeles on June 24-25, 2006.[15] While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[16] his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of agents working within the U.S. government.[17] In an article published on September 5, 2006, Jones told The Guardian that the attacks were an "inside job".[18] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[19]
The paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor. Engineers have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the collapses.[20]HYPERLINK \l "_note-17"[21] Jones's early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[22] and shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners", and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[23]
While Jones has always maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, doubts about this remain. On Thursday, September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[24] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones's work and the fact it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.[25] The review was supposed to be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[26] This action has drawn fresh criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.[27]

[edit] Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and has served as co-chair, with James H. Fetzer, since its inception. Since mid-November of 2006, he, Fetzer and a series of other researchers and individuals, have been engaged in an open dispute about the direction the organization should take. Fetzer has claimed that Jones wants to suppress some alternative theories about 9/11, including those of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds involving the destruction of the WTC by mini-nukes, high-energy weapons and the so-called "no-plane" theories.[28] Jones has examined the mini-nukes hypothesis experimentally and rejected it,[29] and has questioned whether theories about high-energy weapons are testable.[30] This disagreement continues an earlier dispute with former mechanical engineering professor Judy Wood, who, while making assertions that high energy devices may have caused the destruction of the WTC, claims that Jones is not examining all the evidence and hindering attempts by others to do so.[31] Part of the dispute is about the Scholars' website, which Fetzer controlled until January of 2007 when Fred Burks was given the domain and created a different page. On November 25, Fetzer announced that he was temporarily removing Jones from his position as co-chair.[32] On Dec 5, 2006, Fetzer announced that Jones had resigned as a member of ST911.[33]Jones has also responded to the positions of Reynolds and Wood directly.[34] Others have also stated that the papers generated by Wood and Reynolds contain a series of ad hominem attacks and assert that they develop little, if any, evidence or serious analysis.[35]HYPERLINK \l "_note-32"[36]

-- bob bowman --
( , ( - Bowman holds the belief that the US government was complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On September 11, 2004 in New York City, Bowman said "...the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible". [10] On the 2006 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, he stated: "I'm an old interceptor pilot, I know the drill, I've done it. I know how long it takes, I know the rules... and... critics on the government story on 9/11 have said: "Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing". That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day, and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive."[11]
Because of his beliefs, he is part of the movement to impeach George W. Bush. He is also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded in January 2006 by James H. Fetzer.

---norman dodd
( - Norman Dodd (born June 29, 1899; died January 1987) was primarily known for his controversial investigation into tax-exempt foundations.

[edit] Tax-exempt Foundations
In 1954 Dodd served as an investigator for Congressman Reece's Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (commonly referred to as the Reece Committee).
His claims about his investigative work have become the cornerstone of theories implicating the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others. It is alleged by some that these or other foundations were involved in the intentional instigation of the United States into World War I and attempting to mould world history through the explicit control of education in the United States.

