Friday, September 05, 2008

9/11

From http://www.rense.com/general25/knewknow.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rense.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Knew...And Now
The Entire World Knows
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Contributing Editor
5-21-2

All the desperate lies and spin don't change the fact that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks...

George W. Bush knew. And his administration knew. The transparently dishonest denials issued by the White House do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. They are lying. A simple examination of existing information, gathered from reliable, open sources proves it. Last night, Michael C. Ruppert of From The Wilderness was scheduled to present his case for Bush 9/11 foreknowledge before a national TV audience on Geraldo Rivera's Fox News program. At the last minutes, this live appearance was cancelled. Coincidence? Ruppert's appearance, which could have caused immeasurable damage to the administration, was allegedly prompted by "breaking news" from the White House suggesting "imminent new terrorist attacks." "Wag the dog"? What desperate measures will this cabal resort to in order to remain in power? How many more lives will they take?

Backed into a Corner at Every Turn

On May 15, Press Secretary and official White House liar Ari Fleischer nervously stuttered, "The president did not receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers. This was a new type of attack that was not foreseen."

This was followed by Condoleeza Rice, who repeated the spin: "I don't think that anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." Bush himself issued a statement that he had no indication beforehand that "terrorists would hijack jets and deliberately crash them." The White House would have us believe that not a single individual in the entire US government, nor the entire Central Intelligence Agency, had knowledge about a method of terrorism that has been routine for more than 20 years. And that not a single person in the entire national security apparatus of the US had a shred of information on training camps in Iran (a hotspot of intense US intelligence focus for decades) devoted to this method of terrorism.

Yossef Bodansky is a director of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare in the US House of Representatives, and the author of the book "Bin Laden: The Man Who Targeted America." Bodansky is a Washington insider whose views are sought after, respected and broadly disseminated throughout the US government.

In a well-publicized paper from 1993, he stated, "The training of suicide pilots started in the Busher air base in Iran in the early 1980s with some 90 Pilatus PC-7 aircraft purchased from Switzerland." "According to a former trainee in Wakilibad (a base for the training of kamikaze pilots), one of the exercises included having an Islamic Jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport aircraft. Then trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective," he wrote.

"The leading terrorists are known as 'Afghans,' having been trained with the mujahadeen in Pakistan. Some fought in Afghanistan. Muslim volunteers from several Arab and Asian countries were encouraged to come to Pakistan and join the Afghan Jihad." (Source: Target America: Terrorism in the US Today, 1993. "Islamic Terrorism in the United States," National Security Caucus, 1996.)

The Bush administration would have us believe that a subject that was written about in books and discussed openly throughout Washington is "unimaginable."

They would also have us believe that they, and their intelligence operatives, have been unaware of some of the most spectacular and horrific terrorist operations in recent history-many of them directed at the United States.

Yet:

On December 29, 1994, four terrorists alleged to have ties to Osama bin Laden hijacked Air France Flight 8969, a flight from Algiers to Paris. They loaded the plane with explosives and filled it with extra fuel, with the intent of ramming it into the Eiffel Tower. Commandos stormed the plane and killed the hijackers. (Source: NBC News. September 30, 2001. Chris Hansen, "The Lesson of Air France Flight 8969")

A full seven years before September 11, an al-Qaeda suicide hijacking is partially executed and barely stopped by French intelligence. The Bush administration would have us believe that no one in the CIA had ever heard of such a thing.

Another suicide hijacking plot was discovered six years before September 11. Ramsey Youssef, the terrorist who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had detailed plans to hijack and crash commercial airliners into buildings in the US, and blow up 12 US airliners during international flights over a two-day period. This plot, known as Operation Bojinka, was discovered by Philippine intelligence agents in 1995, in the hideout of Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad, a US trained pilot linked to bin Laden. Philippine authorities passed this information to the FBI. This plot was disclosed again in the 1997 trial of Youssef. (Source: Kevin Cullen, Ralph Ranalli. Boston Globe, Sept 18, 2001, "Flight School Said FBI Trailed Suspect Prior to Hijackings")

Two years before 9/11, reports prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden would hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon. "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,'' the September 1999 report said. (Source: Associated Press, May 17, 2002).

In July 2001, during the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini revealed that Italian intelligence had uncovered a plot to crash a hijacked commercial airliner into either Air Force One or one of the buildings used for the summit. (Source: New York Newsday, Sept 19, 2001) This jetliner kamikaze plot was directed at Bush himself. Taking the Bush denial to its logical extension, the White House would have us believe that Bush and the CIA were not only unaware of this plot, but also not warned by the Italian government.

During the investigation into the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, intelligence officials and FBI were alerted that two bin Laden associates had been trained as pilots. Airman Flight School in Oklahoma became the focus of an FBI investigation. The FBI was warned in August 2001 that Zacarias Moussauoi, the notorious "20th pilot" who attended Airman was only interested in steering a plane-and not taking off or landing. He also specifically asked about New York City air space.

In June 2001, the German BND warned the CIA and Israel of plans by Middle Eastern terrorists to "hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." Furthermore, according to the same source, the Echelon spy network was used to break this news, and that intelligence agents in the UK also had advance warning. (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001)

In the summer of 2001, Russian intelligence and President Vladimir Putin warned the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots were going to hijack commercial aircraft for suicide missions.

Attorney David Shippers, who led the impeachment case against Bill Clinton, warned Attorney General John Ashcroft and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he had proof from a credible source (that he has still not revealed) about a plot to use hijacked commercial airliners to ram the White House and Capitol. (Source: Info Wars (radio program) Oct 10 2001)

This list of specific warnings about suicide hijackings is but the tip of the iceberg. The Bush administration received many more warnings of an imminent attack from foreign governments (Israel, Germany, Egypt, UK, Russia), FBI agents (whose investigations were obstructed) and covert operatives who were studiously silenced (Naval Intelligence Officer Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, for one)

Ari Fleischer's Lies About the CIA

As part of his clumsy May 15 damage control press conference, Fleischer responded to a question about CIA foreknowledge by quoting from an address given on April 11 at Duke University by CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt. Fleischer quoted only selected passages from the Pavitt address that seemed to deny 9/11 foreknowledge:

"What didn't we know? We never found the tactical intelligence, never uncovered the specifics that could have stopped those tragic strikes that we all remember so well. Against that degree of control, that kind of compartmentation, that depth of discipline and fanaticism, I personally doubt . . . that anything short of one of the knowledgeable inner circle personnel or hijackers turning himself in to us would have given us sufficient foreknowledge to have prevented the horrendous slaughter that took place. Some of you out there may have heard bin Laden himself speak about this on that shocking videotape."

But Fleischer failed to quote portions of the same speech in which Pavitt admitted CIA clear foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks, deep penetration of terrorist cells throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, and longstanding presence in the region. This speech, which is posted at the CIA web site, has already been dissected by Online Journal. Among the Pavitt passages that Fleischer did not read to the press:

"We had very, very good intelligence of the general structure and strategies of the al Qaeda terrorist organization. We knew and we warned that al Qaeda was planning a major strike. There need be no question about that."

"If you hear somebody say, and I have, the CIA abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left and that we never paid any attention to that place until September 11th, I would implore you to ask those people how we were able to accomplish all we did since the Soviets departed. How we knew who to approach on the ground, which operations, which warlord to support, what information to collect. Quite simply, we were there well before the 11th of September."

"We predicted, we told the President, that there would be between five and 15 serious attacks against on U.S. soil. But we did much much more than warn. With our allies and our partners around the world, we launched immense efforts to counter those threats. Hundreds of terrorists were arrested, multiple cells of terrorism were destroyed."

Indeed, according to a September 14, 2001, report from Reuters, "The CIA has been authorized since 1998 to use covert means to disrupt and pre-empt terror operations allegedly planned abroad by Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden." Quoting government sources, "The CIA had used such force several times to stop armed groups before they initiated attacks." As mentioned previously, the CIA participated in a study that concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings. And there is more proof of CIA foreknowledge and action.

