Saturday, May 28, 2011

A despicable decision by an Irish Judge;Prison is too hard for convicted Garda

This article appeared on Saturday 28 May 2011

As you will read former Garda Dean Foley was convicted
after he administered a brutal beating to one Stephen Gerard
Murphy. Garda Foley was off-duty when he knocked Mr. Murphry
unconscious, and caused 'bleeding to the brain.'

Mr. Murphy also suffered 'broken teeth and broken bones to his
face, and "got an unmerciful beating".'

Garda Foley was convicted of the brutal assault and sentenced to
18 months in prison. So what does it mean when a Garda can almost
kill someone or leave them with permanent damage and only spend
one day in jail because he's so stressed out that the judge agrees
that 'prison time would be harder for a garda, as he would have to
be "isolated" from the general prison population.'

Tough sh*t. there is a principle that perhaps Judge Seán Ó Donnabháin
has never heard in all of his law training. That principle is that 'No
person is above the law.'

Judge Seán Ó Donnabháin by this decision means that Garda are above the law,
and in the Judges eyes no brutality should force a Garda into jail...why GEEZ
it's just too hard on the fella.

Too bad. This is another in a long line of despicable decisions by the Irish
judiciary. Some members of the judiciary give light sentences to rapists,
and paedophile priests. This decision belongs next to it. The article is
below in full.

Jail too hard for garda: judge

By Liam Heylin and Jennifer Hough

Saturday, May 28, 2011

JAIL is harder for a garda than an ordinary prisoner, a judge accepted yesterday after allowing a member of the force to walk free after serving just one day of his sentence.

The release of Dean Foley, who was on Thursday given an 18-month sentence, with 12 months suspended, for seriously assaulting a man, has been branded shocking and outrageous by Sinn Féin’s justice spokesman, Jonathan O’Brien.

Foley, a garda from Blarney, Co Cork, had his sentence fully suspended yesterday after Judge Seán Ó Donnabháin accepted a defence argument that prison time would be harder for a garda, as he would have to be "isolated" from the general prison population.

Mr O’Brien, a TD for Cork North Central, said the decision was unjust and unfair and amounted to immunity for gardaí who break the law. He said the decision reflected the mindset of sectors of society that believe that those in a position of power have more rights than ordinary people.

Foley, whose resignation from the force was accepted last night, was initially jailed for assaulting Stephen Murphy in Cork city centre in September 2009. The court heard Mr Murphy was knocked unconscious, suffered bleeding to the brain, broken teeth and broken bones to his face, and "got an unmerciful beating".

Yesterday, however, Judge Ó Donnabháin suspended all of Foley’s sentence when it was re-entered at Cork Circuit Criminal Court.

"We are in a completely different place today than we were yesterday," he said, after hearing from Donal O’Sullivan, defence barrister, on a point in mitigation that he had omitted from his submission on Thursday.

Mr O’Sullivan submitted yesterday "it is a much more difficult thing" for a garda or prison officer to serve a sentence.

"He will have to be isolated. He inevitably will spend a greater amount of time in his cell. He will have to be kept out of the general prison population. It will be a much more difficult sentence for him.

"Going by what I am told by prison officers, he will be taken to the Midlands Prison where there is a special section to hold him. He will have to be kept separate from other prisoners. Opportunity to mingle will not be there," Mr O’Sullivan told the court.

"I will affirm the 18 months, and suspend the balance of it as from today," the judge said.

Foley then walked free from court amid emotional family scenes.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

1 of favourite political cartoons-came out after brave Iraqi man tossed shoe at George Bush

This is one of my favourite political cartoon.

It came out just after a brave Iraqi man tossed a shoe
at George Bush. It was done by David Horsey of the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. he's brilliant

he can be found on twitter at davidhorsey

Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama is coming to Ireland--Citizens Arrest alert

President Obama is coming to Ireland. It's said that he's
coming to Dublin, but i've heard from security sources that
he may come to Cork.

When he steps off the plane the Gardai should arrest him for war crimes:
torture and waging illegal wars of aggression.

The Nobel Peace Prize was given to him as cover for the new wars.

If the Gardai don't arrest him, nor the Army, or Defence Forces,
then it is up to us the people.

I was arrested in June 1976 for involvement in a takeover of the
Statue of Liberty with Vietnam Veterans Against the War VVAW.

I highly recommend this method; it cuts down on tourists...and
is a wonderful way to see the Statue...with just a handful of friends.

No long lines, and if you go out on the deck why you may even have your
own helicopter crew filming you. And check out the refrigerator for some snacks.
We found steaks. But do as we did. We replace them all in full.

So to all let's not go after Obama in a group...nor make it
easy for those guarding the war criminal, break it up and come in

Well, that's about it..can't wait to use these new handcuffs:-

Some thoughts on the illegality of the war against Libya and UN resolution 1973

The illegality of the war against Libya and UN resolution 1973

In April 1994 a civil war began between the Hutu majority (88%),
and the Tutsis (11%) minority groups in Rwanda in roughly four
months 800,000 Tutsis were massacred. This was not an ordinary civil
war, but mass murder and genocide.

During this time the United States, France, Britain, Germany and Belgium
were silent and watched the horror spread without trying to stop it.

Now, we are to believe that the United States, Britain, France, and
Italy are waging a war against Libya for the purest of humanitarian
motives. That is, they are only trying to protect the Libyan people from
a crazed dictator.

President Obama, stated that the purpose of “military action is in support
of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically
focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Gadhafi to his people,”

Obama said that Gadhafi was murdering civilians, and had threatened to
"show no mercy." Well, we gotta do something about world leaders who kill
innocent don't we?

First, there was no 'international mandate from the Security Council.'
Like many UN resolutions of late an 'international mandate' has come to
mean us as in US (the United States) and some friends. Brazil, China, Germany,
India, and the Russian Federation abstained from voting.

It might have been better if Obama said about 50% of the people of the
world aren't in on this one.

Obama also said that (well let's call it what it is NATO-not the world)
‘We have to stop any potential atrocities inside Libya.’ Of course this
does not apply to all places. Fallujah, Iraq where there were horrific
atrocities, and murder and biological or chemical warfare committed by
US troops, on the civilian population in 2004.

Nor, does it apply to Haditha, Iraq where Marines went on a killing
rampage to avenge the death of a comrade. They kicked down doors...and
one young Iraqi girl reported that they shot and killed her father as
he was praying. They sprayed the insides of houses with bullets.

Five Iraqi men were forced out of a taxi, and then shot down in cold blood.
A fourteen years old girl was raped, murdered and burned.

When it was over 24 Iraqi civilians, 11 of them women and children lay dead.
They were killed by members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. I'm ashamed to say that and I was with K Co.,during my
second tour of Vietnam.

Atrocities, Mr. Obama? This also took place in Jenin, Palestine in April
of 2002 when Israeli occupation forces massacred Palestinian civilians.
The Israeli's called it a defensive operation.

Obama also claimed that “The core principle that has to be uphold here is
that when the entire international community almost unanimously (almost?)
says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place'
...and a leader..."decides to turn his military on his own people, that
we can’t simply stand by with empty words,” he said. “We have to take some
sort of action.”

This happens everday in Gaza, the West fact in all of Palestine.
Each and every day the Palestinian people who have lived under an Apartheid
regime are treated in the most inhumane ways by a people and army that despises
them just because of their nationality.

To this Vietnam veteran, war did one thing for me. It showed my the hypocricy
of spewing lofty sentiments and ideals by leaders who are morally bankrupt.
And, that is what western leaders are hypocrites who are morally and
spiritually bankrupt.

The US has been, like the Nazis before them waging multiple wars of aggression.
When Obama says “Gadhafi needs to go.” He is in no position to judge Gadhafi.
What about Netanyahu? What about the man with the Nobel Prize for making
promises that he knew were bullshit, and who promised to close down America's
gulags, and stiop the war in Afghanistan...and who is continuing the war
policies that benefit the Banksters. They are really 'Gangster.' Ditto for
the war industries.

The truth and the context of the assault on Libya, the Gadhafi family and people
of Libya who now are being liberated with Depleted Uranium...the context is that the United States is waging a global war to re-assert its waning dominance.