-----bill schnoebelen
( - William ('Bill') Schnoebelen (b. 24 August 1949) is an American fundamentalist Christian who claims that he was once a Satanist and a Vampire. He was born in a devout Roman Catholic household and at the age of five, he desired to become a Catholic priest.
Schnoebelen said that because of the changes made during the Second Vatican Council and the so called 'hypocrisy' of the Catholic clergy at his seminary, he began looking for other paths of faith.
Most of the groups involved in Schnoebelen's accusations have rejected his claims as fiction. Some allege that his writings contain errors of fact about the organisations he claims to have joined - for instance, according to Masons, the 'Palladium Masonry' Schnoebelen claims to have joined is a hoax and never actually existed[2]. It is often difficult to independently investigate such claims, since most potential sources of information are closely affiliated either with Schnoebelen or with the groups he alleges to be Satanic.
A more easily verified criticism is that the sheer number of activities in which Schnoebelen and his associates claim him to have been involved (often, involved in depth) stretches belief. According to the biography on his own page[3], Schnoebelen's curriculum vitae includes:
"Sixteen years as a teacher of witchcraft, Qabalah [later versions replace 'Qabalah' with 'spiritism'], and ceremonial magick."
Seven years in the Church of Satan
Nine years as a Freemason
Five years as a Mormon, where he held "numerous offices, including elders' quorum president"
A degree in music and education (1971, Loras College)
Master's degree in theological studies (1980, St. Francis School of Pastoral Ministry; this is a Catholic seminaryHYPERLINK ""[4])
Master's degree in counseling (Liberty University, 1990)
Nearly thirty years of research into UFO phenomena
Ability as "a Naturopathic doctor, a Nutritional Herbologist and a Certified Natural Health Professional". [While Iowa does not license naturopathic doctors, the N.D. degree typically requires four years of graduate school study and intensive clinical experience[5].]
According to a timeline[6] offered by Schnoebelen's friend Ed Decker, Schnoebelen became a 'Witch' in 1968; a 'Witch High Priest' in 1973; joined the Church of Satan in 1975; became a Master Mason in 1976; a 'Gnostic Catholic (sic) Bishop' in 1978; joined 'Palladium Masonry' in 1979; obtained his Master's Degree in Theology in 1980; joined the Latter Day Saints Church in 1980 and first attended LDS Temple in 1981, becoming a LDS Quorum President in 1982 and an Institute Teacher in 1983, before 'getting saved' on June 22, 1984. However, Schnoebelen and Decker's claims are spurious in several prominent areas: to become a Wiccan High Priest in such a short time as Schnoebelen claims is a feat that much of the Wiccan community considers impossible (or at least highly improbable). Additionally, as noted below, Schnoebelen's own written works broadly conflict with the claims made in his biography.
Schnoebelen has also reputedly claimed to have ordained women while he was a Roman Catholic bishop[7].
The dates given in Schnoebelen's books create several apparent conflicts with his biography. For instance, in Masonry: Beyond the Light, Schnoebelen claims that he was a Mormon and a Mason when he was 'saved' in mid-1984; this implies that either he was already a member of both in 1980 when he was studying theology at a Catholic seminary, or his claim of "five years" as a Mormon was exaggerated. In Wicca: Satan's Little White Lie, Schnoebelen reputedly claims that "Up to our departure from the city of Milwaukee in 1984, we were presiding over one of the oldest and largest networks of covens" - implying that before his conversion in that year he was simultaneously a Mormon, a Mason, and a Wiccan.
His claim about "authentic rituals" in Dungeons & Dragons is a complete fabrication, as there are no such rituals in the game. Instead, the 'spell' is simply a two- or three-line text description, an application of game mechanics (normally in the form of a dice roll intended to match or exceed a given number), and creative interpretation on the part of the players, and no motions or rituals of any kind are performed at any time.

--webster tarpley
( - Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy which he has termed "the Anglo-American oligarchical empire". He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the Bush administration. He envisioned a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector, and corporate media.
Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author and historian. He first gained attention for co-authoring, with Anton Chaitkin, a 1992 book on George H.W. Bush, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. He has expounded the "Versailles Thesis" laying the blame for the great wars of the 20th century on intrigues by Britain to retain her dominance. He gained experience as a political operative during his years with the LaRouche movement but broke away in the mid-90's. His philosophy can be described as humanist, progressivist and anti-Malthusian.
In 2005, Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA gained a following. On Oct. 7, 2006, Amazon's top non-fiction book reviewer, Robert David Steele, called it "the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon." Tarpley speaks at length about the themes in his book during an interview in the film Oil, Smoke, Mirrors.
Starting March, 2006, Tarpley has a weekly talk radio show called World Crisis Radio. Shows are archived at The format is a "world intelligence roundup" in the first hour with insights into top political stories, followed by a distinguished guest in the second hour.
In June of 2006, he appeared at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium in Los Angeles, California [1], organized by Alex Jones [2] , including on the 5-man panel discussion, which was televised four times on C-Span1 in July/August 2006. [3]. It was the largest "9/11 Truth" event to date with 1,200 attending. In March 2006 he appeared on CNN's special series covering the story of Charlie Sheen speaking out on 9/11.
Tarpley is a member of the world anti-imperialist conference Axis for Peace, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and of a research Netzwerk of German 9/11 authors founded in Sept. 2006.