The February 2001 trial of the al-Qaeda members responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings was based almost entirely on intercepted cell phone calls. During the trial, prosecutors describe how US intelligence used Echelon, a highly secret technical intelligence gathering system used to monitor worldwide communications. On February 13, 2001, UPI quoted multiple agencies saying that they had broken al Queda's codes.

It is inconceivable that, armed with a budget of over $30 billion, and technologies such as Echelon (which tracks nearly all electronic communication in the world), Promis (which monitors banking and financial transactions in real-time), Carnivore (which intercepts e-mail) and other tools, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies would have "no inkling."

This lie is further exposed by the fact that Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, had been under constant CIA surveillance since January 2000. (Source: Reuters Oct 22, 2001) According to Le Figaro (October 31, 2001), bin Laden received treatment at an American hospital in Dubai for kidney disease in mid-July 2001-and reportedly met with a CIA official.

The More Important Questions They Are Not Asking

1. Who really is Osama bin Laden? What is al Qaeda? What really is "Militant Islam?" In a penetrating analysis by Professor Michel Chossudovsky titled "Who is Osama bin Laden?" this question is answered clearly. Osama bin Laden and the terror networks of the region are creations of the United States and its CIA-and continue to serve the geostrategic purposes of the United States government, which directly and indirectly controls their operations.

The CIA, using Pakistan's ISI, played a key role in training the mujahadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated into the teachings of Islam.

Pakistan's ISI is a proxy of the CIA by official government directive.

CIA covert operations in the region are conducted through the ISI. Terror operations continue throughout the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia-which, in addition to holding coveted untapped oil and gas reserves, produces three quarters of the world's opium.

The Islamic Jihad has been supported by the US and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade.

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, and kept out of touch with upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic warriors are unaware of whose purposes they serve.

Since the Cold War, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at the same time inflating his legend as the world's foremost terrorist.

Why did the director of the ISI transfer money to Mohammed Atta, and why has no one investigated this connection?

2. Why were no fighter planes scrambled on the morning of 9/11?

With the full knowledge that four planes had been simultaneously hijacked, the National Command Authority did not scramble fighter aircraft to intercept for 75 minutes-an unprecedented breach of standard FAA procedure that has been followed for 25 years. The bizarre air stand-down has been analyzed at http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm.

3. What accounts for Bush's behavior on 9/11? Bush was not 'formally' informed of the hijackings for 35 minutes -an astounding irregularity all by itself. When White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card "whispered into his ear," Bush displayed no shock and continued to speak to a classroom of schoolchildren. Later reports confirm that Bush knew about the first World Trade Center crash while in the presidential limousine on the way to the school-and he did not act. Another report quoted Bush as saying "When I saw the first plane hit, I thought 'what a terrible pilot.'" Putting aside the callousness of his thought, was this another garbled quote, or did Bush see the first plane? And if so, how did he see it? In yet another report, after both World Trade towers were hit, Bush joked to his budget director Mitch Daniels, "I've hit the trifecta." Is this the behavior of a president who just found out about the horrific "first attack of US territory since the war of 1812"? 4. If 9/11 was an unprovoked surprise terror attack, what was the Bush administration doing provoking the Taliban and threatening war with Afghanistan?

In July 2001 Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik is told by senior US officials that military actions against Afghanistan would begin by October. This threat, which was triggered in part by the Taliban's refusal to accept the Bush administration's terms for a trans-Afghan oil pipeline, is made directly to the Taliban during a meeting in Berlin, attended by the Taliban, officials of Russia, Iran, Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. New memos reveal that Bush had an Afghanistan war plan on his desk on September 9.

5. What did Wall Street know? And if Wall Street knew, what wasn't known within the Bush administration? What wasn't known by the CIA and intelligence agencies, which track stock trades on a real time basis? The highly abnormal insider trading that occurred immediately before the 9/11 attacks involving only companies hardest hit by the attacks-UAL, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and others-and were clearly the result of foreknowledge. Despite these trades, which Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News described as "insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen . . . one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence." To those who would place the blame on bin Laden, consider this: according to an October 6 National Public Radio report, Britain's Financial Services Authority cleared bin Laden and al Qaeda of this insider trading.

6. Why have the insiders and whistleblowers been silenced and intimidated?

In August 2001, a US Navy Lieutenant and Naval Intelligence officer, Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, who was jailed in Canada on US fraud charges, which were later proven false, repeatedly warned US and Canadian intelligence officials about the pending suicide hijack attacks (complete with the listing of targets), based on information he had gleaned from documents that he had couriered from Russia before his arrest. US and Canadian officials refused to debrief him. Vreeland, whose identity was verified in court, was cleared of all charges and is in Canada fighting extradition to the US. In light of increasing evidence of Bush administration foreknowledge, Vreeland's case, and his claims to have detailed information regarding total US intelligence penetration of al Qaeda, takes on even greater significance. His case can be studied at www.copvcia.com.

For more unasked questions, and links to articles in which the answers are fully or partially answered, www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html.

Letting It Happen: A New Smoking Gun

On CNN Inside Politics (May 17, 2002), Senator Dianne Feinstein responded to Ari Fleischer's outrageous accusation that she did not provide the White House with information about terrorist threats. Feinstein stated that on September 10, 2001, she discussed the lack of protection against terrorist attacks against targets within the US with the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney and practically begged for some action from the administration. She was told by the Cheney staffer it would have to wait at least six months.

A Limited Hangout or Something More? The Mushrooming Scandal in Context

Since September 11, and until just days ago, the Bush empire appeared to be invincible, unchallenged and marching the world towards escalating worldwide war, and dictatorship in the United States. The Bush oligarchy appeared dominant over a sold-out and servile Congress, and a corporate consensus marching in lockstep to the orders of the administration's oil/military/intelligence hierarchy.

What has caused certain members of Congress to find a voice and a spine?

What has caused the major corporate American media, which until days ago was the most aggressive supporter of the White House version of 9/11, to turn on the Bush administration?

Who gave the orders, the signal, that is was time to go after Bush-in a way that they had not done since George W. Bush announced his candidacy for the presidency?

The answers at this early stage are not clear. But recent events suggest that

1) the rampant criminality of the administration is becoming too obvious to cover up,

2) resistance to the brute force of Bush unilateralism is becoming too great to ignore,

3) political and social instability throughout the world is becoming a problem in key strategic regions where a modicum of finesses is needed, 4) a segment of the ruling elite has grown tired of being shut out of the deal.

Consider the embarrassing failures of the Bush administration since September 11:

Despite the success of restarting the Unocal pipeline, Afghanistan remains a hotbed of warlordism and anti-US hostility that US-installed Hamid Karzai is having difficulty controlling.

Osama bin Laden has not been found. Al Qaeda has not been dismantled.

Recent talks between the US, Russia, Iran and former Soviet republics to forge a multilateral agreement regarding oil and gas in the Caspian Sea region collapsed, leaving the western oil companies in a precarious position with unrequited investments throughout the Caspian region.

Israel's American-approved and American-assisted butchery and criminal occupation of Palestine, pushed to nightmarish extremes by Ariel Sharon, has triggered outrage and anti-US hostility throughout the world. Islamic outrage is worsening.

The threat of oil embargos from OPEC nations and threats of boycotts of US goods are real.

Bush has failed to maintain multinational "coalitions"-the key to continued US military and neoliberal economic primacy.

A war against Iraq is impossible without a coalition.

The US-orchestrated coup of Venezuela failed. Evidence of the Bush administration's participation in this coup is clear, blatant, and embarrassing.

The US-led Plan Colombia/Andean Initiative is meeting with continued resistance throughout Latin America.

The world economy is floundering.

Outside of the tightly controlled US, America is hated.

Enron, Enron, Enron.

The constitutional crisis triggered by Bush's refusal to reveal documents relating to the energy task force has worsened.

A continuing grand jury investigation of corruption in Kazakhstan, implicating oil companies tied to the Bush administration.

More FBI agents are coming forward with lawsuits exposing Bush administration obstruction of anti-terror operations.