So one the one hand the US, nor its gangster allies are seeking a UN resolution
to operated a No-Fly Zone over Bahrain, or Yemen, even though the leaders of
those countries sit atop a regime that tortures and murders people people who
speak out. As Admiral Mike Mullen said the US has to treat Bahrain differently.

Why is killing and torture okay in one, or some countries, but not in others?

It is not, but the US and its allies look the other way when its a good
friend. The Headquarters of the US Naval Fifth Fleet which patrols the
Persian Gulf to maintain the oil routes belong in the hands of the US is
located in Bahrain.

Quadhafi has not posed a threat to international peace and security.
The Libyan armed forces and government did not pose a threat to either
Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, nor Egypt, and definitely not the US or it's

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter state: 'All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter Article 51 allows for individual and
collective self-defence 'if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Again, Libya was at peace with it's neighbours and the international community.
Libya was at peace with the aggressor states waging war against it.

There is no cause to wage war on Libya under the UN Charter or Customary international law.

There is no other country on the face of the planet that is a greater threat to
international peace and security than the United States of America.

The US has a world-wide system of 'Black sites' for torturing people. It is in
no position to be pointing the finger at others.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is illegal as it is not based on the
reasons prescribed under the UN Charter for taking action.

The Libyan regime did not pose a threat to anyone. It is not the right
of the US, nor NATO to intervene in their internal affairs. The Libyan regime
is facing an armed group trained and financed by the CIA.

Justice lies with the Libyan government in this matter regardless of
what people may think of Gadhafi.

There is far, far more cause to intervene in Palestine to stop the daily
slaughter and dismantle Apartheid.

DailyMail:'Radical imam invited to speak about 'moderate Islam' at the Pentagon after 9/11 may have known about attacks in advance ' 20th May 2011

I saw this today..for my part I simply refuse to believe
that my government, or the CIA (Cociane Importers of America, or
Criminals In Action) would ever do anything never:-

Radical imam invited to speak about 'moderate Islam' at the Pentagon after 9/11 may have known about attacks in advance

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 6:28 PM on 20th May 2011

Pentagon unaware of Anwar al-Awlaki's link to hijackers
Proposed Pentagon menu included pork
Agency did not discuss imam's alleged soliciting of prostitutes

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was invited to the Pentagon to speak about 'moderate Islam', after a flawed vetting process.

Al-Awlaki is currently thought to be hiding in Yemen, where he has dual citizenship with the U.S.

He is the highest ranking American on the CIA’s kill or capture list, and was the target of a failed missile attack earlier this month that killed two militants.

Al-Awlaki was on the short list to succeed Osama bin Laden as Al Qaeda leader.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda in Yemen

Dined at the Pentagon: Radical iman and accused terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was invited to speak as a 'moderate Muslim', despite having been questioned on suspicion of connection to 9-11 hijackers

Al-Awlaki is accused of being connected to the shooting spree that killed 13 at Fort Hood in 2009, plots to put bombs on airliners and an attempt last year by a radical young women to murder British politician Stephen Creswell Timms by stabbing him in the stomach.

Recent analysis by Fox News of al-Awlaki's talk at the Pentagon on February 5, 2002 has turned up new details, including that an internal Department of Defense email listed a proposed menu that included pork, which is prohibited for Muslims.

According to Fox, the email stated, 'the chef will create something special for vegetarians'.

The documents list more than 70 people copied on the invitation, which seems to have come from the Defense Department’s Office of the General Counsel, the agency's lawyer.

Roshonara Choudhry, 21, was convicted of trying to murder Labour MP Stephen Timms in revenge for him voting for the Iraq war, during a constituency surgery in east London in May last year
Labour MP Stephen Timms was stabbed by a student inspired by a radical al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

Inspired: Roshonara Choudhry, 21, was convicted of trying to murder Labour MP Stephen Timms. She is said to have been brainwashed by Anwar al-Awlaki

New Mexico-born al-Awlaki was billed as the featured speaker on 'Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture'.

According to Fox, the Defense Department lawyer who vetted al-Awlaki wrote that she 'had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki's presentations in November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in the audience'.

The department was said to be interested in booking a 'moderate Muslim' to speak to the defense community in the aftermath of September 11.

However, it seems that the Department of Defense was unaware that Al-Awlaki had been interviewed at least four times by the FBI a few days after September 11, because of alleged ties to the hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour.

Those men are accused of being among the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which was flown into the Pentagon.

Al-Awlaki is said to have inspired attacks by Muslims inside the U.S - including the Fort Hood, Texas, shootings in 2009, which left 13 dead

Al-Awlaki is said to have inspired attacks by Muslims inside the U.S - including the Fort Hood, Texas, shootings in 2009, which left 13 dead

It is believed he may have been aware of the terrorist plot before September 11, 2001.

According to Fox, the Pentagon also seemed unaware of al-Awlaki's alleged soliciting of prostitutes.

A former high-ranking FBI agent told Fox News that there was tremendous 'arrogance' about the vetting process at the Pentagon.

'They vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice of others', the former agent said.

U.S. born radical al-Awlaki is widely believed to be the mastermind behind a number of terror atrocities and the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Rajib Karim, 31, a Bangladeshi Islamic militant working for British Airways, was found guilty of plotting to blow up a plane
This SITE Intelligence Group handout photo obtained November 10, 2009 shows Anwar al-Awlaki

Linked: al-Awlaki is said to have conspired with convicted terrorist Rajib Karim (left), a British airline worker who hatched a plot to blow up an airliner

AQAP is estimated to number about 300 militants with strongholds in a number of remote mountain regions.

It's also thought the group has twice smuggled explosives aboard aircraft headed to the United States.

al-Awlaki is said to have brainwashed Roshonara Choudhry, the 21-year-old student who went on to stab MP Stephen Timms in his constituency in May last year.

Earlier this year he was also linked to British Airways worker Rajib Karim, 31, who was jailed for 30 years in March for his part in a plot to blow up an airliner.

Karim wanted to use his position at the airline to plant a bomb on a plane as part of a conspiracy with al-Awlaki.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

The Nakba


Today 15 May 2001 is the anniversary of the “Nakba.” On this day in
1948 a band of terrorists declared the land formerly for centuries upon
centuries known as Palestine was now the State of Israel.

I say terrorists because the leaders of the Irgun and Lehi (the Stern
Gang) were terrorists. They were considered so by commanders of British troops
on the ground in Palestine, and they committed terrorists acts.

Yitzhak Shamir gave himself the nickname ‘Michael’ as in Michael
Collins. But he was just one link in a chain of cooperation between the
Zionist and the Nazis. Shamir worked with Nazis contacts in Beirut and offered
to have the Stern Gang attack the British who occupied Palestine at the time.

In 1944 the British Secretary of State, Lord Moyne, was assassinated in
Cairo By the Stern Gang. Shamir was later detained by the British and later
became a Prime Minister of Israel between 1983-84 and 1986-1992.

The leader of the Stern Gang, Avraham Stern stated to Gang members:

"The NMO(National Military Orgnization-mine), which is well-acquainted with
the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations
of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national
Hebraium would be possible and,

3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis,
bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a
maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the
condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom
movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively
take part in the war on Germany's side."

(See: 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis by LENNI BRENNER, CounterPunch December 23, 2002)

Mr. Brenner, notes ‘They hanged people all over Europe after WW II for
notes to the Nazis like these.’

"There is a country which happens to be called Palestine...a country
without people" Chaim Weismann 1st Israeli President. This comes from ‘Israeli
Confessions (YouTube )

This statement makes it appear that Palestine was completely empty. If so,
then Why were British troops stationed there?

Moshe Sharett, 2nd Israeli President stated "We have come to conquer a
Country from people inhabiting it". And that is the truth. This also means that
it was not a ‘War of Independence’ as Israeli history records, but in fact it
was a war of colonial conquest!

David Ben-Gurion, 1st Israeli Prime Minister "We should remove all Arabs
and take their place. I don't see anything immoral in it".

What kind of morality or ethical stance is that? To me it is no different
than what Hitler planned to the lands east of Germany; to take the land and repopulated it with Germans. That is ‘ethnic cleansing.’

And, the did so when they implemented Plan D (for Dalet). Israeli
militias, the Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gangs surrounded villages at night and
blew up houses while people slept.

After the houses were blown up the terrorist put explosives within the rubble
to stop Palestinians from returning to retrieve item of sentimental or other

If I were Jewish I would not want to sleep or live in a house built on
such ground. The blood of the Palestinians cries out for justice.