--jim fetzer
( - James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is an American philosopher and Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.[1] He is also known for his advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories [2] and Kennedy assassination theories.
Controversial views
Fetzer holds several views of recent American history. He has written about the John F. Kennedy assassination[5] and has been interviewed on his theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks by radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham, Jerry Springer, Donny Deutch and several hosts on Air America, among others. He has been interviewed on "Hannity & Colmes" twice and on "The O'Reilly Factor" as well as other television programs, which have been archived as YouTube and google videos.
Some have questioned[citation needed] his apparent endorsement of a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration, [3] members of which he believes have betrayed the country and violated their oaths of office.[citation needed] He has recently begun a new radio program on the Genesis Communications Network,, "The Dynamic Duo" with Kevin Barrett, an outspoken 9/11 activist, in which they discuss and interview guests on controversial subjects, including 9/11.

[edit] Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Fetzer maintains that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy X-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Zapruder film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. He has edited three collections of studies on the assassination, chaired or co-chaired four conferences on the subject, and made numerous talk show appearances on the topic.[6]

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks
Fetzer supports the assertion that elements within the U.S. federal government orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and economic gain and that World Trade Center One and Two were destroyed using a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, while World Trade Center Seven was brought down by a conventional controlled demolition from the bottom.[7] Fetzer also believes the hijackings were staged and that calls from passengers to relatives and operaters were phony.
During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers. [3] He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects.
On June 22 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories.[citation needed] Later that month, he appeared at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium in Los Angeles, California.[8]On December 18, 2006, he was the featured guest on a 3 1/2 hour television program devoted to 9/11, which was broadcast live from Athens by satellite worldwide. [9]
In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state." This opinion did not, however, prevent Fetzer from agreeing to appear on O'Reilly's show again on October 12, 2006. [10] Fetzer has detailed his research and theories during the Midwest Social Forum held on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in a joint presentation with Kevin Barrett, also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which they recently reprised at the University of Wisconsin-Madison [11]
Fetzer is founder and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11".[12] Differences in attitude and approach toward the science and the politics of 9/11 research led to a split with Steve Jones, whom Fetzer had invited to be his co-chair, in December 2006, almost exactly one year after its creation. Many 9/11 activists support Jones over Fetzer. A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments[13]

******UFO INFO - ---john lear
( - John Lear (b. 1942) is an accomplished former pilot and well-known UFOlogist. He is the son of aviation pioneer and inventor Bill Lear.Aviation background
John Lear, now retired from flying, amassed over 19,000 hours of flight time, and has flown in over 100 different types of airplanes in 60 different countries around the world. He flew both commercially and in missions worldwide for the CIA. John Lear is the only pilot to hold every airman certificate issued by the FAA, and has held many world records [1].

[edit] Early research work
John Lear claims to have always had a slight interest in UFOs. Sometime in the mid-1980s, he read the book Missing Time by Budd Hopkins, a book on alien abduction. This was to become a turning point. From then on John began heavily researching the subject, including tracking down and interviewing many witnesses and individuals involved in the phenomenon. Soon after, in about 1987 or 1988, John Lear began writing and lecturing on the subject.

[edit] Involvement with Bob Lazar and Area 51 / S-4
In the summer of 1988, John met a self-styled nuclear physicist named Bob Lazar, and soon became intimately involved in the Area 51 / S-4 story. It is claimed that Lazar worked at the S-4 test site (approx. 10 miles south of Area 51) from December 1988 to March 1989, where he took part in the back engineering of extraterrestrial craft. During this time Lazar relayed information to Lear about his alleged activities and experiences there.
During this time both Lear and Lazar claim that they were able to acquire a piece of the fuel that powered the craft, Element 115, conducting several experiments that proved the high gravitational attraction and heaviness of the element, among other things. Though, apparently, this evidence was "stolen" back.
Around March 1989 Bob Lazar, John Lear, Gene Huff and others organized several trips into the desert to view test flights from a distance. On one of these excursions, Lear claims to have witnessed a glowing yellow-orange, disc-shaped object that rose above the mountains at Groom Lake while looking through a Celestron telescope. On one of these trips, the group was eventually caught, and shortly thereafter, Bob Lazar ceased working at the test site.
In late 1989 KLAS-TV reporter George Knapp interviewed John Lear, which resulted in Knapp interviewing Bob Lazar and breaking the Area 51 / S-4 story to the public.