Former President Jimmy Carter's visit to Cuba was a loud rebuke to Bush, and a loud signal to the world that an opposing faction of the New World Order-one which includes prominent conservative Democrats-is a making a move. The crafty Carter, he of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, was the consummate world diplomat -a stark counter to the relentless unilateral militarism of the Bush faction.

Clearly, Bush and his administration would not be under pressure unless powerful people wanted it to happen. The corporate media, which has gotten the green light to make noise, would not be engaging in a feeding frenzy without an incentive.

Is this another limited hangout? How far will this go? Is it a palace coup? Is it a "wag the dog" fake?

The Lies Will Not Stand

In the months since September 11, the defining moment of recent history, neither the Bush administration, nor its surrogates and allies, have produced one shred of credible evidence supporting the White House version of the events of that day. Instead, the Bush administration has mass marketed a total fabrication based on accusations, fear mongering, infantile comic book bluster, and duplicitous lies about US policies, geo-strategic agenda, and worldwide operations. Their evidence has amounted to the weakest conspiracy theory and, in the case of the "notorious bin Laden video" that is trotted out at the first sign of controversy, televised conspiracy fantasy.

Meanwhile, in the past eight months, hundreds of independent researchers, journalists and scholars have done what neither Congress nor the White House has done: investigate. This already substantial body of evidence is being exponentially strengthened and enhanced by new evidence coming to light in the mushrooming scandal. The points presented in this article are but the tip of the iceberg.

The courageous Ruppert has thoroughly and dispassionately examined the September 11 case. Read his powerful analyses:

The Lie Won't Stand

The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks

"Oh Lucy! - You Gotta Lotta 'Splainin To Do"

Ruppert has dissected the events of the day, but also the geostrategic agenda preceding and following the event. The Bush version of events is utterly smashed to pieces.

A recently published and excellent collection of investigative journalism, Everything You Know Is Wrong, offers another thoroughly documented, meticulously sourced examination of 9/11 titled "September 11, 2001: No Surprise."

Given the voluminous evidence (from reliable open sources) now amassed against the Bush administration, this much is clear:

the administration of George Walker Bush cannot claim a lack of intelligence, technology or human resources capable of predicting or preventing the attacks of September 11. Nor can it disown the criminal activities and policies that preceded and followed the day, and the mass slaughter that has continued to be waged around the world in its name.

In fact, the Bush oligarchy had both the motive and the means to facilitate the most spectacular atrocity in modern American history, and open the Pandora's box of world war without end.

Bush knew. Now, the entire world knows.

It is up to the people of the world to seize this moment, and send the Bush administration into the bowels of history.

Larry Chin is a freelance journalist and an Online Journal Contributing Editor

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin051902/chin051902.html

Email This Article

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

This Site Served by TheHostPros

_______________________

25 Reasons Why "White Collar Terrorists" Are To Blame for 9-11, "America's New War," and the Impending World War III

Compiled by Dr. Len Horowitz
http://www.americanreddoublecross.com/

1) The "terrorist" attacks were completely predictable and, in fact, predicted. Forewarnings were issued by many patriotic and heroic individuals to government and military officials well in advance of Sept. 11, 2001. For instance, in August, Drs. Garth Nicolson, Ph.D., and his wife Nancy Nicolson, Ph.D., among the world's most esteemed Mycoplasma researchers and Gulf War Syndrome investigators, reported to Pentagon officials that they had confirmed intelligence that on Sept. 11, 2001 a terrorist strike against the Pentagon would be made. Their sources included individuals in key intelligence positions, the mob, and one high level African diplomat. Their "information was passed on to the Director of Policy of the Department of Defense, the Inspector General of the US Army Medical Corps and the National Security Council," Dr. Nicolson wrote. "Unfortunately, it was ignored." Likewise, Dr. Leonard Horowitz, the award-winning author of the prophetically titled book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, (http://www.tetrahedron.org; http://www.prophecyandpreparedness.com/) released three months before the attacks on Washington and New York, correctly predicted such a first strike on New York. For three years, based on government documents and intelligence reports, he had been warning "Metropolis" residents, "It's time to move."

2) On Friday, September 7, Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, brother to the President, issued an Executive Order in which members of the Florida National Guard were activated, "for the purpose of training to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disaster." Perhaps the president and his brother received Dr. Nicolson's warnings or were the source of the warnings?

3) Numerous reports have surfaced alleging that Bush administration, military, and intelligence officials' close associates had suddenly, and inexplicably, sold all their airline stock just days before the terrorist attacks. The F.B.I. is reportedly investigating these reports and such "inside traders."

4) Osama bin Laden and his band of "Terrorists" could not have pulled off the "sophisticated" operation of four simultaneous air hijackings, and precision directed attacks, without the support of one or more "intelligence organizations." This was the expert testimony provided by past CIA Afghanistan operations director and bin Laden's American intelligence aficionado, Milt Bearden, interviewed by Dan Rather on September 12, 2001. In fact, when pressed by Dan Rather to endorse the theory of bin Laden's culpability, Mr. Bearden stated, "if they didn't have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one."

5) On October 31, 2001, the French daily Le Figaro reported that Osama bin Laden had met with a high-level CIA official in July 2000. At that time, bin Laden was already being sought for trial for his involvement in two U.S. embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attack. The meeting was held in bin Laden's private suite in a Dubai hospital. Though he was eligible for extermination, according to President Bill Clinton's intelligence findings, on July 14th he was let go and left Dubai on his private jet.

6) Every expert in the field of terrorism, up until Sept. 11, 2001, routinely explained the fact that certified terrorist organizations operate in an effort to garner worldwide attention and support for their political cause(s). In the case of pro-Palestinian terrorist organizations, their attacks had been traditionally against American military facilities and personnel. This was obviously neither the intent nor outcome of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

7) For weeks preceding September 11, 2001 international opinion regarding Israel and the United States had plummeted to an all-time low. Alternatively, pro-Palestinian attitudes had rapidly increased to an all-time high, particularly following the United Nations Conference on Racism wherein the U.S. and Israel had been chastised for their racist policies. Any intelligent pro-Palestinian terrorist group, such as Osama bin Laden's legions, or intelligence organization(s) supportive to the Palestinian cause, would not have jeopardized the significant gains achieved at that time.

8) Osama bin Laden took his direction and money from the CIA for ten years. During this time, approximately $5 billion was funneled to his organization through black op budgets into CIA operation known as Maktab al-Khidamar-the MAK. It is clear, as a MAK mercenary army leader, bin Laden's fortune vastly increased during that time. It is said that, "Once in the CIA, always in the CIA." Could this be one of the intelligence organizations about which Milt Bearden was speaking? (See #5 above.)

9) Also on Tuesday evening September 12, 2001 previous Secretary of Defense for the Clinton administration, William S. Cohen, explained to CBS News anchorman Dan Rather, that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were an aberration. He fully expected there to be a full-scale deployment of biological and chemical "weapons of mass destruction" very soon. This reinforced his earlier statements as Defense Secretary that a five-pound bag of anthrax bacteria in the hands of terrorists would likely cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. We were particularly vulnerable to this "immanent" threat, he said. Many critical military observers considered these statements treasonous. Reason? At no time in American military history has a top level official broadcast internationally the country's greatest attack vulnerability. In effect, his statements were akin to giving anti-Americans their marching orders.

10) A sincere U.S. Government, truly concerned about the health and safety of American citizens, would be doing everything in its power to advance public health and educational policies for biological and chemical attack preparedness. Instead, such critical policy and advice has been left entirely to independent, often ill-trained, "experts," at best, and special interests and media producers at worst. The mainstream media has completely neglected the simple things people can do to guard loved-ones, such as natural medicines (e.g.,garlic) to ward off infections such as anthrax.