In other places the Zionists separated men from women and even took away
boys as young as 15. In many places the men and boys were lined up against a
wall with their backs to their murderers (who lacked the courage to face them)
and they were shot dead.

If I were Jewish I would not want to sleep or live in a house built
on such ground. The blood of the Palestinians cries out for justice.

The Zionists militias poisoned water wells, destroyed food stocks, cut
down olive trees. Then, they drove the Palestinian people out at the point of
a rifle. Rapes took place and massacres. At Deir Yassin, on Friday April 9th,
1948 a most horrific butchery took place.

Menachem Begin led a group of Irgun terrorist (the word commandos seems too dignified). The New York Times later reported the final body count as being 254.

Begin was later the Sixth Prime Minister of the Apartheid State of Israel,
and along with Anwar Sadat, The Egyptian President was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1978.

During 1948 the General Assembly United Nations adopted the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. There are all kinds of lofty goals and re-affirmed values stated in the Declaration. One of them re-affirms the ‘Right of Return’
as it is known. This is guaranteed in Article 13 (2). But, somehow the world
ignores this right when it comes to the Palestinian people.

"There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a
former Arab population". Moshe Dayan, (former Israeli Defence/Foreign Minister).

The present state of Israel with its Apartheid wall was built from the
ethnic cleansing, murder, rape and terror of the Palestinian peoples who lived
on the land in peace for Millennia.

“Everybody has to move, Run and grab as many hilltops as they can to
Enlarge the Settlements because everything we take now will STAY OURS'.2 Ariel Sharon, (former Israeli Prime Minister).

The present state of Israel is an Apartheid regime, and the words of
their leaders show how it was conceived and created on land stolen just as in
the America’s. The native population was ethnically cleansed, called savages by
the butchers who massacred them…just as was and continues to be done in Israel.

"No one has the right to put the State of Israel on trial". Ariel Sharon, (former Israeli Prime Minister). You are wrong Mr. Sharon, and you are also a
war criminal.

“If I were an Arab leader I would NEVER make terms with Israel...That is natural: We have taken THEIR COUNTRY". David Ben-Gurion, (father of Israel).
This is true, and it is an admission of guilt. And it is also why the fight
will never end until the truth is recognized and justice is done…that is the Palestinian peoples will return to their former homes, fields and farms and businesses.

Martin Luther King once said "I have a dream that one day on the red hills
of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will
be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.”

May this be true of Jew and Palestinian in the future and may they dwell together in peace.

On the anniversary of the Nakba:'Prominent Jewish Zionist group attempted COLLABORATION with Nazis' youtube

Prominent Jewish Zionist group attempted COLLABORATION with Nazis

On the anniversary of the Nakba :'51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis' by LENNI BRENNER (Counterpunch) December 23, 2002

December 23, 2002

51 Documents:
Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis


In 1983, Croom Helm Ltd. published my 1st book, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. American writers don't expect favorable reviews from the London Times, but editorialist Edward Mortimer declared that "Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler's."

Still less could a Trotskyist dream of a review from Izvestia, the Soviet government gazette, but they hailed it. "During the world war, Brenner points out, Zionism showed its real meaning: for the sake of its ambitions, it sacrificed the blood of millions of Jews."

Louis Rapoport, a failed Berkeley radical, denounced the book in the Jerusalem Post as "leftist babble." Nevertheless, he conceded, there were "very real charges that will continue to haunt" Zionism "until they are dealt with honestly."

In 1987, Jim Allen, the celebrated British movie/TV writer, based Perdition, a stage play, on the book. When intense pressure on the Royal Court Theatre canceled production, we debated Sir Martin Gilbert, the Churchill family's private historian, and Stephen Roth, head of the British Zionist Federation, nationwide, prime-time on ITV. The London Review of Books said the Zionist scheme "made it one of the most famous plays of the decade." Indeed, unless the Queen was sick on the crapper, every politically or theatrically interested person in Britain watched us win, thanks to director Ken Loach's strategic instructions.

Extraordinary world interest wasn't matched in America's media. Alex Cockburn championed the book in the Village Voice and in the Nation. But the Voice refused to review it. The Nation sent it out to someone, but, sorry, "he never sent in the review."

Walter Laqueur had to bark in the Zionist New Republic after their Perdition debacle: "Some of Brenner's book is invented, some is exaggerated or drawn out of context." Yet even he admits that "German Zionists did not fully understand the meaning of Hitler when he came to power in 1933. Some of their comments and declarations make embarrassing reading 50 years later."

Despite Zionism's best efforts, over 5,000 copies sold in 18 years before being put on the web: Then Lyle Stuart of Barricade Books discovered that a friend, a Zionist propagandist, had never read the complete proposal of the "Stern Gang," 1940s Zionist terrorists, to go to war on Hitler's side. 51 Documents was born. Now Americans and others can read the evidence and judge for themselves.

There are six selections re Zionism's relationship to anti-Semitism and racism prior to Hitler. The 51 documents, including 35 letters, memos, articles, and reports by Zionists, are from the Hitler era and after. Seven are by Nazis, most notably Eichmann's memoir, written in Argentina, on Hungarian collaborator RA<
Zionism convicts itself. On June 21, 1933, the German Zionist Federation sent a secret memorandum to the Nazis:

"Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear, which it seeks to overcome by carrying out its challenge to transform Jewish life completely.

"It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry--indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions.

"Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life. This means that the egotistic individualism which arose in the liberal era must be overcome by public spiritedness and by willingness to accept responsibility."

By 1936, the Post ran a news flash, "German Zionists Seek Recognition":

"A bold demand that the German Zionist Federation be given recognition by the Government as the only instrument for the exclusive control of German Jewish life was made by the Executive of that body in a proclamation today. All German Jewish organizations, it was declared, should be dominated by the Zionist spirit."

Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler. By 1940-41, the "Stern Gang," among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the "Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany."

Avraham Stern and his followers announced that

"The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany's side."

They hanged people all over Europe after WW II for notes to the Nazis like these. But these treasons against the Jews were virtually unknown in the run up to the creation of the Zionist state in May 1948. Ninety percent of America's Jews suddenly became emotional pro-Zionists. With Democrats, Republicans and even the Communist-organized Progressive Party competing for Jewish votes in the November Presidential election, Harry Truman's monetary aid bought arms from pro-Soviet Czechoslovakia, and an Israel was born, run by the German Zionists' cothinkers in Jerusalem.

Jews and other Americans still know little of Zionism's sordid past. But today only programed fanatics can come away pro-Zionist after reading plain facts. Indeed, according to the American Jewish Identity Survey (2001), less than 22% of all Jews declare themselves Zionist.

Opposition to Zionism also grows among liberal educated gentiles, every time their declared enemy, Pat Robertson, howls in favor of Orthodox Israel.

For complex historical reasons, the Vietnam anti-war movement and anti-apartheid campaign emphasized demonstrations over sustained education. Even in victory, little was left behind in the way of attention to foreign affairs among the broad masses. Even after 9/11, the ultimate attention getter, US public knowledge about the Arab world, Islam, the oil industry, Zionism, and Washington's involvement with them, is minimal. But the present anti-Iraq war movement has no choice but to systematically educate itself and the public. The issues are too complex for anything less. Ignorance or illusions about any of the players, here or there, means certain death for X number of Arabs, Israelis, Kurds, Muslims and Americans.

51 Documents can play a major role in making serious study a priority concern for an anti-war movement that will stay solidly in place until the present bipartisan power structure is destroyed and replaced.

A check to me, for $22.00 + $1.84 media mail postage, gets a signed book back, anywhere in the US. Folks in other countries, and people wanting rates for bulk orders, should also write

Lenni Brenner
Park West
Finance Station
POB 20598
NY, NY 10025

Lenni Brenner can be reached at:

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

PSST Pass it on OBAMA is planning to come to Cork...PSST President OBAMA i'm looking for handcuffs for a citizens arrest

I heard from multiple sources that President OBAMA is
going to make a visit to UCC.

Obama is a War Criminal and there are those of us Vietnam
veterans and other veterans and others who feel duty bound
to apprehend him in a peaceful manner.

I was told I would never get through to him as he would be
surrounded by so many security people. But, I just see that
as a personal challenge. If special forces can sneak into
anyplace and arrest someone...believe me..from what I survived
the first time in Vietnam, and later...i know...planning diversions
and arrest

An apology to all

To my followers i apologize that I have not been

I live in a city,and in the country where my
children live, and i am divorced, and my ex wife
would not even tell me the address of my children
as I needed it to switch the beneficiary of my life
insurance from her to them.

I also asked for their addresses to send them the
photos i've had since their ex is silent.
i also emailed my children and received no reply to
this question...though one is kinder.

It is painful, but some issues need to be settled
in a court.
I am back!

An Excellent Article--' False Flags: An American Tradition' By Stephen Lendman visit his blog

False Flags: An American Tradition

By Stephen Lendman

May 07, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- Wikipedia defines false or black flags as "covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities."

They're "big lies," defined by Merriam-Webster as "deliberate gross distortion(s) of the truth used especially as a propaganda tactic."

America's decade from September 11, 2001 to May 1, 2011 was punctuated by the (big) lie of our time and (big) lie of the moment.

Put another way, the official stories are falsified, myths, widely believed fantasies contrary to reality.

In his exhaustive research and writings, David Ray Griffin provided convincing evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and that bin Laden died of natural causes in mid-December 2001.

The former spawned a decade of overt and covert "war on terror" lawlessness at home and abroad. Policies and events following the second have yet to unfold, but expect little at best to be positive.

Past US false flags provided pretexts for militarism, wars, occupations, domestic repression, and national security state extremism, antithetical to democratically free and open societies. Allegedly removing America's "Enemy Number One," in fact, may intensify, not diminish, Washington's scheme for unchallengeable global dominance. More on him below.

With or without bin Laden, bogymen threats are plentiful. Since WW II alone, America's had numerous ones, including communists, Al Qaeda, WMDs, the Taliban, Gaddafi, and a host others yet unnamed, as well as numerous "foiled" domestic ones.

Among others, they include:

-- a fake shoe bomber;

-- fake underwear bomber;

-- fake Times Square bomber;

-- an earlier one there;

-- fake shampoo bombers;

-- fake Al Qaeda woman planning fake mass casualty attacks on New York landmarks;

-- fake Oregon bomber;

-- fake armed forces recruiting station bomber;

-- fake synagogue bombers;

-- fake Chicago Sears Tower bombers;

-- fake FBI and other building bombers;

-- fake National Guard, Fort Dix and Quantico marine base attackers;

-- fake 9/11 bombers; and

-- others to enlist public support for the fake war on terror and very real ones it spawned.

America, Pakistan, Bin Laden, Official Lies, and Misreporting

On May 5, New York Times writer Elisabeth Bumiller headlined, "Pentagon Breaks Silence on Pakistani Role," saying:

A "top Pentagon official said....Pakistan would have to work hard to rebuild relations with the United States Congress," including a commitment "to fighting terrorism...."

It suggests what some analysts suspect: namely, planned destabilization, confrontation, and balkanization for greater Eurasian control, as well as future terrorist false flags.

On May 5, Times writers Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane headlined, "Data Show Bin Laden Plots; CIA Hid Near Raided House," saying:

Alleged "computer files and documents seized at the compound where Osama bin Laden was killed," reveal "considered attacks on American railroads, (but) there was no evidence of a specific plot."

Perhaps no files and documents either. For sure, no bin Laden.

Nonetheless, "(s)ince Sunday night, counterterrorism officials have been alert to (possible) new attacks from Al Qaeda to avenge its leader's death," especially at airports, rail facilities, and other strategic locations. "American officials and terrorism experts have warned that this is not the end of Al Qaeda," not, of course, if they're blamed for planned false flags to intensify US imperial wars.

Another May 5 Bumiller Times report ran cover for shifting official accounts about what really happened on May 1 headlined, "Raid Account, Hastily Told, Proves Fluid," saying:

"(I)t was a classic collision of a White House desire to promote a stunning national security triumph - and feed a ravenous media - while collecting facts from a chaotic military operation on the other side of the world. At the same time, White House officials worked hard to use the facts of the raid to diminish Bin Laden's legacy."

She continued, quoting an unnamed Pentagon official claiming no "intent to deceive or dramatize," adding that "Everything we put out we really believed to be true at the time." She also quoted Victoria Clarke, Bush Pentagon spokeswoman, saying, "First reports are always wrong. It's a fundamental truth in military affairs."

In other words, it was OK first to claim a fierce firefight in which no US forces were killed or hurt, then 24 hours later call the battle one-sided, Navy Seals quickly dispatching bin Laden's guards and "Enemy Number One," shooting him unarmed in the head.

Notably, however, there's no body, no photos, no video, no evidence, and no truth, just the media regurgitated big lie.

In fact, more lies compounded it, including about:

-- Pakistan's alleged knowledge of his presence;

-- claimed evidence confirming it and assault specifics; and

-- fabricated bad theater, explained in a slapdash, keystone cops manner.

High Level Skepticism

Appearing on CNN May 5, former Pakistani intelligence chief, Hamid Gul, told "In the Arena's" host Eliot Spitzer that bin Laden died years earlier, saying:

"Yes, I think he died - he perished some years ago, and I think this was a story which was created (because) nobody would want to believe this version....I (don't believe) the story which was given out by the American media and by the American administration."

Whoever was killed May 1 "was probably somebody else....(American authorities) must have known that he died some years ago....were keeping this story on the ice and they were looking for an appropriate moment" to announce it.

"(P)eople simply not in Pakistan alone but around the world....don't believe the stories that have been put out."

In other words, the entire account was fabricated, the event staged, Western media, including The New York Times, running cover for the big lie. Gul politely called it "a huge intelligence failure."

Notable American and Other False Flags

Discussed in earlier writing, numerous ones stand out, including:

-- In 1898, Spain was falsely accused of blowing up the USS Maine in Havana, Cuba harbor. The Spanish-American war followed.

-- On May 7, 1915, a German U-boat was accused of torpedoing the RMS Lusitania, killing 128 US citizens. It helped precipitate America's April 4, 1917 WW I entry, a war Woodrow Wilson wanted and got through a propaganda campaign, turning pacifist Americans into German haters. It was later learned that on board munitions, not a torpedo, exploded, sinking the ship.

-- In 1933 Germany, a week before general elections, the strategically timed Reichstag fire (home of the German parliament) was blamed on communists. President Paul von Hindenburg's emergency decree followed. Civil liberties were suspended. Weimar Republic democracy ended, and Hitler assumed fascist powers after enough Nazis were elected to assure it.

-- On August 31, 1939, Nazis impersonating Polish terrorists attacked the Gleiwitz radio station on the border between the two countries, starting WW II.

-- On December 7, 1941, Roosevelt manipulated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, giving him the war he wanted from the early 1930s, but had to convince a pacifist public of the threat. The fleet was also tracked across the Pacific, but Admiral HE Kimmel wasn't warned or given known intelligence to assure enough mass casualties for congressional and public support.

-- Complicit with Washington, numerous 1949/1950 South Korean incursions north precipitated Pyongyang's retaliation in June 1950, giving Truman the war he wanted.

-- In 1962, a US Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false flag never happened because Kennedy rejected it. Called Operation Northwoods (a part of Operation Mongoose), it included sinking US ships, shooting down US commercial airliners, blowing up buildings in US cities, attacking America's Guantanamo base, other incidents, and blaming it on Cuba as a reason for war.

-- The fake August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident initiated full-scale retaliation against North Vietnam after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing war without declaring it.

-- In October 1983, after ousting Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, US forces invaded Grenada, allegedly to rescue American medical students threatened by nonbelligerent Cubans building infrastructure.

-- In December 1989, manufactured incidents precipitated America's Panama invasion, deposing Manuel Noriega, one-time ally turned enemy because he forgot who's boss.

-- in August 1990, Washington colluded with the al- Sabah monarchy, entrapping Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. In January 1991, it launched the Gulf War, followed by over two decades of sanctions, more war occupation, and destruction of the "cradle of civilization."

-- The September 11, 2001 false flag operation launched a decade of imperial wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Palestine allied with Israel, perhaps others to come, as well as proxy wars in Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain, Central Africa, Haiti, Honduras, Colombia, and at home against Muslims, Latino immigrants, and working Americas.

On February 16, 2010, a Washington's blog web site ( article titled, "Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror" listed examples, including:

-- The CIA admitted its 1950s role in toppling Iran's democratically government in 1953.

-- Israel acknowledged a 1954 attack in Egypt, including planting bombs in US diplomatic facilities, leaving "evidence" of Arab involvement.

-- Indonesia's former president, Abdurrahman Wahid, said the nation's police or military most likely were involved in the 2002 Bali bombing, killing over 200 people.

-- A former Italian prime minister, judge, and military counterintelligence head, General Gianadelio Maletti, said America's CIA instigated and abetted right wing terrorist groups in the 1970s and earlier, including bombing a Milan bank in 1969 to rally popular anti-communist support in Italy and other European countries.

-- Many others, including former Carter administration National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, telling a Senate committee that a false flag terror attack on US soil might occur to blame Iran and justify war.

In his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives," he said:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat," the kind 9/11 created - predicted, planned, orchestrated, and carried out to further new world order global dominance.

Other False Flag Examples

-- The March 2004 Madrid train bombings occurred three days before Spain's general elections. With no supportive evidence, they were blamed on Al Qaeda, yet they stoked public fear of threats against other Western cities, including American ones.

-- The July 7, 2005 London underground bombings (called 7/7) were a series of attacks on the city's public transport system during the morning rush hour for maximum disruption and casualties. At precisely the same time, an anti-terror drill occurred, simulating real attacks. It was no coincidence, others in America and Britain came on the same day.

-- On 9/11 morning, the CIA ran a "pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building." Held at the Agency's Chantilly, Virginia Reconnaissance Office, AP reported (on August 22, 2002) that it simulated "a small corporate jet (hitting) one of the four towers....after experiencing a mechanical failure."

Unmentioned at the time was a later revealed (but unreported) Homeland Security conference announcement a year later to commemorate the 9/11 event. Held under the auspices of the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, one of its speakers was John Fulton, CIA Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance office in charge of the operation. Another coincidence, or was something more sinister afoot?

In October 2000, the Pentagon simulated a commercial plane striking the Pentagon, coordinated by its Command Emergency Response Team and the Defense Protective Services Police. This and the 9/11 exercises are more than coincidental, given what's now known and the fallout.

-- On June 30, 2007, a Jeep Cherokee with propane canisters crashed into Glasgow International Airport's glass doors, the BBC reporting that it "was in the middle of the doorway burning....The car didn't actually explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably was the petrol."

The usual suspects were falsely blamed, Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists.

In Miami, on January 11, 2010 (one day before Haiti's earthquake), the Pentagon's US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) simulated a hurricane striking the island in preparation for subsequent measures to be implemented. A carefully prepared military operation, they included occupying, controlling, and plundering the island.

Also, Deputy SOUTHCOM head, General PK Keen, was in Haiti when the quake struck, ready to assume command when it did and use a communication tool called the Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project (TISC), linking other nations and NGOs with the Pentagon and US government to facilitate measures to be implemented. None were to help Haitians.

A Final Comment

Exposed as bad theater, New York Times writer Elizabeth Harris further discredited the broadsheet, headlining:

"Al Qaeda Confirms Bin Laden's Death," citing an unconfirmed statement, warning of new attacks to come. It also said an audio recording days before his death will soon be released. In fact, past video and audio ones were exposed as fakes.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at . Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

U.S. Refusal of 2001 Taliban Offer Gave bin Laden a Free Pass' By Gareth Porter May 03, 2011

U.S. Refusal of 2001 Taliban Offer Gave bin Laden a Free Pass

By Gareth Porter

May 03, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- WASHINGTON, May 3, 2011 (IPS) - When George W. Bush rejected a Taliban offer to have Osama bin Laden tried by a moderate group of Islamic states in mid- October 2001, he gave up the only opportunity the United States would have to end bin Laden's terrorist career for the next nine years.

The al Qaeda leader was able to escape into Pakistan a few weeks later, because the Bush administration had no military plan to capture him.

The last Taliban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, offered at a secret meeting in Islamabad Oct. 15, 2001 to put bin Laden in the custody of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to be tried for the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, Muttawakil told IPS in an interview in Kabul last year.

The OIC is a moderate, Saudi-based organisation representing all Islamic countries. A trial of bin Laden by judges from OIC member countries might have dealt a more serious blow to al Qaeda's Islamic credentials than anything the United States would have done with bin Laden.

Muttawakil also dropped a condition that the United States provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt in the 9/11 attacks, which had been raised in late September and reiterated by Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef on Oct. 5 - two days before the U.S. bombing of Taliban targets began.

There had been sketchy press reports at the time that the Taliban foreign minister had made a new offer in Islamabad to have bin Laden tried by one or more foreign countries. No Taliban or former Taliban official, however, had provided details of what had actually been proposed until Muttawakil's revelation.

Muttawakil, who was detained at Bagram airbase for 18 months after the ouster of the Taliban regime and now lives in Kabul with the approval of the Hamid Karzai government, told IPS he had also offered a second alternative - a "special court" to try bin Laden that Afghanistan and two other Islamic governments would establish.

Muttawakil was believed by U.S. officials to have had the trust of Taliban leader Mullah Omar. A December 1998 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said he was "considered Omar's closest adviser on political issues" and that he had become Omar's "point man" on foreign affairs in 1997.

The new Taliban negotiating offer came almost immediately after the U.S. began bombing Taliban targets on Oct. 7, 2001. The fear of the bombing – and what was likely to follow – evidently spurred the Taliban leadership to be more forthcoming on bin Laden.

But Bush brusquely rejected any talks on the Taliban proposal, declaring, "They must have not heard. There's no negotiations."

Bush rejected the Taliban offer despite the fact that U.S. intelligence had picked up reports in the previous months of deep divisions within the Taliban regime over bin Laden. It was because of those reports that Bush had authorised secret meetings by a CIA officer with a high-ranking Taliban official in late September.

Former CIA director George Tenet recalled in his memoirs that the CIA station chief in Pakistan, Robert Grenier, met with Mullah Osmani, the second ranking Taliban official, in Baluchistan province of Pakistan.

But Grenier was only authorised to offer Osmani three options: turning bin Laden over to the United States; letting the Americans find him on their own; or a third option, as Tenet described it, to "administer justice themselves, in a way that clearly took him off the table".

Osmani rejected those three options, as well as a subsequent proposal by Grenier on Oct. 2 that he oust Mullah Omar from power and publicly announce on the radio that bin Laden would be handed over to the United States immediately.

On Oct. 3, Bush publicly ruled out negotiations with the Taliban. They had to "turn over the al Qaeda organisation living in Afghanistan and must destroy the terrorist camps," he said, adding "There are no negotiations."

Milton Bearden, the former CIA station chief in Pakistan during the Mujahideen war against the Soviets, observed to the Washington Post two weeks after Bush had rejected Muttawakil's new offer that the Taliban needed a face-saving way of resolving the issue consistent with its Islamic values.

"We never heard what they were trying to say," Bearden said.

The Bush refusal to negotiate with the Taliban was in effect a free pass for bin Laden and his lieutenants, because the Bush administration had no plan of its own for apprehending bin Laden in Afghanistan. It did not even know what level of military effort would have been required for the United States to be able to block bin Laden's exit routes from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The absence of any military planning to catch bin Laden was a function of Bush's national security team, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, which had firmly opposed any military operation in Afghanistan that would have had any possibility of catching bin Laden and his lieutenants.

Rumsfeld and the second-ranking official at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, had dismissed CIA warnings of an al Qaeda terrorist attack against the United States in the summer of 2001, and even after 9/11 had continued to question the CIA's conclusion that bin Laden and al Qaeda were behind the attacks.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined not to allow a focus on bin Laden to interfere with their plan for a U.S. invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.

Even after Bush decided in favour of an Afghan campaign, CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, was not directed to have a plan for bin Laden’s capture or to block his escape to Pakistan.

When the CIA received intelligence on Nov. 12, 2001 that bin Laden had left Kandahar and was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border, Franks had no assets in place to do anything about it. He asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), if he could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to Col. David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

But that was impossible, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place.

Franks then had to ask for Pakistani military help in blocking bin Laden's exit into Pakistan, as Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting, according to the meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

But Rumsfeld and other key advisers knew it would a charade, because bin Laden was a long-time ally of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, and the Pakistani military was not about to help capture him.

Franks asked President Pervez Musharraf to deploy troops along the Afghan-Pakistan border near Tora Bora, and Musharraf agreed to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India, according to U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who was present at the meeting.

But the Pakistani president said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment. That would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region, according to Lamm.

Those were assets the U.S. military did not have in the theatre.

Osama bin Laden had been effectively guaranteed an exit to Pakistan by a Bush policy that had rejected either diplomatic or military means to do anything about him.

In an implicit acknowledgement that the administration had not been seriously concerned with apprehending bin Laden, Bush declared in a Mar. 13, 2002 press conference that bin Laden was "a person who's now been marginalised", and added, "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him…"

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006

Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama-by Michel Chossudovsky 16 November 2003

Where was Osama bin Laden on 9/11?

Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama

by Michel Chossudovsky 16 November 2003 (revised 17 November 2003)

The URL of this article is:

If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere's book "Corridors of Terror" points to alleged "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment

Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment "negotiating with CIA"?

The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001. (See Alexandra Richard, at ,

For a virtual tour of the hospital click

The "negotiations" between the CIA and Osama (a CIA "intelligence asset") is sheer disinformation. Even though the CIA has refuted the claim, the report serves to highlight Osama as a bona fide "Enemy of America," rather than a creation of the CIA. In the words of former CIA agent Milt Bearden in an interview with Dan Rather on September 12, 2001, “If they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one.”

Intelligence negotiations never take place on a hospital bed. The CIA knew Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai. Rather than negotiate, they could have arrested him. He was on the FBI most wanted list.

According to the Reuters report: "At the time, bin Laden had a multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa". So why did the hospital staff, who knew that Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai, not claim the reward?

The Figaro report points to complicity between the CIA and Osama rather than "negotiation". (see excerpt below). Consistent with several other reports, it also points to the antagonism between the FBI and the CIA.

If the CIA had wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden prior to September 11, they could have done it then in Dubai. But they would not have had a the war on terrorism pretext for waging a major military operation in the Middle East and Central Asia.

According to Le Figaro:

"Dubai... was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July [2001]. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that "public enemy number one" stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July. While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go [up] to bin Laden's hospital room. A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorized sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta [Pakistan], the CIA agent was called back to headquarters. In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "Arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is, so it would seem, within the logic of 'a certain American policy.'" ( )

The Figaro report is confirmed by several other news reports including the London Times (1 Nov 2001 at ). During his 11-day stay in the American hospital, Osama received specialized medical treatment from a Canadian urologist Dr. Terry Calloway .(See )

Osama bin Laden’s Second Death' By Paul Craig Roberts May 02, 2011--an excellent read

Osama bin Laden’s Second Death

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 02, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- If today were April 1 and not May 2, we could dismiss as an April fool’s joke this morning’s headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea. As it is, we must take it as more evidence that the US government has unlimited belief in the gullibility of Americans.

Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?

Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that “bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.” That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden’s? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?

This morning’s headline has the odor of a staged event. The smell reeks from the triumphalist news reports loaded with exaggerations, from celebrants waving flags and chanting “USA USA.” Could something else be going on?

No doubt President Obama is in desperate need of a victory. He committed the fool’s error or restarting the war in Afghanistan, and now after a decade of fighting the US faces stalemate, if not defeat. The wars of the Bush/Obama regimes have bankrupted the US, leaving huge deficits and a declining dollar in their wake. And re-election time is approaching.

The various lies and deceptions, such as “weapons of mass destruction,” of the last several administrations had terrible consequences for the US and the world. But not all deceptions are the same. Remember, the entire reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden. Now that President Obama has declared bin Laden to have been shot in the head by US special forces operating in an independent country and buried at sea, there is no reason for continuing the war.

Perhaps the precipitous decline in the US dollar in foreign exchange markets has forced some real budget reductions, which can only come from stopping the open-ended wars. Until the decline of the dollar reached the breaking point, Osama bin Laden, who many experts believe to have been dead for years, was a useful bogyman to use to feed the profits of the US military/security complex.

A Holocaust Survivor-- "For As Long As I Can, I Will Continue": Hajo Meyer interviewed May 01, 2011 "The Electronic Intifada

"For As Long As I Can, I Will Continue": Hajo Meyer interviewed

By Adri Nieuwhof

Hajo Meyer (Christiane Tilanus)

May 01, 2011 "The Electronic Intifada" --- Since being interviewed by The Electronic Intifada in 2009, Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer has toured numerous countries to speak about his efforts to combat Zionism and his support for the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom and equality.

In 1939, Meyer had to flee alone from Nazi Germany to the Netherlands at the age of 14 because the Nazis wouldn’t allow him to attend school. In 1943, three years after the Germans had occupied the Netherlands, he went into hiding with a poorly-forged ID. Meyer was captured by the Gestapo in March 1944 and deported to the Auschwitz concentration shortly thereafter.

In a new interview with The Electronic Intifada contributor Adri Nieuwhof, 86-year-old Hajo Meyer about his continued activism in the past two years.

Adri Nieuwhof: In our interview two years ago — in which you compared your childhood experiences to that endured by Palestinian youth today — you said you planned to continue to be active because you “had still so much to say.” Can you tell us more about what happened since then?

Hajo Meyer: I don’t think anything remarkable has happened. Of course there were many references to the interview. I am still active, because of what I said in the interview. I have so much in common with Palestinian youth. My own fate is so similar to what young Palestinian people in Palestine experience. They have no free access to education. Preventing access to education is murder in slow motion. I am serious about this; it is criminal. I was a refugee; they are refugees. I experienced all sorts of camps that limited my mobility, just like the Palestinians.

I am one of the first members of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN). In the past two years, I went on speaking tours in Europe and North America organized by IJAN. I just returned from a three-week speaking tour to South Africa. The reason for this journey is that I know Alan Hart very well. He was a correspondent for ITN and BBC television for many years. He has published the three volume epic Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews.

Alan has a good relation with Muslims in Great Britain. They brought Alan and me in touch with the Al-Quds Foundation in Cape Town. Together we went on a lecture tour in South Africa. Alan knows everybody in the Middle East personally. He has been active at a practical political level and has insight in the day-to-day political activities on both sides. I have thought about the political philosophy of Zionism. I describe it as belonging to the same class of ideologies such as Stalinism or Nazism. These have gone down the drain of history, after murdering many people. That is what I hope and also fear of Zionism.

AN: You have given presentations in many countries in the past two years. What were the reactions? Did you notice any difference between the countries?

HM: I think South Africa is not to be compared to any other country I visited. It was my first time. The experience was different because I met with the Muslim community, and they were all colored or black. They were much warmer, more welcoming if compared to the Dutch. I spoke in the largest mosque in Cape Town for 2,000 people. The Maulana [Islamic religious leader] praised Chris, my wife, for making it possible for me to travel. Chris was wearing a headscarf and was sitting amongst the women. It was remarkable how the role of Chris in our tour was made visible to the public. It was very respectful. The women embraced her and thanked her for her role.

The Zionists in contrast are automatons. Wherever I speak they do always the same. They come to the audience without any arguments or just shout “lies!” … They are brainwashed to nothing.

It is a lesson I learned in Auschwitz. When a dominant group tries to dehumanize a certain distinguishable group, it is necessary that the members of the dominant group have been brainwashed beforehand. A normal human being cannot see another human being suffering, let alone inflict suffering. His or her inborn empathy needs to be reduced to be able to inflict suffering on a human being. My hope is that, eventually, a society composed of a majority that lost empathy by brainwashing right from the kindergarten until the army, like the Zionists, kills itself from within by too much aggression.

AN: What is your impression of the solidarity movement in the different countries?

HM: I am a very great advocate of the boycott of [Israeli] universities which are the architects of all the oppression and humiliation measures of the Israeli occupation forces. Israel wants to hold up how cultured it is. I remember from my time under Nazi occupation how proud the Nazis were of their contacts with universities or if Beethoven was being played in the Concertgebouw [hall] in Amsterdam by a German.

While we were in South Africa we learned that the University of Johannesburg severed its ties with Ben Gurion University. And there were protests against the speaking tour of [pro-Israel Harvard law professor] Alan Dershowitz.

I know too little about the details, but boycott, divestment and sanctions is certainly a topic in the countries, I know. I don’t know how effective it really is. I think that boycott of Israeli universities and artists is the most effective part.

AN: How do you assess the situation on the ground? Do you see any change?

HM: It gets worse every day. The discrediting of nongovernmental organizations in Israel that are trying to help Palestinians is worse. The misbehavior of the [Israeli] foreign minister [Avigdor] Lieberman is mind-boggling. Large parts of the Jewish population don’t want to talk about the Palestinians. They cannot get out of their role of the victim. They have forgotten about Jewish ethics as laid down in the Golden Rule by Hillel, “What is hateful to you, do not do unto others.” I was educated to put inter-human ethics central in religion. This is so obviously contrary to the daily practice of Zionism. In Zionism they practice a dogmatic Holocaust religion: there is only one people which knows about suffering, that is the Jewish people [and that] any suffering Zionists inflict on Palestinians is negligible as compared to Jewish suffering. Secondly, according to high priest Elie Wiesel, the only event with which Auschwitz must be compared is the Sinai experience, when Moses got from God’s own hands the five books of the Torah and the ten commandments. This religion has for many taken the place of the former ethical Judaism. It gives the Zionists the freedom to do anything they want without feeling guilty.

Fortunately quite recently the Zionists faced a defeat in Switzerland. A judge ruled that posters to commemorate 61 years of injustice against the Palestinian people had to be put up again at the main station in Zurich. On the poster is written: “There was in the Middle East no land without a people for a people without a land. Israel: founded with violence on Palestinian land. Injustice calls for resistance.”

AN: We are both Dutch nationals. What do you think of the performance of Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal?

HM: I think he is the foreign minister of Israel. It is incredible that the Dutch parliament and the Dutch people accept that he says things as if he is the representative of Israel.

His threats to cut government funding if [the grant-giving organization] ICCO continues to support The Electronic Intifada are an incredible meddling in the freedom of expression. I am appalled by it.

The Dutch people have rightly a guilty conscience about the Jews in the Netherlands. Only in Poland the fate of the Jews was worse. However, a Dutch proverb says: it is exactly your true friend who shows you where you fail. We are bad friends of the rogue state of Israel. It is a criminal state.

AN: Do you plan to continue your activism?

HM: I am 86 years old, and I am still in reasonable health. It was quite a big strain to go on such a far journey to South Africa. However, it is also very rewarding, refreshing, to see how people respond. As long as I can, I will continue.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.

If you only read one article about this one: 'Confiscating Libya's Sovereign Wealth Funds' By Manlio Dinucci April 28, 2011

Financial Heist of the Century:

Confiscating Libya's Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF)

By Manlio Dinucci

April 28, 2011 "Il Manifesto" April 22, 2011 -- The objective of the war against Libya is not just its oil reserves (now estimated at 60 billion barrels), which are the greatest in Africa and whose extraction costs are among the lowest in the world, nor the natural gas reserves of which are estimated at about 1,500 billion cubic meters. In the crosshairs of "willing" of the operation “Unified Protector” there are sovereign wealth funds, capital that the Libyan state has invested abroad.

The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages sovereign wealth funds estimated at about $70 billion U.S., rising to more than $150 billion if you include foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more. Even if they are lower than those of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, Libyan sovereign wealth funds have been characterized by their rapid growth. When LIA was established in 2006, it had $40 billion at its disposal. In just five years, LIA has invested over one hundred companies in North Africa, Asia, Europe, the U.S. and South America: holding, banking, real estate, industries, oil companies and others.

In Italy, the main Libyan investments are those in UniCredit Bank (of which LIA and the Libyan Central Bank hold 7.5 percent), Finmeccanica (2 percent) and ENI (1 percent), these and other investments (including 7.5 percent of the Juventus Football Club) have a significance not as much economically (they amount to some $5.4 billion) as politically.

Libya, after Washington removed it from the blacklist of “rogue states,” has sought to carve out a space at the international level focusing on "diplomacy of sovereign wealth funds." Once the U.S. and the EU lifted the embargo in 2004 and the big oil companies returned to the country, Tripoli was able to maintain a trade surplus of about $30 billion per year which was used largely to make foreign investments. The management of sovereign funds has however created a new mechanism of power and corruption in the hands of ministers and senior officials, which probably in part escaped the control of the Gadhafi himself: This is confirmed by the fact that, in 2009, he proposed that the 30 billion in oil revenues go "directly to the Libyan people." This aggravated the fractures within the Libyan government.

U.S. and European ruling circles focused on these funds, so that before carrying out a military attack on Libya to get their hands on its energy wealth, they took over the Libyan sovereign wealth funds. Facilitating this operation is the representative of the Libyan Investment Authority, Mohamed Layas himself: as revealed in a cable published by WikiLeaks. On January 20 Layas informed the U.S. ambassador in Tripoli that LIA had deposited $32 billion in U.S. banks. Five weeks later, on February 28, the U.S. Treasury “froze” these accounts. According to official statements, this is "the largest sum ever blocked in the United States," which Washington held "in trust for the future of Libya." It will in fact serve as an injection of capital into the U.S. economy, which is more and more in debt. A few days later, the EU "froze" around 45 billion Euros of Libyan funds.

The assault on the Libyan sovereign wealth funds will have a particularly strong impact in Africa. There, the Libyan Arab African Investment Company had invested in over 25 countries, 22 of them in sub-Saharan Africa, and was planning to increase the investments over the next five years, especially in mining, manufacturing, tourism and telecommunications. The Libyan investments have been crucial in the implementation of the first telecommunications satellite Rascom (Regional African Satellite Communications Organization), which entered into orbit in August 2010, allowing African countries to begin to become independent from the U.S. and European satellite networks, with an annual savings of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Even more important were the Libyan investment in the implementation of three financial institutions launched by the African Union: the African Investment Bank, based in Tripoli, the African Monetary Fund, based in Yaoundé (Cameroon), the African Central Bank, with Based in Abuja (Nigeria). The development of these bodies would enable African countries to escape the control of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, tools of neo-colonial domination, and would mark the end of the CFA franc, the currency that 14 former French colonies are forced to use. Freezing Libyan funds deals a strong blow to the entire project. The weapons used by "the willing" are not only those in the military action called “Unified Protector.”

Il Manifesto, April 22, 2011

Translated from Italian by John Catalinotto

Global Research

a good read-'Libya: It’s Not About Oil, It’s About Currency and Loans' By John Perkins April 26, 2011

Libya: It’s Not About Oil, It’s About Currency and Loans

By John Perkins

April 26, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- World Bank President Robert Zoellick Thursday said he hopes the institution will have a role rebuilding Libya as it emerges from current unrest.

Zoellick at a panel discussion noted the bank's early role in the reconstruction of France, Japan and other nations after World War II.

"Reconstruction now means (Ivory Coast), it means southern Sudan, it means Liberia, it means Sri Lanka, I hope it will mean Libya," Zoellick said.

On Ivory Coast, Zoellick said he hoped that within "a couple weeks" the bank would move forward with "some hundred millions of dollars of emergency support."( By Jeffrey Sparshott, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES –full article here - .)

We listen to U.S. spokespeople try to explain why we’re suddenly now entangled in another Middle East war. Many of us find ourselves questioning the official justifications. We are aware that the true causes of our engagement are rarely discussed in the media or by our government.

While many of the rationalizations describe resources, especially oil, as the reasons why we should be in that country, there are also an increasing number of dissenting voices. For the most part, these revolve around Libya’s financial relationship with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and multinational corporations.

According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.

The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq.

In my talks, I often find it necessary to remind audiences of a point that seems obvious to me but is misunderstood by so many: that the World Bank is not really a world bank at all; it is, rather a U. S. bank. Ditto, its closest sibling, the IMF. In fact, if one looks at the World Bank and IMF executive boards and the votes each member of the board has, one sees that the United States controls about 16 percent of the votes in the World Bank - (Compared with Japan at about 7%, the second largest member, China at 4.5%, Germany with 4.00%, and the United Kingdom and France with about 3.8% each), nearly 17% of the IMF votes (Compared with Japan and Germany at about 6% and UK and France at nearly 5%), and the US holds veto power over all major decisions. Furthermore, the United States President appoints the World Bank President.

So, we might ask ourselves: What happens when a “rogue” country threatens to bring the banking system that benefits the corporatocracy to its knees? What happens to an “empire” when it can no longer effectively be overtly imperialistic?

One definition of “Empire” (per my book The Secret History of the American Empire) states that an empire is a nation that dominates other nations by imposing its own currency on the lands under its control. The empire maintains a large standing military that is ready to protect the currency and the entire economic system that depends on it through extreme violence, if necessary. The ancient Romans did this. So did the Spanish and the British during their days of empire-building. Now, the US or, more to the point, the corporatocracy, is doing it and is determined to punish any individual who tries to stop them. Qaddafi is but the latest example.

Understanding the war against Quaddafi as a war in defense of empire is another step in the direction of helping us ask ourselves whether we want to continue along this path of empire-building. Or do we instead want to honor the democratic principles we are taught to believe are the foundations of our country?

History teaches that empires do not endure; they collapse or are overthrown. Wars ensue and another empire fills the vacuum. The past sends a compelling message. We must change. We cannot afford to watch history repeat itself.

Let us not allow this empire to collapse and be replaced by another. Instead, let us all vow to create a new consciousness. Let the grass-roots movements in the Middle East – fostered by the young who must live with the future and are fueled through social networks – inspire us to demand that our country, our financial institutions and the corporations that depend on us to buy their goods and services commit themselves to fashioning a world that is sustainable, just, peaceful, and prosperous for all.

We stand at the threshold. It is time for you and me to step across that threshold, to move out of the dark void of brutal exploitation and greed into the light of compassion and cooperation.

John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described "economic hit man." He is the author of the new book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Did you know that the Moon is a satellite made by intelligent beings--WE Are Not Alone--'STRANGE MOON FACTS:The mystery of the moon keeps growing' March 19, 2008 by suehawks



The mystery of the moon keeps growing

March 19, 2008 by suehawks

Michael Tellinger is an unusual researcher and I always appreciate his perspective on things as a possible alternative to what we are told is true from cradle to grave. Here’s a newsletter I got from him a while back… Article by Michael Tellinger

Part 2 of 3

After months of research and digging up information about our mysterious satellite the moon, I am once again reminded how important it is to keep an open mind at all times. Just when I thought I had a pretty good idea about the moon, its history and its relation to Earth, my research and the relentless work of many other nosey scientists dishes up a real feast of information to consume in small, digestible bite-size chunks.

The first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, Robert Jastrow, said that “the moon is the Rosetta stone of the planets.” Let’s hope it allows us to decipher as much of our human history as the Rosetta stone did for Egyptology. And so far, it certainly seem that it can.

I urge you to set aside all you ever thought you knew about this planetary satellite and allow yourself to imagine the most bizarre set of possibilities. As I scratch for historic and new information about the moon, I keep discovering such incredible new material that it forces me to reconsider all I thought I knew. There is certainly a lot more to the moon than meets the eye on the first, second and third inspection. So before we carry on with the story of the Astronauts and their experiences on the moon here are some fascinating facts about the moon – just to shake things up a little.

This information was compiled by Ronald Regehr; a researcher and scientist in the defence industry and NASA. His main attribute seems to be that he is an out-of-the-box thinker. I extracted and edited some of the more juicy bits of info to tickle your fancy.

1. Moon’s Age:

Is much older than previously expected and maybe even older than the Earth or even the Sun. Earth’s age is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old at the most by some scientists – while various moon rocks were dated at 5.3 billion years old. What’s more puzzling is that the dust upon which they were resting was at least another billion years older.

2. Rock’s Origin:

The chemical composition of the dust below the rocks differs remarkably from the rocks themselves. This excludes the possibility that the dust resulted from the weathering rocks themselves. Where did the rocks come from? Somewhere else?

3. Heavier Elements on Surface:

On Earth and the composition of other planets, the heavier elements are normally found in the core while the lighter materials are concentrated at the surface. But not so with the moon. The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced, that several geologists proposed that the refractory compounds must have been brought to the moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They are adamant. They don’t know how, but there is no other way for this to have happened!

4. Water Vapour:

On the 7th March 1971, lunar instruments that were positioned on the moon by the astronauts recorded a cloud of water vapour passing across the surface of the moon. The cloud covered an area of about 100 square miles and lasted 14 hours.

5. Magnetic Rocks:

Moon rocks are magnetised. This is very strange because there is no magnetic field on the moon itself. And it could not have originated from a “lose call” with Earth because such an encounter would have ripped the moon apart.

6. No Volcanoes:

Some of the moon’s craters originated internally, yet there is no indication that the moon was ever hot enough to produce volcanic eruptions.

7. Moon Mascons:

Mascons are large, dense, circular masses, lying twenty to forty miles beneath the centres of each of the moon’s large maria (dried crater-like ocean beds). Some scientists suggest that these are broad, disk-shaped objects, that could even be some kind of artificial constructions. Huge circular disks would not appear perfectly centred beneath each huge mare by coincidence or accident, they claim.

8. Seismic Activity:

Hundreds of “moonquakes” are recorded each year that cannot be attributed to meteor strikes. In November 1958, Soviet astronomer Nikolay A. Kozyrev of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory photographed a gaseous eruption of the moon near the crater Alphonsus. He also detected a reddish glow that lasted for about an hour. In 1963, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory also saw reddish glows on the crests of ridges in the Aristarchus region.

What is really fascinating about these events, is that they were observed to be identical in their activity and they occur precisely and periodically, repeating themselves as the moon moves closer to Earth. These are probably not natural phenomena.

9. Hollow Moon:

The moon’s mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth’s mean density is 5.5. What does this mean? In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, “If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.”

Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is “simply a cavity.”

MIT’s Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, “the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon’s gravitational field… indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow.”

In Carl Sagan’s work Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, “A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object.”

10. Moon Echoes:

On the 20th November 1969, the crew of Apollo 12 jettisoned the lunar module ascent stage causing it to crash onto the moon some 40 miles from the Apollo 12 landing site. This created an artificial moonquake with startling characteristics. The moon reverberated like a bell for more than an hour. This phenomenon was intentionally repeated with Apollo 13, when they allowed the third stage to impact the moon. The results were even more startling. Seismic instruments recorded that the reverberations lasted for three hours and twenty minutes and travelled to a depth of twenty-five miles. This lead to the conclusion that the moon has an unusually light, or even no core.

11. Unusual Metals:

The moon’s crust is much harder than presumed. The astronauts encountered extreme difficulty when they tried to drill into the maria. The maria is composed primarily ilmenite, which is a mineral containing large amounts of titanium, the same metal used to fabricate the hulls of deep-diving submarines and the skin of the SR-71 “Blackbird”. What is even more puzzling, was the discovery of Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237 in lunar rocks (elements not found in nature on Earth). And a further surprise was finding rustproof iron particles. What?

12. Moon’s Origin:

Before the moon rocks conclusively disproved all the common theories about the moon’s origins, these were some of the theories.

The moon was believed to have originated when a chunk of Earth broke off eons ago (who knows from where, if the materials are not the same?).

Another theory was that the moon was created from leftover “space dust” remaining after the Earth was created. Analysis of the composition of moon rocks disproved this theory also.

Another popular theory is that the moon was somehow “captured” by the Earth’s gravitational attraction. But no scientific evidence exists to support this theory. Isaac Asimov stated, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the moon then having taken up a nearly circular orbit around our Earth, are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

13. Weird Orbit:

Our moon does not rotate on its axis. We only ever see one side of the moon. There is what is known as the “dark side of the moon” that we have never seen from Earth. It is the only moon in the solar system that has a stationary, near-perfect circular orbit. Stranger still, the moon’s centre of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric centre (which should cause wobbling), but the moon’s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth. “Something or someone” had to put the moon in orbit with its precise altitude, course, and speed.

14. Moon Diameter:

How does one explain the “coincidence” that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds, “There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”

15. Spaceship Moon Theory:

As outrageous as it may sound, it is quite possible that the moon is a giant, intelligently designed spaceship, with a specific purpose. The facts lead us convincingly to such an insane conclusion. The only theory that is supported by all of the data, is that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings, and there is no data that seems to contradict this theory.

(Thank you Ronald Regehr)

Next article we will explore more events on the moon and the possible interaction of US astronauts and aliens. This is what the Russians have claimed drove the Americans off the moon.

Till then…

Keep exploring.