[edit] 1990s to Present
In the mid to late '90s, John Lear had a break from UFO research. In November 2003 Lear appeared on the popular Coast to Coast AM radio show to give an interview (first time in a decade) with Art Bell, where he shared his views on UFO Disclosure, among other topics. In March 2004 he appeared in another interview discussing revelations and theories about the moon. Most recently John Lear has become a regular posting member on the conspiracy based discussion forums (Coast to Coast AM discussion forum) [2], and [3] where his Moon Photo Anomalies discussion thread has become very popular.
A third interview on Coast to Coast occured in January of 2007, with Richard C. Hoagland, discussing their theories regarding artificial structures and life on the moon.

---john delorean (deceased) --
( - ( - John Zachary De Lorean (b. January 6, 1925, Detroit, Michigan — d. March 19, 2005, Summit, New Jersey) was an American engineer and executive in the U.S. automobile industry, and founder of the De Lorean Motor Company. He was most well known for developing the Pontiac GTO muscle car, the De Lorean DMC-12 sports car, which was later featured in the movie Back to the Future, and his high profile 1982 arrest on charges of drug trafficking, which preceded the demise of his automobile manufacturing company. He successfully defended these charges, showing that his involvement was a result of entrapment by federal agents.
-"I was working as Garrison's chief of security," he explained - a fact that is amply documented -"while at the same time working for the White House to destabilize Garrison's operation."
His role at the White House, he says, involved both installing an "electronic countermeasures system" and keeping then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy posted on the strategy that Garrison was devising for the JFK probe.
( - (very readable document)
"Garrison was working for the FBI," Novel said, "with the object of framing the Johnson administration and the CIA for the murder that the FBI committed."
The effect of the FBI's vendetta in the Nevada case, Novel asserts with pleasure, was blunted by the White House. "I got a year's probation, but I served it on the Pedernales Ranch," he said.
When Novel makes declarations like that, some of those who deal with him weigh his statements with what they call "the Novel factor." "You can't afford to ignore Novel, but you can't take what he says at face value," said Mike McNulty, whose Emmy-award-winning documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" brought the gunfire thesis to public attention. "You have to discount for 'the Novel factor.'"
Pressed on the question of his LBJ ranch sentence, Novel admits he spent most of his probationary year in the Dallas-Fort Worth area - but he insists his de facto probation officer was LBJ aide Walter Jenkins, who like other figures whose names Novel frequently drops, is safely dead. Yet Novel is not simply a man who tells tall tales on dead people. In 1979, John DeLorean, designer of the Pontiac GTO, began producing an expensive sports car in Northern Ireland. In 1982, the British government shut the plant, and soon thereafter, DeLorean was arrested in the United States on a federal cocaine-dealing charge.
DeLorean hired Novel as an aide in his defense effort, and when the case went to trial in 1984, the automaker was acquitted, thanks in part to an audiotape that Novel unearthed, revealing DeLorean was the victim of a sting.
Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, whose quixotic 1984 presidential campaign Novel also was promoting at the time, made the tape public, only to be jailed for contempt of court when he refused to reveal its origins. "He went to jail rather than naming me," Novel said. The story is true: "I did refuse to give him up as a source, and it cost me 51/2 months in prison," Flynt said.
After DeLorean's acquittal, Novel and the beleaguered automaker devised a plan to produce a new sports car, but that scheme fell through, DeLorean said, "because about half an hour after we made our announcement, I was arrested for embezzlement."
DeLorean's second federal trial also resulted in an acquittal. Perhaps becau se his legal troubles nearly ruined him - earlier this month DeLorean lost his home in a bankruptcy proceeding - today the exonerated industrialist has only praise for investigator Novel.