11) In July 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endorsed one single largely untested and highly risky antibiotic, Bayer Corporation's Cipro, for anthrax prophylaxis and treatment. Following September 11, 2001 demand for this drug skyrocketed 1,000 percent, according to Peter Jennings in an ABC News report broadcast September 27. Pharmacies charged $700 per person for a mere two-month supply of Cipro. It is well established that far less expensive antibiotics, including the penicillins and tetracyclines, are highly effective against Anthrax. The Bayer Corporation during and following World War II had been blacklisted by the U.S. Government for being the principle profiteer, in partnership with the Rockefeller Standard Oil Company, for funding the Third Reich, their terrorist organizations, and Germany's war machine.

12) During the first week of October, the media heralded a bizarre anthrax outbreak at the National Enquirer near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. By October 11, three cases of reported "criminal" anthrax infections had occurred. This form of anthrax--a classic biological weapon strain--is not easily acquired. It is distributed mainly by the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) of Rockville, Maryland. The curator there is Dr. Joshua Lederberg, who is also the president of Rockefeller University. Preceding the Gulf War, the U.S. Congressional Record (May 25, 1994, commonly called the "Don Riegle Report") exposed the ATCC for shipping to Sadam Hussein's Ministry of Higher Education and the Ministry of Trade, nineteen shipments of various strains of Bacillus Anthraces from 1978 to 1988.

13) According to investigators at the FBI, the Enquirer anthrax attack was not likely done by typical "terrorists," but rather one or more "criminals." For what motive? Obviously, whoever did this had a motive, and had access to weapons grade anthrax. That virtually leaves typical blue-collar "criminals" out entirely since skill in handling and shipping live anthrax would be required for this crime. The fact that, of all places, America's bestselling tabloid was first attacked, then other mainstream media outlets, speaks volumes about the criminal motive. Since no one has claimed responsibility for this act, they obviously did not do it for personal publicity. Obviously, then, the attack was a white collar crime by one or more "white collar bioterrorist(s)." At least one Rockefeller-linked U.S. biological weapons official, Dr. Lederberg, and Rockefeller-partnered Corporation, Bayer (aspirin) that largely financed the Third Reich, and Hitler's rise to power, had obvious white-collar (financial) motives for these contemporary "terrorist" attacks. This deserves critical consideration and further investigation.

14) On October 1, 2001, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz sent the FBI, as well as half the members of the U.S. Congress, an urgent request to investigate this matter. (See: http://www.tetrahedron.org "Apocalypse Prevention Project") Included in this letter was the following statement concerning the links between contemporary terrorist organizations, the global neo-Nazi movement, and possible Bayer Corporation involvement:
The Bayer Company [also linked to AID-virus contaminated blood products during 1980 investigations] evaded U.S. Government controls during and following the holocaust in which millions of mostly Jewish people were used as experimental subjects in medical atrocities overseen by I.G. Farben's president Hermann Schmitz, who also directed the German-multinational Bayer A.G.

Of urgent pertinence to the FBI's current investigation into terrorism's money trail, a recent investigation into terrorist group funding, issued by The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee (OBIC) directed by Representative Charles Key, found "Neo-Nazi figures have actually been implicated in Middle Eastern special weapons procurement and terrorist activity." For example, the group reported, "since the 1960s, an old Swiss Nazi named Francois Genaud has reportedly masterminded several airplane hijackings for the PLO." The now defunct "Odessa" organization, the post-war successor to Hitler's S.S., according to OBIC, "had numerous documented meetings with representatives of various Arab organizations; and, during the early 1980s, a Neo-Nazi named Odfried Hepp attacked several U.S. military installations in Germany with bombs. Hepp was later found to have been financed by Al Fatah." Hepp, OBIC reported, did his Ph.D. on "Neo-Nazi/PLO bombings of U.S. housing, cars and military facilities in Germany." Given these facts alone, an FBI investigation into this matter is critical.

I am also contacting congressional leaders at this time urging an immediate U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation into the FDA's "advisory committee" that sponsored the unprecedented sole endorsement of Bayer's Cipro for anthrax. Nowhere in the Physician's Desk Reference (2000) is it claimed that Cipro is especially indicated for anthrax. In fact, Bacillus anthracis is not even mentioned. What is mentioned is that, "although effective in clinical trials, ciprofloxacin is not a drug of first choice in the treatment of presumed or confirmed pneumonia secondary to Streptococcus pneumoniae." This organism, like anthrax, is an aerobic gram-positive microbe. (Likewise, Bacillus anthracis causes pneumonia in the form of commonly terminal hemorrhagic bronchopneumonia.) Furthermore the PDR states: "WARNINGS-THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CIPROFLOXACIN IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS AND ADOLESCENTS (LESS THAN 18 YEARS OF AGE), PREGNANT WOMEN, AND LACTATING WOMEN HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED." Alternatively, numerous bioweapons experts have consistently recommended far less costly and time-tested antibiotics to fight anthrax, including the natural and synthetic penicillins, erythromycin, cephalosporins, and the tetracyclines.

As with Dr. Nicolson's forewarning to military leaders concerning the Sept 11 Pentagon attack, the above urgent request by Dr. Horowitz for FBI investigation into this matter, to date (Nov. 5, 2001) has gone ignored. This strongly suggests, if not evidences, a conspiracy within our own government-a conspiracy of silence at minimum.

15) Aaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center, said they designed the towers to withstand airplane collisions. "I designed it for a 707 hit, he said." The collapse of the buildings came as a complete "shock" to him and his colleagues. Van Romero, a demolition expert, former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, and current vice present for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology said that the manner in which the twin towers collapsed, resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. ABC News interviewed people who had escaped "ground zero" on September 11, 2001. One unidentified man said: "We were stuck on the stairs for a while. I came down from the 85th floor. When we were just about to leave the building, there was a blast." A woman's testimony followed: "I got stuck on the stairs. When we got to the lobby there was a blast," she said.

16) On September 11, 2001 President Bush was is Sarasota, Florida, "In Sarasota, Fla. "reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear, according to the Associated Press (Sept. 12). The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. . . .[Next] President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School second-
graders read a story about a girl's pet goat . . . before he spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks." Many are curious as to why the "Commander-in-Chief" of the U.S. took about a half-hour before he responded to the national security urgency, or even addressed the tragedies.

17) The New York Times reported on September 15, 2001 that Pentagon officials had been tracking the second two hijacked planes for almost an hour following the WTC attacks because they simply "didn't know what to do." Regarding the plane that crashed into Pennsylvania "Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said . . . that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes after the Pentagon crash." Many are wondering why, if they could have shot that plane down, did they not shoot the plane down that flew into the Pentagon?

18) Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed on Sept. 12, 2001. When asked where he was when he learned of the attacks, many were surprised to learn that he was alerted by his secretary who was "watching television" in his Washington, D.C. office. In essence, though the FAA had known at least four planes were veering far off their course, while the Pentagon, too, had been tracking at least two of the hijacked planes, Mr. Cheney received his initial intelligence report by way of television through his clerical secretary.

19) "Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand," wrote investigative journalist and retired LAPD officer Michael C. Ruppert (http://www.copvcia.com) "Conveniently ignored in all of the press coverage since the tragic events of Sept. 11," Mr. Ruppert wrote, "is the fact that on May 17 Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a gift of $43 million to the Taliban as a purported reward for its eradication of Afghanistan's opium crop this February. That, in effect, made the U.S. the Taliban's largest financial benefactor according to syndicated columnist Robert Scheer writing in The Los Angeles Times on May 22."

20) "Now as US military action will replace the Taliban government and fresh crops will be planted in Afghanistan," Mr. Ruppert continued, "the slack in cash flow will assuredly be replaced by dramatically increased opium production in Colombia; the revenues from that effort being needed to maintain the revenue streams into Wall Street. Prior to the WTC attacks, credible sources, including the U.S. government, the IMF, Le Monde and the U.S. Senate placed the amount of drug cash flowing into Wall Street and U.S. banks at around $250-$300 billion a year."

21) Mr. Ruppert also revealed that an Executive Director at the CIA named A. "Buzzy" Krongard is suspected of Wall Street profiteering from foreknowledge of the Sept 11 attacks. Formerly with Bankers Trust catering to the world's wealthiest clients of the Deutsch Bank. (The Deutsche Bank is heavily implicated in Dr. Len Horowitz's book Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism, and Toxic Warfare released in June, 2001) In 1999, Mr. Krongard left Deutsch Bank for his present high-level job in the CIA. Enormous quantities of "Put" options were handled through the Deutsche Bank, which allowed the options buyers to earn profits in the event the value of airline stocks went down. The appearance of advance knowledge of Sept. 11 is so strong that to date
$2.5 Million of the $20 Million in profits earned on those unusual trades, remains unclaimed, possibly by Mr. Krongard, or other affiliates of the CIA.

22) Many journalists have reported that the bombing of Afghanistan, allegedly intended to punish the Taliban for affiliations with Bin Laden, is simply a cover for that government's reneging of support for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan from the vast Caspian Sea oil fields. Sept. 11, provided a great excuse to pursue this petrochemical, economic, and "national security" objective.

23) On December 20, 1997, the national newspaper CONTACT: The Phoenix Project, published an interview on anthrax biowarfare threats and vaccinations in which Dr. Leonard Horowitz was asked "about the government's pressure to vaccinate [using the anthrax vaccine] and the bioweapons scare tactics, etc." He responded: "Look at the motive behind the persuasion, and what is it? They're preparing to blame it on the Muslims, Christian patriots, and militia groups. The militia groups are already dysfunctional because they're penetrated by agitators."

This is precisely what followed in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. Muslim groups were blamed for the 9-11 attacks. Christian patriots were blamed for the anthrax mailings. Militia groups were entirely silenced and even implicated. And false patriotism in which Americans welcome the destruction of basic constitutional liberties with CIA command over the entire U.S. military and Government has come to pass.

24) On October 31, 2001 the American people and U.S. Constitutional freedoms were attacked, not by the Taliban government or Muslim terrorists, but by CDC officials who advanced the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act" that will force masses of people suspected of exposure to broadly-defined "infectious diseases" and biological weapons into concentration camp-like holding facilities for drugging, vaccination, and quarantine, without any viable legal recourse.

25) The entire 9-11 tragedy and subsequent threats to U.S. national and global securities fits far too perfectly with standard Machiavellian theory to be overlooked. This ongoing practice-the "problem/reaction/solution" agenda of precisely "managed chaos"-appears to be standard operating procedures for oligarchs historically bend on developing a "New World Order." Sadly now for the American people, as it has been for the Third World, this effort includes killing approximately half of the world's current population.

For more information, review the following websites:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/
http://www.prophecyandpreparedness.com/
http://www.copvcia.com/
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index1a.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Courtesy of Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
and Tetrahedron, LLC
206 North 4th Avenue, Suite 147
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
http://www.tetrahedron.org/
Toll free order line: 888-508-4787;
Office telephone: 208-265-2575;
FAX: 208-265-2775
E-mail: tetra@tetrahedron.org

Friday, August 29, 2008

Apologetics Links

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Terri Schiavo Remembered - 1 0f 4

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Benjamin Freedman

The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech

The Benjamin Freedman Speech

From BluWiki

Twenty Five Lies of Benjamin Freedman

NOTE to BlackBay: I don't debate here. I debate at rodoh.us -- come there and offer your counterarguments, OK?

Daryl Bradford Smith makes a big deal out of this speech on his Web site. Here are twenty-five lies told by Freedman -- and repeated by Daryl Bradford Smith:

(1) "In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes."

In the forty-six years since this speech was delivered, not one U.S. soldier has fought in Israel or the Palestinian territories.

(2) "[T]he United States will trigger World War III."

Hasn't happened yet.

(3) "[T]he Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists."

There was never a Palestinian government to resurrect. Nominal political control over the Palestinian people had been exercised by Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but this was during the period that Palestine was still a British colony. That mandate expired on May 15, 1948, and the same day, Israel declared its statehood. The Palestinians, by contrast, when the war was over, were occupied by either Egypt (in the Gaza strip) or Jordan (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). Neither power offerered the Palestinians autonomy, much less statehoof. King Abdullah of Jordan never even entertained the idea. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made moves toward an "All-Palestine Government," but didn't act against Israel militarily until 1967 -- six years after Freedman gave this speech.

(4) "Within two years Germany had won that war [World War I]: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually."

Freedman claims that before August 1, 1916, Germany had won the World War I. This is simply not true.

Germany was fighting a two-front war during World War I. Plus it had soldiers deployed in the Middle East to assist the Ottoman Turks, who were losing badly and would continue to lose until all their territory was gone. During the period that Freedman is discussing, Germany was fighting the combined forces of France and the British Empire (Canadian, Indian, South African, and ANZAC troops were there also) at the Battle of the Somme. The battle went from July 1, 1916, to November 18, 1916, and was declared a stalemate. Losses for both sides were about equal, which means Germany actually lost more troops because it was fighting alone on its own side. At the same time, beginning before the Battle of the Somme and ending afterwards, the Germans lost to the French at Verdun, though they sustained fewer casualties. The losses for Germany were so severe that she changed her position on the Western front from offensive to defensive, which remained the case until surrender in November 1918.

Germany did rather better on the Eastern Front, driving into Poland and ultimately leading to the tsar's overthrow in March 1917. But Germany was still fighting Russia in the summer of 1916, as well as in the Middle East with the Turks.

(5) "At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed."

Neither the French troops nor the Russian troops had mutinied at the time Freedman says they did. French losses at Verdun were around 150,000 -- not 600,000, as Freedman claims. If the Italian army had collapses, that would be a surprise to the Italian soldiers at the Battle or Gorizia, where the Italians defeated Austria-Hungary in eleven days.

(6) "[T]he Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: 'Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.'"

There's a staggering amount of disinformation in here. First, there was no German peace offer, and if there were, it would have been coming from a position of weakness to better fight on their Eastern Front.

(7) "They [Zionists] told England: 'We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.'"

This is very interesting given the actual state of affairs in the Middle East at that time. England and France had already divided up the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. In fact, they had done so the previous year -- with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement). It hadn't promised Palestine to anyone -- it had left it an issue to be decided in the future.

(8) "However, they [the British] made that promise, in October of 1916"

I have no idea where Freedman gets this date, given that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been signed in May 1916, and it contravened the only other possible offer on the table at the time, which was the promise by Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein of Mecca (father of Abdullah I of Jordan) that Arab nationalism would be realized with the defeat of the Turks. However, none of McMahon's correspondence ever promises him Palestine.

(9) "Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany."

Actually it was six months later, on April 6, 1917, and it was Congress that declared war, the President not being allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December, with less than a year left in the war. Notably, the U.S. never declared war on the Ottomans? Why not? Because they were finished by then. Given that it was the Ottomans who controlled Palestine up to this point, how could U.S. entry have secured this if it came so late?

The answer is that it couldn't.

Moreover, Freedman completely ignores the importance of the Zimmermann Telegram, a communique sent by the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Mexico, urging it to form an alliance against the U.S. This was the smoking gun that led the U.S. into the war. Interventionism was the result of the fear of the Germans (who, remember, were not winning the war -- the telegram dates from January 1917) that the U.S. would enter to stake territory for its Allies. There was, after all, already an Allied Expeditionary Force of American soldiers fighting in Europe.

(10) "After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration."

So according to Freedman's chronology, in October 1916, the British promise the Zionists Palestine, it takes them six months to get us into the war, but the Balfour Declaration still wasn't issued until seven months after we declared war on Germany. This doesn't add up.

(11) "Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know."

Well, Bernard Baruch was certainly at the Paris Peace Conference, but where this figure of 116 other Jews as a separate delegation (Baruch was with the American delegation; after all, he was head of the War Industries Board). As for Freedman being there, I have yet to see a single independent source that verifies he was there. Not one.

(12) "The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, 'How about Palestine for us?'"

Well, first of all, the land that was cut out of Germany was land that was, with very few exceptions, populated by non-German people, e.g., Poland. Austria ceded Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, these being Slavic nations whereas Austria was and is a Germanic nation.

But the real kicker is that the "Jewish delegation" demanded Palestine at this point. While it is true that an important agreement on Palestine was made at this point, it was not made between Bernard Baruch and the British government, as Freedman would have us believe. Rather, the agreement was made between Chaim Weizmann and the leader of the Arab delegation. Weizmann was of course a Zionist but a British citizen -- not one of these virtually nonexistent German Zionists that we're told about.

Freedman doesn't tell us about the Arab delegation, but it was led by Sharif Hussein's other son, Faisal, who would become the first King of Iraq. You can read the agreement here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html

So Britain didn't hand Palestine over to the Zionists. Ultimately, it was Faisal that did.

(13) "And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, 'Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.' And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."

Given that the New York Times published news of the Balfour Declaration a mere twelve days after the declaration was issued, it was a known agreement by the time of the Paris Peace Conference. (There were two more stories in the Times alone before the Peace Conference began.) In other words, Freedman was lying.

Notably, it is on the basis of this lie that Freedman then argues that the Germans were justified in their hatred of Jews. He ignores all evidence of German anti-Semitism between 1871 and 1919.

(14) "When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition."

In 1933, the only people in concentration camps were political prisoners and not Jews. More on this below.

(15) "They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time."

That's an exaggeration obviously, but even more so for 1933 in Germany. The KPD (Communist Party) in Germany was led by Ernst Thaelmann, a Gentile. He was arrested and put in Dachau in 1933 and kept in solitary confinement until Hitler had him shot in 1944. But Jews in Germany tended not to vote for the KPD, despite its quite excellent returns in the elections between 1929 and 1932 (it always polled in the top three parties). Most Jews in Germany voted instead for the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. This was not a communist party.

An illustrative example can be made with the situation in the Soviet Union, where far more leaders of the Communist Party there were Jews. Even conceding that this is the case, the vast majority of Jews in Russia between March 1917 and November 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, were not in communist parties. They tended to be either in Zionist parties or in the Jewish Bund or the PSR (social democrats). These latter two parties were the only parties in the USSR condemn the Bolshevik coup in the Congress of Deputies that had been established after the tsar had been overthrown.

Germany had even fewer Jews and, given the explanation already given that their living standard was better in Germany and that they fled there from Russia in 1905, it is not unreasonable to conclude that fewer Jews were communists in Germany than in Russia, particularly in 1933.

(16) "Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days."

As already demonstrated, the KPD existed in Germany, as did the SPD, and their platforms were so different, in fact, that the KPD refused to join SPD-led governments.

(17) "Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words 'made in Germany' on it."

The Untermeyer boycott was so incredibly ineffective that Germany had experienced complete economic recovery by 1937.

(18) "The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that."

The largest Christian organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. In his 1965 encyclical Nostra Aetate, Pope Paul VI wrote, "The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people."

I think the Pope probably can speak on greater authority on these matters than Freedman.

(19) "The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars."

While there is no doubt that the Khazarian Empire adopted Judaism as its official religion and that this empire stretched into parts of Eastern Europe, there was still a settlement of Jews along the Rhine Valley that pre-dated the Khazars. They did not emigrate to Poland and points east of there until the 16th century, long after the Khazars were gone. These Jews spoke Yiddish, which is based on German, whereas the Khazars spoke a Turkish language.

Furthermore, genetic tests conducted in the last two years indicate that the vast majority of Jews derive from only four women, and that the priestly tribe of Jews, the kohenim, share a Middle Eastern common ancestor.

(20) "When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void."

The Kol Nidrey nullifies only vows made to God. This is one of the oldest libels against Judaism and has been disproven repeatedly.

(21) "And further than that, the Talmud teaches: 'Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that.'"

The Talmud says no such thing and I challenge any person to prove otherwise.

(22) "There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', 'jew'. At the time, there was no printing press."

Freedman's linguistic analysis of the word "Jew" is so terrible it would make a real linguist laugh in hysterics. Suffice it to say that, yes, there was no letter J in the Roman alphabet, but they did not pronounce their word for Jew (Iudean) with the /j/ phoneme at the beginning.

(23) "Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews."

Well, Jews are Semites, but that's beside the point. The word coined by Wilhelm Marr nearly a century before Freedman's speech was Antisemitismus and it was coined to apply to Jews only -- not to Arabs.

(24) "They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion."

Jews were consistently persecuted only on religious grounds until the 19th century. Before then, the charge was "Christ-killer." That is a religious basis.

(25) "But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe."

Freedman is referring to a hoax of an anti-Semitic quote attributed to Ben Franklin that was actually created by William Dudley Pelley in 1933.

Back to Daryl Bradford Smith

____________________________

From http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Other_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech

Twenty-Five More Lies of Benjamin Freedman

(1) "I am very honored to be here. I don't know how to start to thank Col. Dall for making it possible for me to address you. But I hope that things work out so that you will feel grateful to him."

Just to be clear on who "Colonel Dall" was. He was retired at the time of this speech, but he had been an army colonel. He also had been the son-in-law of FDR. At the time of this speech, he was a close associate with Willis Carto and the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, and extreme far-right, racist, nativist organization. Willis Carto founded the Holocaust denial "think-tank" the Institute for Historical Review.

(2) "In that book, in those two volumes, the first English dictionary ever published by Dr. Samuel Johnson, (about whom, many of you know) the word, Jew, does not appear!"

That's because it appears under the listing "IEW," with an "I" at the beginning instead of a "J." J was the last addition the English alphabet (Shakespeare's folio and quarto editions do not use the letter "J" in The Merchant of Venice, where there are prominent Jewish characters, or in the final lines of Othello, where it is unclear of Othello is speaking of an "Indian" or a "Iudean" because of the reversal of the letter "n" or "u" in the second position in the word.

The Oxford English Dictionary dates the word "IEW" to Shakespeare's usage of the term in the Merchant of Venice (1596). The first apperance of the word "Jew" according to the OED is Richard B. Sheridan's The Rivals (1775). Johnson's non-inclusion of the word in his dictionary, which was first published in 1755 -- not 1797, is obviously because of the differing dates of publication. The next significant use of the word is in an 1820 work of Lord Byron, Johnson had died sixteen years earlier.

All of this is really beside the point, however. There has existed a word in languages other than English to refer to Jews since, at least, the composition of the books of Kings in the Bible, where the term first appears in Hebrew. That, according to the OED, the word did not take on its current spelling in common until 1775 is meaningless. There existed words before then to refer to Jews, and everyone knew who was meant, because language is primary a spoken phenomenon and not a written one. To wit:

(3) "They say Shakespeare used it. They cite all the people who used it. It did not exist."

Shakespeare *did* use it. See above. He just spelled it according to the alphabet that was used in his time.

(4) "Now, in the Middle East, you know the situation. The United States has been supplying, since the end of World War II, 32 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. 95% of that 32 billion dollars was used by the Congress of the United States, after you paid that money into the Treasury, to make the United States the accomplice, the ally, of thieves and murderers; to aid and abet them to hold on to their stolen loot -territory that they acquired by invading Palestine and driving the indigenous population out of the country that they had inhabited for 2,000 years!"

This is a terrible exaggeration. First of all, when this speech was given, we had only began really monetarily supporting Israel the previous year, during the Yom Kippur War. We did not aid Israel in the 1967 war -- in fact, we had explicitly warned Israel via Robert McNamara that any escalation of the conflict by Israel would have serious repercussions to the American-Israeli relationship.

Anyway, let's accept Freedman's figures for the moment: $32 billion dollars over twenty-nine years (1945-1974). That comes to an average of about $1.1 billion per year in aid to Zionists or Israel or what have you. Now the peak aid given to Israel was during the Reagan-Bush years, and that came to, at most, $5 billion per year. If Nixon had given the greatest amount of aid ever given to Israel in the year prior to this Freedman speech, Freedman would still be $28 billion off the mark. Certainly we provided some aid to Israel, but there is no way that it amounted to $32 billion in twenty-nine years. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel was far too volatile earlier for us to be funding them. We nearly went to war against Israel in 1956 over the Suez crisis and, as already noted, we were very angry about their actions in 1967.

Given a close reading of history, Freedman's figure simply isn't possible.

(5) "You have been told that by every media of mass information, including the pulpit, including every other means by which they can shape your thinking: "That it is your Christian duty to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their promised land."

What's funny about this statement is that between 1969 and 1985, I was a Roman Catholic, attending mass every Sunday. I don't recall the priests every talking about Israel in church. And Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in not only the U.S., but the entire world.

(6) "But you will find that the Khazars were an Asian nation; they were a Mongoloid, Turko-Finn tribal nation in Asia. And they had so much trouble with the other nations there, who finally succeeded in driving them out of Asia, across the border, into what is known today as Russia, in the area of the Ukraine. They found, there, a lot of peaceful agricultural people, mostly Slavic, and they conquered them. They did the same thing then as they are still doing in the Middle East! They took them, for no reason at all, except the people weren't trained to fight! They established there, the Khazar Kingdom."

This is directly at variance with what Arthur Koestler, who Daryl Bradford Smith so shamelessly promotes on his Web site, writes in The Thirteen Tribe. Read Part IV of the book here: http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/k113.html

What Koestler says is that Khazars requested the right to settle within the Russian Empire and were granted that permission. Nowhere does it say that they "conquered" the Slavic peoples there. And there was no Khazar Kingdom in Eastern Europe. According to Koestler and most other people, the Khazar Kingdom was in the Caucasus, between Russia and Turkey.

Again, all of this is beside the point, because the most recent genetic studies confirm that most Jews are not descended from the Khazars but are indeed Semites. Even the anti-Semitic "evolutionary psychologist" Kevin MacDonald says so in his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: "Recent genetic studies have con-firmed the genetic integrity of Jewish groups discussed in Chapter 2 of PTSDA. These studies confirm the Middle Eastern origins of Jews and show that Jewish groups remained genetically separate from the peoples they lived among over the last 2000 years. Based on Y-chromosome data, Hammer et al. (2000) found, that various Jewish populations (Ashkenazi, North African, Kurdish, Yemenite, and Near Eastern) were not only closely related to each other, but also closely related to other Middle Eastern groups (Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians) and quite separate from European groups. On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation. This level of genetic admixture is consistent with supposing that there has been essentially no conversion of Europeans to become mating members of the Ashkenazi gene pool. The very low levels of genetic admixture with Europeans may well have come from clandestine matings and rape. Two other recent Y-chromosome studies also found that Israeli Jews derive from the Middle Eastern gene pool (Nebel et al. 2000, 2001). Nebel (2000) found that 70% of the Y chromosomes of Jews and 82% of the Y chromosomes of Palestinians belong to the same chromosome pool, suggesting a common ancestry. However, Nebel et al. (2001) found evidence that Jews are even more closely related to the Kurds. Muslim Kurds were located near Kurdish Jews and between Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews. When compared with European populations, Ashkenazi Jews were more genetically distant from European populations than they were from Sephardic Jews, and they were also closer to Arab populations (e.g., Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese). Sephardic Jews were genetically distant from both Spaniards and North Africans despite having lived among them for centuries. Indeed, they remain very close to Kurdish Jews, a finding the authors attribute to genetic continuity with Jews exiled by the Assyrians in 723 B.C. and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Kurdish Jews remained closer genetically to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews than to Kurdish Muslims, a truly remarkable finding, since it indicates no detectable genetic admixture between Kurdish Jews and their hosts over approximately 2700 years. Finally, despite some differences, there is a great deal of genetic affinity between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish groups, confirming the findings of Hammer et al. (2000)."

Another point is that the Khazar kingdom became well known amongst jewish communities during that time as being the only jewish kingdom in the world. It became a safe haven for jews. Jews flooded into Khazaria from asia minor and the surrounding areas where they were fleeing from persecution. While the Khazar kingdom began as non-semetic it ended up with a large semetic population who then intermarried with the locals. This is why their descendents (majority of ashkenazi) are genetically related to other semetic groups. So it is totally false that descendents of Khazarian jews are not semetic, or not jewish by blood relation.

(7) "Now, those three pages in that Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 15, the 1911 Edition tells you who they are, how war-like, how savage, how barbarian they are, and that they succeeded in sweeping across Europe to the gates of Paris, and to Finland. They controlled all Europe - these Mongols known as Khazars! They did that from maybe the fourth century to the ninth century. And they were the most brutal people. They enslaved these people and exacted tribute from them, while holding them under their control - practically all Europe."

Here's a link to the 1911 edition of Britannica's article on Khazars: http://82.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KH/KHAZARS.htm

Does it say what Freedman says? Nope. Paris isn't mentioned in the article. Neither is Finland.They most certainly did not conquer all of Europe, consider the almost complete absence of Jews outside of Spain, France, and Germany in Europe during this period.

(8) "Until in the 8th century, a man by the name of Rurik. a Varengian, who came from across the water, from what is known today as Sweden, - he organized these people. They were living as people interested in agriculture. They didn't want any politics, they didn't want nations or governments. But he saw what they were subject to, this treatment by their Khazar conquerors. And he organized the principality of Rokh, which became the Russian Empire. He organized them, and started to drive these Khazars back. And he finally succeeded to where they came into Europe for the first time, in the area of the Ukraine, where they continued their Khazar Kingdom."

Again, Freedman's account is rather different from Koester's: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trib03.htm

(9) "Now, they were Phallic Worshipers. Anyone who doesn't know what Phallic worship means, I am not going to go into detail, but they were Phallic worshipers and they were so degenerate that when the king, their ruler, heard that there were such things as monotheistic forms of religious belief, (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) he sent for representatives of the three of them, and asked them to tell him the merits of their faith."

Phallic worshippers are penis worshippers. Anyway, the Khazars were phallic worshippers. They were Tengriists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengriism

Note that a search for the words phallic, phallus, and penis in the text of The Thirteenth Tribe turned up no hits. Again, Freedman's account is entirely different from that of Koestler: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=phallic+phallus+penis+site%3Abiblebelievers.org.au&btnG=Google+Search

(10) "And after listening to them, like a child would play "Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo" to pick out the one that they favored, he listened to the three of them, and said, "I'm going to become a Jew and adopt the religion known today as Judaism."

This is not only against Koestler, again, but it's entirely wrong. The Kagan of the Khazars chose Judaism because it was neither Christianity, the religion of its northern neighbor, the Byzantine Empire; nor was it Islam, the religion of its southern neighbor, the Arabs and Turks. Knowing that the religion of Judaism received some respect from both religions, it seemed the neutral move to chose Judaism.

(11) "The Khazars are carriers of a disease that no other people in the world have. Here's the circular that they got out. It's called, "Kasak Disease" (The Jewish Disease - Tay-Sachs). I have known about it for years. The New York News newspaper had a full page on it, called "The Jewish Disease."

Actually, Jews are not the sole carriers of Tay-Sachs. It appears in surprisingly high numbers among French Canadians, Cajuns, and Irish-Americans. I can find no references whatsoever to Tay-Sachs ever being called "Kasak disease." Freedman's speech is the only document on the entire Internet that uses the term.

(12) "When one Khazar marries another Khazar: (I don't say so, Mt. Sinai Hospital, the Jewish Memorial Hospital, the Rockefeller Foundation, they've all done a lot of work on it. They published these figures and these statistics . . .) that one out of four children, when one Khazar marries another Khazar, or of that ancestry, that child can't live beyond three years. And the death that that child suffers is too miserable to describe to you. Out of the others, two of them become carriers, and one is clear."

One thing Benjamin Freedman was not was a scientist. One in 30 Ashkenazic Jews is a carrier of Tay-Sachs. Even if two carriers marry, there is still only a one in four chance that the child will get Tay-Sachs. There is a 50 percent chance the child will be a carrier, and a 25 percent chance that the child will be perfectly healthy. Freedman suggests that this is the case for all Jews. It is only the case for 1 in 30, or far less than 1 percent.

(13) "Now, you have these people, organized, and all of a sudden, something developed. The last revolt that they started was in 1905. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the word, Bolshevism, one of the five rules for their revolt was: Never start until the armies of the country are engaged otherwise. And in 1905, when Russia was at war with Japan, in the Far East, they started their last revolt, - and they were slapped down, like every other one since the 11th century."

Again, the 1911 Britannica is online. There is no listing for Bolshevism: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/index/BOK-BOR.htm

Furthermore, the 1905 Revolution was not a revolution by only the Bolsheviks. Several other parties took roles, some more prominently than the Bolsheviks, and in fact, it was a much more widespread revolution against the tsar than either of the 1917 revolutions. It was a genuine popular uprising.

(14) "Mr. Schiff, with two young men, went down to see Mr. Taft, and he said, "Mr. Taft, . . . (I am not telling you this out of my memory. I almost know this by heart, because the books are here, in the Congressional Library. The people who were in the room with President Taft, at that time, and President Taft were told by Jacob H. Schiff) . . . "We want you to cancel the Most Favored Nation Treaty with Czarist Russia, and we want you to recall our Ambassador." The President told them, "Mr. Schiff, things are not what you represent them to be. My ambassador tells me differently." So, Mr. Schiff told him, in so many words, "Is you is, or is you ain't - going to do it?" When the President said that he would not do it, Mr. Schiff said "We will put a political party and a president in Washington, to whom we can dictate what they should do.""

What's interesting is that the President in 1905 wasn't Taft -- it was Theodore Roosevelt. That point aside, let's assume this meeting took place, and that it took place during the Taft Administration (1909-1913). Let's give Freedman a large benefit of doubt and say they met Taft at the very beginning of his presidency. So they put the Democrat Woodrow Wilson into the White House to do their bidding. Keep that in mind.

(15) "They got Woodrow Wilson, the man who had more ego than any man I have ever read about, they got him to head the Democratic Party. And they got into difficulties! Because the Democrats only got the Electoral votes in the South; where the people in agriculture wanted cheap goods from Europe. But the North wanted the Republicans. They found out they could not elect a President in the United States. So, I handled the money; I was the leg man, the errand boy (I was only a boy then.) They trotted Theodore Roosevelt out of the political "moth-balls" (He was then an editor of a magazine). They told him, "You are the indispensable man. You are the only man who can save the United States." And with his ego they formed the "Bull Moose Party" and Mr. Jacob H. Schiff and the Jews throughout the world - they got plenty of money from England - they formed the Bull Moose Party. And in that way they split the Republican vote between Roosevelt and Taft, and Mr. Wilson walked in with a minority of the popular vote - the lowest man, (and I knew the inside of his private life, which I don't want to go into here)."

Actually, with 41.8 percent of the popular vote, Wilson had a plurality. No other candidate has as many votes. Roosevelt and Taft each took about 25 percent of the votes. If this would seem to make Wilson's election illegitimate, consider that the following presidents have all been elected not by majority but by plurality, and some not by popular vote at all: John Quincy Adams (actually elected by the House of Reps); Polk; Taylor; Buchanan; Lincoln (first time); Hayes (fewer popular votes, won by electoral college); Garfield; Cleveland (both times); B. Harrison (fewer popular votes, won by electoral college); Wilson (second time); Truman; Kennedy; Nixon (first time); Clinton (both times); G.W. Bush (first time, fewer popular votes, election decided by Supreme Court).

(16) "When a vacancy appeared on the Supreme Court, Mr. Untermeyer recommended Mr. Brandeis. Mr. Brandeis was the number one Zionist in the United States; the head of them all, and he became very friendly with Wilson. And when the war with Germany broke out, the war between England, France, Russia, and Germany and Austria, the United States had nothing to do with it."

A few things don't add up here. First, as per usual, Freedman can't actually prove any of what he says. He merely says, "I was there," and we're supposed to believe him.

Anyway, why wouldn't the Jews that were so concerned with getting Wilson into the White House begin leaning on him immediately to break trade ties with Russia?

(17) "The Germans had brought out the submarines, and the Irish gave them two bases on the coast of Ireland, and they were sinking everything that brought food and ammunition to England, which under International Law is correct. Now, when they saw that Great Britain was going to lose the war, the Jews were very much excited, because, up to that time, Germany was their best friend."

It's difficult to add it all up here, mainly because Freedman conveniently doesn't provide us with any dates. One thing we know for sure is that Germany did not turn to unlimited submarine warfare until January 1917, and even then they were deployed primarily against France. Yes, incidents such as the sinking of the Lusitania happened, but the key to winning on the Western Front, for the Germans, was not England but France.

All of Ireland was part of the U.K. in 1917. How it could have supplied bases for Germany, thus, is beyond me. It's possible Freedman is thinking of World War II.

(18) "So, when I was in Germany, 50% of the pupils in German schools were Jews from all over Europe." Unless he's talking about universities, and even then it's a big stretch, education was compulsory for all citizens in Germany, and with a Jewish population of less than 1 percent before 1933, it's impossible for half of German students to have been Jewish.

(19) "Even the private bankers, the Hohenzollerns, were Jews."

Hohenzollern was the surname of the royal family of Germany. They were not Jews.

(20) "So, England was offered a Peace Treaty by Germany..."

I've already dealt with this, so I'm not going to belabor points already made, unless they're colossally stupid.

No peace treaties were offered. In fact, Germany changed its position to defensive in 1916. They were not doing well, withdrawing to the Hindenburg line within six months of when Freedman says they offered a peace treaty to England.

As noted elsewhere, England was already killing the Ottomans in the Mideast, and all the wartime correspondence indicates this.

(21) "Now, the United States got into World War I. How did they get in? They didn't know how to get us in, because the Germans leaned backwards."

Actually, they did no such thing. The Zimmermann Telegram, sent in January 1917, is proof of imminent attack by Germany via Mexico against the U.S.

(22) "A message was sent to Washington, that the S.S. Sussex, a ferry from Dover to Calais, had been torpedoed in the Channel and 38 Americans lost their lives! I'm not going to string this out, because I've got a lot of other things to tell you!"

Of course he's not going to string it out. Because it isn't true. Which he says a few minutes later. But where was this HMS Sussex thirteen years earlier, when Freedman addressed the American Nazi Party in Washington? He didn't mention it. Was it a new discovery? Maybe, but he never mentions the Zimmermann Telegram.

Furthermore, why get the U.S. into a war against Germany if the goal is to bring down Russia?

(23) "Pontius Pilate wrote on the crucifix on which our Lord and Savior was to be crucified, "Jesu Nasarenus Rex Iudoreum" which, translated, anybody that has had one year of Latin, knows that means "Jesus, the Nazarene, the Leader of the Judeans." "Leader of the Judeans," the genitive plural and "Rex" comes from "Rego" - "To lead."

No, Pilate wrote "Iesu Nasarenus Rex Iudoreum." There was no "J" in the Roman alphabet. "Rex" means "king," by the way, and "rego" means "I rule." The infinitive Latin form is "regere" -- "to rule."

(24) "Now, they were trying to "frame" our Lord and Savior, claiming that he was influencing the people not to pay taxes so that gold couldn't be shipped to Caesar. And that constituted rebellion. That's why the trial was held, and that's why Pontius Pilate put that up on the crucifix, "Leader of the Judeans" who were revolting against Rome."

See Mark 15:2

(25) "Now we all know everyone of you heard, hundreds of times, that at this trial, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

Jesus didn't say this at his trial. He said it earlier in the week, to a Pharisee and a Herodian. See Matthew 22:21

Retrieved from "http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Other_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech"

Other information

Friday, September 05, 2008

9/11

Friday, August 29, 2008

Apologetics Links

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Terri Schiavo Remembered - 1 0f 4

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Racism and Gun Control

Global Warming

Planned Parenthood

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Benjamin Freedman

From http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech

The Benjamin Freedman Speech

From BluWiki

Cookie Message

Total Pageviews