--jim moyer (bill moyers)
"google video - ( "Moyers: The Secret Government ... The Constitution in Crisis" - FOR TOO LONG the full length 90 min. version of this documentary has been unavailable. Only a 20 minute version has been circulating. Here ... all » now as of January 10, 2007 this failure of access ends. Bill Moyers, the respected TV journalist, analyzes the threats to constitutional government posed by an illegitimate network operating from within the government but using secrecy to set itself up outside of the government / peoples oversight. All this back in 1987. This documentary gives a fascinating overview of what has actually happened in the last 50 years regarding the CIA and the Cold War (including Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Vietnam and Chile). The foundation for the massive push towards greater secrecy in government going on today. Posted by Robert Carrillo Cohen producer "HACKING DEMOCRACY." «
- Bill D. Moyers (born June 5, 1934 as Billy Don Moyers) is an American journalist and public commentator.
He was born in Hugo, Oklahoma, and was raised in Texas. Moyers began his journalism career at age 16 as a cub reporter at the Marshall News Messenger in Marshall, Texas. He and his wife, Judith Davidson Moyers, have three grown children and five grandchildren. He is currently president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and lives in New York City. Beginning in April 2007, Moyers returns to PBS with Bill Moyers' Journal. [1][2]

--ron paul of texas ---
Congressman Ron PaulU.S. House of RepresentativesJune 27, 2002
Is America a Police State?
Mr. Speaker:
Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.
Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.
For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:
Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.
I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.
But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.
The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction.
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.
Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.
But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?
Let me make a few observations:
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.
The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.
All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.
What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.
I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.
The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there's a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we're not the target because we're "free and prosperous".
The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: "If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we'll talk about freedom.
It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense. We're looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.
That's not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we're moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.
That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.
Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we're not a free society.
Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.
But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.
Who's winning this war anyway?
To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don't need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.
I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.
The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:
-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.
-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S. territory.
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.
Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less prosperous"- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.
The question that one day must be answered is this:
What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?
If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.
This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I've made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.
This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.
I'm sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.
Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won't happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.
Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn't we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?
President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that's what diplomats are supposed to do.
Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today's conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It's now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!
A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.
There's no purpose in targeting us unless there's a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.
It's a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That's good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.
One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.
But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.
Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let's go get him instead.
Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.
If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don't jolly well like it, we will be tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it's not a real attack, then it's a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.
Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.
There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.
Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.
Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we're king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.
This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we're dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone's head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: "Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States." Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: "Let's march on Baghdad."
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress' shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.
Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:
-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.
- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government's surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.
-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.
- The federalization of all airline security employees.
-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.
- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.
- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.
- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.
Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.
Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress.Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.
There's no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.
Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.
There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation's problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.
Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.
As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.
I'm sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can't and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.
But that's exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It's a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn't entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.
The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.
This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.
This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we're just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it's not capable of doing.
Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I'm convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let's pray that this concern will never materialize.
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.
Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what's coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a world American empire.
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.
In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state.
-- todd c wurster
( - Why should I care whether or not the United States Joins the North American Union? - If you care about national sovereignty, our cherished American freedoms, the United States Constitution, American independence, retaining the American standard of living, and keeping English as the "real" language of our country, among other unique values and features that adhere to the American way of life - then you should support ALL effort to STOP the North American Union!
I received this E-mail response back from Dr. Jerome Corsi when I possed the question..."How will the implementation of the North American Union affect the "Average" U.S. citizen?"
Dr. Jerome Corsi's response:
"You should read my book with Jim Gilchrist, Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders – we document how open migration opens the U.S. to a new 21st century slave force. This, plus opening the US to Chinese slave goods (and near slave goods), will probably mean that the U.S. will lose most of the middle class within a generation – manufacturing will move to China and low skilled jobs will drop dramatically in pay. In 25 years, the US will look much like Mexico does today – a large group at the bottom and a few families and highly skilled at the top (plus a few families).Thanks for your questions"Jerry Corsi
( - pretext for a north american union -
- (Stop the NAU: "Pretext for the North America Union" Presentation
(For a FREE DVD of this presentation please email This website is maintained by Todd C. Wurster Contact us at ...)

No comments: