NEWS2U Articles & Comments
Critical Reporting

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Why do Americans refuse to get angry?

by Jafo
Sept. 27, 2007

Sometimes, there just isn't enough beer to lighten the general mood. And when I am having difficulty dealing with the whole thing it has been said that I can be like Lady Macbeth on a bad day. Lately, it seems as though there are more of those days than usual.

Helen and Harry, you're always so gentle and kind, and I feel as though I have found some truly kindred spirits in you and in your online community. It really is a blessing to know that there are still people out there who believe in peace and love for us all, and yet are willing to turn back those who would destroy that sentiment. It is becoming such a rarity in this time and place.

People have become so self-concerned, and blinded to humanity that they no longer function as members of a true society.

I watch the violence being spread to every corner, to every concept and establishment in the world, and it is overwhelming. And I cannot believe for one minute that so many of us will remain untouched by the violence that we can just shrug it off and say, well, it won't affect us for a while. I am frustrated that more people don't get it, that more people aren't mad as hell. We see how bad it is.

They refuse to help people that are being slaughtered by others because it is our ally slaughtering them, or because they don't have any more natural resources for big corporations to steal. We watch them take away what our forefathers laid out for us as our natural rights as human beings and they tell us it's for our own good. When people are being beaten and tasered for having the nerve to speak out, speak up, or speak against, American citizens actually cheer!

Jay Leno gets laughs when his jokes imply that the violence against an innocent citizen were deserved!

They are stealing us blind.

Not just by sending our jobs overseas and giving tax breaks to the wealthy -- now they are literally taking it out of our pockets. Oil is well over $80 a barrel, not because it has gone significantly up in value, but because the dollar has gone down so far in value.

And many of us do see what is happening, and refuse to get angry!

It is so much easier to say nothing. We sit in front of our computers and our TV's and we don't say anything, because we just want to be left alone. We like all of the nice things we have, and we fear that someone will call us a nut job if we stand up and call the great "they" on their actions.

My wonderful husband once said to me that I should be careful what I say over the phone and in public, because "they" are going to come and take me away. (He spent 20 years in the military, and has been silenced via total institution training -- it's a shame, he really is a natural Hippie!) I told him about Rev. Martin Niemöller in Nazi Germany, and that eventually, they will come for us all. Maybe if we speak up and speak out, more people will refuse to let this happen.

It is not true peace if the only place I can find it is at my house or at your house. That's hiding our heads in the sand and hoping they pass us by on the way to the neighbors.

I watched Alan Greenspan on "Face The Nation" last Sunday. He actually said when asked about the intentional devaluation of the dollar and it's effect on our country that "sometimes, Democracies must come to an end." (and yes, I know that this is a representative republic).

And that is what will happen, because that is what Greenspan and his ilk are openly promoting.

If we are too busy struggling to survive because of the economic violence being committed openly against this country by ALL of these criminals, we won't have time to speak out. And now the news that Dubya is coaching Hillary so that she can continue his war if she gets into office...

Is it any wonder I am driven to distraction by it all? Gawd, I feel like Don Quixote some days.

I wonder if it is even worth the effort myself sometimes. But I will stock up on toilet paper and tampons, because I can't afford gold, and try to buy myself some time to keep standing up. And whether or not you can see my POV, it couldn't hurt to keep a little extra northern quilted on hand.

As always, I am wishing you only peace and love.


Friday, September 28, 2007


By Nancy Levant
September 4, 2007

We know that weather control, genetically modified foods, water tampering, panoptical technologies, psychotronic technologies, and electronic spying (phones, computers, automobiles, RFID, GPS, etc.) are factual and operational. But we must ask ourselves what we don’t know and remain vigilant and open-minded researchers.

We know that massive bills are not written by Congressmen and women, and that the American people have never requested nor understand the legislation which is now forced down our throats. As such, we must always be cognizant of the fact that all “politics” and political decisions are made far, far in advance of our knowledge, because politics, as a system, is a wholly secret society. We only think we are active participants as voters. In fact, we are non-entities when it comes to political decision making and intention. The power of “government” has never been used for the benefit of the common man.

Politics is not of, for, or by the people – not in reality - but only in Constitutional symbolism. However, we the people must get it through out thick skulls that secret politics are wholly and completely illegal as per our Constitution. This is, in fact, our power. We are not obliged on any legal basis to follow illegally enacted laws – ANY LAWS – that are contrary to the Constitution. However, we face a dark dilemma.

Our smiling politicians have created another form of government through war powers, executive orders, signing statements, presidential directives, transnational economic partnerships, and very strategic Federal Reserve-based debt. This new form of government was incrementally laid into place over the past century and has, in fact, all but neutered the Constitutional freedom of American people. When your politicians – especially the ones involved in “the debates” - talk about your “freedom,” I hope you are all laughing out loud with all teeth bared. Some of the most dedicated destroyers of our Constitution are standing on those debate stages.

The new form of government that has been installed in our nation is called Communitarian government. It is the form of government used by the new global regions, as the world is now divided into regional districts that are controlled by world or international governing bodies. This is why Mexico, Canada, and the united States are joining together - economically speaking. You have heard of the European Union (EU), which is a Communitarian system of government, and which combined the formerly sovereign European nations under one governmental umbrella.

You have also heard of the North American Union (NAU), which is the umbrella government of America, Canada, and Mexico. The NAU is why all successful businesses in our nation are now involved in partnerships. You have all heard about and recognize your community partnering organizations.

The partnership bureaucracy was ordered into play by the United Nations, which is an international governing body, and your state and federal politicians ordered the partnership bureaucracy into each and every city, town, village, and burg in the united States (and Canada and Mexico) as so commanded by the United Nations.

The partnership business bureaucracy places governmental authorities over all aspects of business. This is why all employees are now required to have governmental licenses and certifications to gain and retain employment. You might have a master’s or doctoral degree, but you are still required to have permission to work via a license or a certification that the government has granted, because government now controls all business – including employees. “Life-long Learning” is Communitarian Law and serves to hand-pick the commoners permitted to earn living wages.

Partnershipping is a direct manifestation of the new government that is operating in the united States. Other manifestations of this new government on American soil are the Biosphere Reserves, the World Heritage Sites, land management, and land trust organizations in all 50 states; Eminent Domain, water metering, and the sheer number of homes for sale in the rural areas, waterfront properties, and properties with streams, rivers, and creeks, and the housing/mortgage crash.

Private property, according to the United Nations, must be solely owned and controlled by government. Private property ownership is to be disallowed on a global basis. This is the reason for homeowner associations, gated communities, private policing forces inside of homeowner associations and gated communities, condo living, etc.

When you buy a house inside any of the above, you do not own the land upon which the house sits. You are therefore totally and completely at the mercy of your “association” rules and regulations, and you may, in fact, lose your homes for failure to follow whatever rules are set into place. So, on top of the private policing forces which exist to enforce the rules of the association (which means to control you), you are also vulnerable to the whims, desires, and prejudices of your homeowner association boards.

Even though you bought your homes, you can be forced to leave by “consensus,” which actually means by the opinion of those in power who happen to have armed back-up in the personage of private and armed policing forces. And once again, the United Nations, in a document called Agenda 21, states that all nations are to “relocate” their populations into “human settlements.” Your homeowner associations are “human settlements,” and you are totally controlled within these settlements – controlled by private policing forces and their association board consensus-crats. Welcome to the American version of Communist sectors. Welcome to Communitarian government.

Let us also consider our “medical community.” Is it not astounding that pharmaceutical drugs are now forced into your bodies through legislation and presidential executive orders? Do you still not understand that you have no legal right to refuse drugging? Can you not make the connection between mandatory drugging and mass chemical control? Are you so stupid as to believe that vaccine enforcement, fluoride, genetically modified foods, pandemic research and development, depleted uranium, agent orange, etc., have nothing in common?

Let me make the connection for you. It’s called corporate profit through depopulation – the depopulation mandated by corporate elites and their hand-picked and groomed politicians. But, why, you continue to ask – why would “they” do this to the world’s people? And I reply – over and over and over again – there are too many of us for “them” to safely retain total and, specifically, global power.

Understand this, and understand this well: the global elite only number in the tens of thousands - the multi-billionaire elite, who control the world’s politicians, the world’s militaries, the world’s sciences, and the world’s natural resources – this tiny fraction of humanity cannot control multi-billions of people. It is their stated goal to eliminate 3/4ths of the world’s population.

This is why genetics has become a top priority of their science-based funding and a top priority for at least 100 years. This is why they created the environmental crisis, which is their cover story for the FACTS of global chemical genocide.

Let us also consider chemical sterilization, reproductive tampering, and women’s “rights.” Case in point: Rockefeller programs and money helped to set up Planned Parenthood and the women’s liberation movement, which immediately set into cultural play the “right” to abortion. Billions of children have been “eliminated” globally through the “rights” of Rockefeller-liberated womanhood. This is the largest genocidal act in human history. Please refer to Dr. Stanley Monteith’s article titled The Population Control Agenda, where he states,

“Indeed, to this very day your tax money is used to finance Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by Margaret Sanger. During the 1930s Margaret Sanger openly supported the Nazi plan for genetic engineering of the German population, and the propagation of a super race. In Planned Parenthood's 1985 "Annual Report" leaders of that organization proclaimed that they were, "Proud of our past, and planning for our future.” [3]

“How could anyone possibly claim to be proud of the organization founded by Margaret Sanger when history records that she wrote of the necessity of: "the extermination of 'human weeds' ...the 'cessation of charity,' ... the segregation of 'morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,' and ... the sterilization of 'genetically inferior races.'"[4]

“Margaret Sanger published "The Birth Control Review." In that magazine she openly supported the "infanticide program" promoted by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and publicly championed Adolf Hitler's goal of Aryan white supremacy. In the years prior to World War II Margaret Sanger commissioned Ernst Rudin, a member of the Nazi Party, and director of the dreaded German Medical Experimentation Programs, to serve as an advisor to her organization.

In his excellent book "Killer Angel," George Grant chronicles the life and writings of Margaret Sanger, and painstakingly documents Sanger's plans for the genetic engineering of the human race. George Grant noted that in the 1920s Margaret Sanger wrote "The Pivot of Civilization" in which she called for: "The 'elimination of 'human weeds,' for the 'cessation of charity' because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the segregation of 'morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,' and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races.'"[5]

“According to George Grant, Margaret Sanger believed that the unfit should not be allowed to reproduce. Accordingly, she opened a birth control clinic in: "The Brownsville section of New York, an area populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, Italians, and Jews. She targeted the 'unfit' for her crusade to 'save the planet.'" [6]

“Nineteen years later, in 1939, Margaret Sanger organized her "Negro project," a program designed to eliminate members of what she believed to be an "inferior race." Margaret Sanger justified her proposal because she believed that: "The masses of Negroes ...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit..." [7]

“As Margaret Sanger's organization grew in power, influence, and acceptance, she began to write of the necessity of targeting religious groups for destruction as well, believing that the "dysgenic races" should include "Fundamentalists and Catholics" in addition to "blacks, Hispanics, (and) American Indians." [9]

Let us also consider Monsanto Corporation. On top of creating Agent Orange, Monsanto now owns the patents to animals and seeds. Let me say that again: Monsanto Corporation, the creator of Agent Orange, now owns the patents to animals and seeds. If corporations can “own” animals and seeds, what rights do you have to God’s animals and seeds?

Equally, the "terminator" gene, which renders such corporate seeds sterile and was developed with USDA resources, is an unconscionable technology due to the fact that it destroys life and destroys the right of farmers worldwide to save seeds – the primary necessity to grow food and feed the world’s people. Why, tell me, are they sterilizing the seeds of the world’s food crops when millions of people starve to death every year?

When you think of genetically modified foods, ask yourselves about the “environmental” movement to protect and “sustain” nature. See and hear the diabolical dialectic in action. Also consider the genocide of cats and dogs – billions of cats and dogs – by nature-loving “humane” societies – and once again, the key word being “genocide.”

Please note that one of the first and primary diagnostic tools used to determine sociopathic tendencies and behaviors is the slaughter of animals. And please consider – all pet owners are now barbarians if they do not sterilize their pets. We are talking about mass sterilization – in the multi-billions – of entire species of animals – minus, of course, the thoroughbred and select animals of the rich.

Again, Dr. Stanley Monteith’s article titled The Population Control Agenda tells us the following:

“David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times Book Review Section, October 22, 1989, as saying: "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true ... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth ...Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." [14]

“Michael Fox, when he was the vice-president of The Humane Society of the United States wrote, "Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth." [15]

“In "The First Global Revolution," published by The Council of the Club of Rome, an international elitist organization, the authors note that: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention ...The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." [16]

“In the UNESCO Courier of November 1991, Jacques Cousteau wrote: …In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."[17]

“Bertrand Russell, in his book, "The Impact of Science on Society," wrote, " ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others." [18]

“Speaking at a round-table discussion group at the Gorbachev Conference held in San Francisco in the fall of 1996, Dr. Sam Keen, a New Age writer and philosopher stated, "We must speak far more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control the population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."

Never be confused or manipulated by dolled-up and dialectic “humanitarian” rhetoric such as “reproductive health” and “women’s rights,” “environmental crisis,” and “humane societies.” The elite believe that freedom, and particularly reproductive freedom is intolerable, and that we should be subservient to their opinions and intentions.

Once again (and again and again), our rights, opinions, and our great numbers are intolerable to their financial and all-power global leadership security.

Dynasties are no joke, people. In all of human history, they have lived and served to protect themselves and to remain the world’s power brokers, and the waging of on-going wars have always been their means to civilian management and wealth. As such, my broken record repeats: we can never allow elites to rule over the masses.

History will repeatedly tell you that widespread violence and genocide will result from such leadership, but in today’s world of technological weapons systems and genocidal theories – and with all research and development now controlled and dictated by elite funding and intention, genocide – albeit by any other dialectic name – is now automated science.

Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Cultural Devastation of American Women: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing).

She is an opponent of deceptive governance and politicians, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System. She is also a nationwide and lively radio personality.


Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Ron Paul and the Empire

By Steven LaTulippe
July 31, 2007

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future." ~ Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Can Ron Paul really win? Does he have a snowball’s chance of becoming the next president, or are we all kidding ourselves?

At the moment, Rep. Paul’s quixotic campaign seems to be picking up steam. His recent fundraising statistics reveal a blossoming, internet-based movement that is uniting libertarians and other concerned citizens from across the political spectrum. His performance in the media has been sharp, and his organization seems to be honing its message.

While there are plenty of reasons for optimism, I think we need to be clear-eyed about the road ahead. If Rep. Paul somehow manages to remain a viable candidate and to seriously challenge his mainstream opponents, things will get extremely interesting. He faces a set of obstacles unlike any other candidate in my lifetime.

When evaluating his chances, it’s important to accept one fact about contemporary America: This is not a democracy, and certainly not a constitutional republic. America is actually a carefully concealed oligarchy. A few thousand people, mostly in government, finance, and the military-industrial complex, run this country for their own purposes. By manipulating the two-party system, influencing the mainstream media, and controlling the flow of campaign finance money, this oligarchy works to secure the nomination of its preferred candidates (Democratic and Republican alike), thus giving voters a "choice" between Puppet A and Marionette B.

Unlike the establishment’s candidates, Ron Paul is a freelancer running on three specific ideas:

1. The federal government must function within the strict guidelines of the Constitution.
2. America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world and reestablish a foreign policy based on noninterventionism.
3. America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency and return to hard money.

This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution.

The entire ruling oligarchy would be swept away if these ideas were ever implemented. Every sentence, every word, every jot and tittle of this agenda is unacceptable, repellent and hateful to America’s ruling elite.

The reasons for this are fairly obvious.

Through its control of the Federal Reserve, the banking elites make billions of dollars in unearned profits and exert enormous influence over the American economy. Countless industries and special interest groups (both foreign and domestic) have sprung up around our defense and national security budgets. The bureaucratic elites who dominate the federal government despise the Constitution’s limitations on their power and view the document as just an archaic "piece of paper."

Anyone who believes these folks will simply "walk away" if Ron Paul is elected president obviously doesn’t understand with whom they are dealing.

When its authority over the Southern states was challenged in the 19th Century, the oligarchy suspended the Constitution and launched a bloody war that killed three quarters of a million people. They arrested newspaper editors, deported antiwar congressmen, and burned down several American cities.

A century later, the oligarchy nuked two Japanese cities, killing thousands of civilians in the twinkle of an eye.

Victim of the Hiroshima atomic bomb

When its marginal interests were threatened in Southeast Asia, the oligarchy launched a devastating war that killed over a million people and left the region marinating in toxic defoliating chemicals.

Vietnamese civilians fleeing an air raid

To further its interests in the Middle East, the oligarchy slapped horrific sanctions on Iraq that killed 250,000 children (and then trotted out Madeleine Albright – one of Clinton’s blood-stained trolls – to smugly declare that the deaths were "worth it").

Malnourished Iraqi child

Keeping these facts in mind, we must ask ourselves a simple question: If the oligarchy was willing to behave this way to protect its often marginal interests, what would it do to stop a devastating assault on its very existence?

The attack on Ron Paul’s candidacy will begin in earnest when it appears he has an even remote possibility of winning.

It will follow a fairly predictable path: The first step is already in play. The establishment will start by simply ignoring him, by using its power in the mainstream media and their influence over campaign donors. If possible, they will find ways of excluding him from the debates.

This strategy is already failing. The internet and talk radio are outside the elite’s direct control and are being used effectively by Rep. Paul to "get the message out." (And mark my words, sooner or later the oligarchy will come for the internet. This medium has been a royal pain in their derriere from day one).

If this strategy fizzles, the establishment will move on to ridicule and fear mongering. Ron’s ideas will be grotesquely distorted in establishment media "hit pieces." They’ll say he wants to permit heroin use in public schools, or that he wants old people to die in the streets without their social security checks, or that he wants to allow greedy industrialists to dump toxic waste into our drinking water.

The next arrow in the oligarchy’s quiver will be scandal – real or fabricated. Usually, this takes the form of pictures, billing records, etc. involving financial or sexual hi-jinks. For folks with the right motivation and abilities, it would be child’s play to implicate him in some sort of phony ethical, moral, or financial skullduggery (e.g., doctored pictures, sordid media accounts from "eyewitnesses," etc.).

If Ron somehow survives this assault, the oligarchy will move on to the criminal justice system.

On some fine day, a stretch limo will pull up to the Capitol Building and one of the establishment’s consiglieres (Jim Baker...or maybe Vernon Jordan) will ooze into Ron’s office for a "chat."

Maybe Rep. Paul forgot to fill out Form X109/23W on his 1997 income tax return?

Or maybe he drained a mud puddle when he built his new house...and maybe that puddle could theoretically be classified as a "wetland?"

Or, even better, maybe a close relative is in hot water with OSHA/FDA/IRS/you-name-it (federal prosecutors love to go after relatives in order to gain "leverage").

Rep. Paul’s sentence could be lessened, of course...provided he agreed to drop his candidacy as part of a "plea bargain."

Ayn Rand once stated that the hallmark of authoritarian systems is the creation of innumerable, indecipherable laws. Such systems make everyone an un-indicted felon and allow for the exercise of arbitrary government power via selective prosecution.

If this tactic somehow failed and it appeared that Rep. Paul was still a credible threat to win the presidency, then things could get dicey.

The establishment may decide to let him take office and then use their considerable influence to ensure his presidency ended in failure – mostly through their control of Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and the mainstream media.

The problem with this strategy (from the oligarchy’s perspective) is that it entails considerable risk. As president, Rep. Paul could use the substantial powers of the office to inflict untold damage to the imperial structure (especially if he chose to withdraw American troops stationed overseas). Worse, he could appoint anti-government “ideologues” to a variety of positions in the federal government.

The damage could take decades to undo.

If these options fail, the oligarchy could resort to various “extra-legal” strategies – anything from vote-rigging to trumped-up impeachment charges.

Either way, one thing is certain: The American establishment controls a world-wide empire, has the power to print the world’s reserve currency at will, and can enact virtually any law without constitutional constraint. Such power is rarely surrendered without a long, bitter struggle.

Steven LaTulippe [send him mail] is a physician currently practicing in Ohio. He was an officer in the United States Air Force for 13 years.


Monday, September 24, 2007

Fallout follows expletive in CSU's Collegian editorial

By Trevor Hughes
Kevin Darst

A profane four-word editorial in Friday's Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's student newspaper, caused advertisers to pull $30,000 worth of advertising and prompted the newsroom to slash student employee pay and other budgets by 10 percent, according to a confidential memo.

The Friday editorial read in large type "Taser this... F-- BUSH," along with a sentence in regular type saying "This column represents the views of the Collegian's editorial board."

The F-word was spelled out in the editorial, and the phrase was printed about twice the size of a normal headline.

In a letter posted on the Collegian's Web site Friday afternoon, Editor-in-Chief J. David McSwane said the editorial was meant to highlight the importance of free speech.

"As local and national media will inevitably jump on this controversy, I strongly urge the university community to try and understand that the intentions of the students on staff, including me, were not to cause harm, but rather to reinforce the importance of free speech at our great institution," McSwane wrote. "My staff and I are extremely proud to be CSU students and members of this amazing community, and it is my sincere hope that our readers understand our intentions were not malicious."

McSwane also said the vote among the paper's seven-member editorial board to run the editorial was split.

In an interview with the Coloradoan, McSwane confirmed the memo, said he has no plans to quit and is standing by the decision to publish the controversial editorial, which drew national attention within hours of its publication.

McSwane said he knew publishing the editorial would "cause a stir." But he said the students who run the newspaper wanted to make a statement about free speech.

"What we really were trying to do was make a statement people couldn't ignore," McSwane said. "I think quitting would be an insult to my staff, who supported what we had to say. We did something and we're standing by it."

However, McSwane said he regrets the pain the editorial caused among the paper's faculty advertisers and advisers, whom he said had no idea the paper was planning to publish the controversial editorial.

"It was never our intent to disenfranchise our advertisers and our readers," McSwane said, adding that he hopes people will focus on why the Collegian published the editorial.

The Collegian, a free publication that prints Monday through Friday, is funded entirely by advertising.

The editorial did not explain why the paper's editors chose to print it. However, the paper's front page carried a headline and story about free speech limits regarding an incident Monday where a college student in Florida was shot with a Taser during an appearance by U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The First Amendment also was printed on Friday's front page.

Within hours of its publication, the paper's editorial garnered widespread national attention, sparking a discussion about First Amendment rights, politics and whether the students went too far. Debate also raged on the Collegian's Web site.

"Like many other comments here, I'm quite ashamed to see the official voice of my alma mater's paper choosing to express itself like this," wrote one commenter under the name Phil Mills. "Regardless of the Editors' opinion of our President, I would have hoped that they could have come up with something more eloquent and reasoned to express that opinion than this... this... bumper sticker."

Others backed the paper, like this post: "Do (the paper's critics) not see the outright hypocrisy in what they are saying? 'It's okay if you dissent, as long as you say what we want you to say and don't offend anyone.' This is a complete logical fallacy," wrote a commenter under the name Kevin.

CSU President Larry Penley said he was "disappointed" with the editorial.

"While student journalists enjoy all the privileges and protections of the First Amendment, they must also accept full responsibility for the choices they make," Penley said in a prepared statement. "Members of a university community ought to be expected to communicate civilly and rationally and to make thoughtful arguments in support of even unpopular viewpoints. I am disappointed that the Collegian's recent editorial choices do not reflect the expectations we have of our student journalists nor the standards that are clearly articulated by student media policies. I also have every expectation that the readers of the Collegian will make their viewpoints known to the editor and the Board of Student Communications, which serves as the newspaper's publisher, and that ultimately, the newspaper will answer to its readers."

While the Collegian is editorially independent, CSU retains a measure of control though a 10-member faculty-student Board of Student Communications, which has the authority to hire and fire editors. According to CSU, no student editor has been fired from the Collegian, although the student editor of the campus yearbook was fired about a decade ago over missed deadlines.

McSwane earned international attention after a 2005 expose in which he went undercover as a high school dropout pretending to want to enlist in the military. McSwane, who at the time was 17, recorded video of a military recruiter saying he would get help to cover up a supposed drug problem and provide him a fake high school diploma. The Army froze recruiting for a day following McSwane's expose.

In a letter addressed to the university community and Collegian readers, Jeff Browne, director of student media, said he planned to launch an internal investigation into "the decision-making process" followed in publishing the editorial. Browne is a CSU employee.

Noting that the paper has First Amendment rights to publish "what they see fit," Browne continued, "We do not support the specific editorial statement on page 4 of today's Collegian. We find it unnecessary and unbefitting the proud 116-year tradition of the Collegian."

McSwane's response on the Collegian Web site used the same "proud 116-year tradition" language in defense of the editorial.

Browne also wrote that readers and CSU community members who want to complain should contact him. The Board of Student Communications meets next on Oct. 10, and complaints will likely be heard then, if not before, he said. The board comprises seven students and three faculty members.

The confidential memo, signed by newsroom manager Jeremy Trujillo and obtained by the Coloradoan, said the editorial board stood behind its statement but that "many" advertisers had decided to pull their ads.

"Because of this, Editor in Chief David McSwane has had to make tough decisions regarding budget and payroll," the memo said, citing 10 percent pay cuts for all salaried students and contract positions at the Collegian, 10 percent cuts for newsroom departments and a hiring freeze.

The changes won't be permanent if ad revenue rebounds, the memo said.


Sunday, September 23, 2007

The Weird Russian Mind-Control Research Behind a DHS Contract

The Psychotechnology Research Institute claims its technology can read the subconscious mind and alter behavior.

By Sharon Weinberger
Sept. 20, 2007

MOSCOW -- The future of U.S. anti-terrorism technology could lie near the end of a Moscow subway line in a circular dungeon-like room with a single door and no windows. Here, at the Psychotechnology Research Institute, human subjects submit to experiments aimed at manipulating their subconscious minds.

Elena Rusalkina, the silver-haired woman who runs the institute, gestured to the center of the claustrophobic room, where what looked like a dentist's chair sits in front of a glowing computer monitor. "We've had volunteers, a lot of them," she said, the thick concrete walls muffling the noise from the college campus outside. "We worked out a program with (a psychiatric facility) to study criminals. There's no way to falsify the results. There's no subjectivism."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has gone to many strange places in its search for ways to identify terrorists before they attack, but perhaps none stranger than this lab on the outskirts of Russia's capital. The institute has for years served as the center of an obscure field of human behavior study -- dubbed psychoecology -- that traces it roots back to Soviet-era mind control research.

What's gotten DHS' attention is the institute's work on a system called Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology, or SSRM Tek, a software-based mind reader that supposedly tests a subject's involuntary response to subliminal messages.

SSRM Tek is presented to a subject as an innocent computer game that flashes subliminal images across the screen -- like pictures of Osama bin Laden or the World Trade Center. The "player" -- a traveler at an airport screening line, for example -- presses a button in response to the images, without consciously registering what he or she is looking at. The terrorist's response to the scrambled image involuntarily differs from the innocent person's, according to the theory.

Gear for testing MindReader 2.0 software hangs on a wall at the Psychotechnology Research Institute in Moscow. Marketed in North America as SSRM Tek, the technology will soon be tested for airport screening by a U.S. company under contract to the Department of Homeland Security.

"If it's a clean result, the passengers are allowed through," said Rusalkina, during a reporter's visit last year. "If there's something there, that person will need to go through extra checks."

Rusalkina markets the technology as a program called Mindreader 2.0. To sell Mindreader to the West, she's teamed up with a Canadian firm, which is now working with a U.S. defense contractor called SRS Technologies. This May, DHS announced plans to award a sole-source contract to conduct the first U.S.-government sponsored testing of SSRM Tek.

The contract is a small victory for the Psychotechnology Research Institute and its leaders, who have struggled for years to be accepted in the West. It also illustrates how the search for counter-terrorism technology has led the U.S. government into unconventional -- and some would say unsound -- science.

All of the technology at the institute is based on the work of Rusalkina's late husband, Igor Smirnov, a controversial Russian scientist whose incredible tales of mind control attracted frequent press attention before his death several years ago.

Smirnov was a Rasputin-like character often portrayed in the media as having almost mystical powers of persuasion. Today, first-time visitors to the institute -- housed in a drab concrete building at the Peoples Friendship University of Russia -- are asked to watch a half-hour television program dedicated to Smirnov, who is called the father of "psychotronic weapons," the Russian term for mind control weapons. Bearded and confident, Smirnov in the video explains how subliminal sounds could alter a person's behavior. To the untrained ear, the demonstration sounds like squealing pigs.

Elena Rusalkina demonstrates the terrorist-screening tool. She says it works faster than a polygraph and can be used at airports.

According to Rusalkina, the Soviet military enlisted Smirnov's psychotechnology during the Soviet Union's bloody war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "It was used for combating the Mujahideen, and also for treating post-traumatic stress syndrome" in Russian soldiers, she says.
In the United States, talk of mind control typically evokes visions of tinfoil hats. But the idea of psychotronic weapons enjoys some respectability in Russia. In the late 1990s, Vladimir Lopatin, then a member of the Duma, Russia's parliament, pushed to restrict mind control weapons, a move that was taken seriously in Russia but elicited some curious mentions in the Western press. In an interview in Moscow, Lopatin, who has since left the Duma, cited Smirnov's work as proof that such weaponry is real.

"It's financed and used not only by the medical community, but also by individual and criminal groups," Lopatin said. Terrorists might also get hold of such weapons, he added.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Smirnov moved from military research into treating patients with mental problems and drug addiction, setting up shop at the college. Most of the lab's research is focused on what it calls "psychocorrection" -- the use of subliminal messages to bend a subject's will, and even modify a person's personality without their knowledge.

The slow migration of Smirnov's technology to the United States began in 1991, at a KGB-sponsored conference in Moscow intended to market once-secret Soviet technology to the world. Smirnov's claims of mind control piqued the interest of Chris and Janet Morris -- former science-fiction writers turned Pentagon consultants who are now widely credited as founders of the Pentagon's "non-lethal" weapons concept.

In an interview last year, Chris Morris recalled being intrigued by Smirnov -- so much so that he accompanied the researcher to his lab and allowed Smirnov to wire his head up to an electroencephalograph, or EEG. Normally used by scientists to measure brain states, Smirnov peered into Morris's EEG tracings and divined the secrets of his subconscious, right down to intimate details like Morris' dislike of his own first name.

The underlying premise of the technology is that terrorists would recognize a scrambled terrorist image like this one without even realizing it, and would be betrayed by their subconscious reaction to the picture.

"I said, 'gee, the guys back at home have got to see this,'" Morris recalled.

The Morrises shopped the technology around to a few military agencies, but found no one willing to put money into it. However, in 1993 Smirnov rose to brief fame in the United States when the FBI consulted with him in hope of ending the standoff in Waco with cult leader David Koresh.

Smirnov proposed blasting scrambled sound -- the pig squeals again -- over loudspeakers to persuade Koresh to surrender.

But the FBI was put off by Smirnov's cavalier response to questions. When officials asked what would happen if the subliminal signals didn't work, Smirnov replied that Koresh's followers might slit each other's throats, Morris recounted. The FBI took a pass, and Smirnov returned to Moscow with his mind control technology.

"With Smirnov, the FBI was either demanding a yes or a no, and therefore our methods weren't put to use, unfortunately," Rusalkina said, taking a drag on her cigarette.

Igor Smirnov, founder of the Psychotechnology Research Institute, died of a heart attack in 2005. Smirnov is best known in the United States for consulting with the FBI during the 1993 Waco siege.

Smirnov died in November 2004, leaving the widowed Rusalkina -- his long-time collaborator -- to run the institute. Portraits of Smirnov cover Rusalkina's desk, and his former office is like a shrine, the walls lined with his once-secret patents, his awards from the Soviet government, and a calendar from the KGB's cryptographic section.

Despite Smirnov's death, Rusalkina predicts an "arms race" in psychotronic weapons. Such weapons, she asserts, are far more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

She pointed, for example, to a spate of Russian news reports about "zombies" -- innocent people whose memories had been allegedly wiped out by mind control weapons. She also claimed that Russian special forces contacted the institute during the 2003 Moscow theater siege, in which several hundred people were held hostage by Chechen militants.

"We could have stabilized the situation in the concert hall, and the terrorists would have called the whole thing off," she said. "And naturally, you could have avoided all the casualties, and you could have put the terrorists on trial. But the Alfa Group" -- the Russian equivalent of Delta Force -- "decided to go with an old method that had already been tested before."

The Russians used a narcotic gas to subdue the attackers and their captives, which led to the asphyxiation death of many of the hostages.

These days, Rusalkina explained, the institute uses its psychotechnology to treat alcoholics and drug addicts. During the interview, several patients -- gaunt young men who appeared wasted from illness -- waited in the hallway.

But the U.S. war on terror and the millions of dollars set aside for homeland security research is offering Smirnov a chance at posthumous respectability in the West.

Smirnov's technology reappeared on the U.S. government's radar screen through Northam Psychotechnologies, a Canadian company that serves as North American distributor for the Psychotechnology Research Institute. About three years ago, Northam Psychotechnologies began seeking out U.S. partners to help it crack the DHS market. For companies claiming innovative technologies, the past few years have provided bountiful opportunities. In fiscal year 2007, DHS allocated $973 million for science and technology and recently announced Project Hostile Intent, which is designed to develop technologies to detect people with malicious intentions.

One California-based defense contractor, DownRange G2 Solutions, expressed interest in SSRM Tek, but became skeptical when Northam Psychotechnologies declined to make the software available for testing.

"That raised our suspicion right away," Scott Conn, CEO and president of DownRange, told Wired News. "We weren't prepared to put our good names on the line without due diligence." (When a reporter visited last year, Rusalkina also declined to demonstrate the software, saying it wasn't working that day.)

While Conn said the lack of testing bothered him, the relationship ended when he found out Northam Psychotechnologies went to SRS Technologies, now part of ManTech International Corp.

Semyon Ioffe, the head of Northam Psychotechnologies, who identifies himself as a "brain scientist," declined a phone interview, but answered questions over e-mail. Ioffe said he signed a nondisclosure agreement with Conn, and had "a few informal discussions, after which he disappeared to a different assignment and reappeared after (the) DHS announcement."

As for the science, Ioffe says he has a Ph.D in neurophysiology, and cited Smirnov's Russian-language publications as the basis for SSRM Tek.

However, not everyone is as impressed with Smirnov's technology, including John Alexander, a well-known expert on non-lethal weapons. Alexander was familiar with Smirnov's meetings in Washington during the Waco crisis, and said in an interview last year that there were serious doubts then as now.

"It was the height of the Waco problem, they were grasping at straws," he said of the FBI's fleeting interest. "From what I understand from people who were there, it didn't work very well."

Geoff Schoenbaum, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland's School of Medicine, said that he was unaware of any scientific work specifically underpinning the technology described in SSRM Tek.

"There's no question your brain is able to perceive things below your ability to consciously express or identify," Schoenbaum said. He noted for example, studies showing that images displayed for milliseconds -- too short for people to perceive consciously -- may influence someone's mood. "That kind of thing is reasonable, and there's good experimental evidence behind it."

The problem, he said, is that there is no science he is aware of that can produce the specificity or sensitivity to pick out a terrorist, let alone influence behavior. "We're still working at the level of how rats learn that light predicts food," he explained. "That's the level of modern neuroscience."
Developments in neuroscience, he noted, are followed closely. "If we could do (what they're talking about), you would know about it," Schoenbaum said. "It wouldn't be a handful of Russian folks in a basement."

In the meantime, the DHS contract is still imminent, according to those involved, although all parties declined to comment on the details, or the size of the award. Rusalkina did not respond to a recent e-mail, but in the interview last year, she confirmed the institute was marketing the technology to the United States for airport screening.

Larry Orloskie, a spokesman for DHS, declined to comment on the contract announcement. "It has not been awarded yet," he replied in an e-mail.

"It would be premature to discuss any details about the pending contract with DHS and I will be happy to do an interview once the contract is in place," Ioffe, of Northam Psychotechnologies, wrote in an e-mail. Mark Root, a spokesman for ManTech, deferred questions to DHS, noting, "They are the customer."


Saturday, September 22, 2007

Dollar's Retreat Raises Fear of Collapse

By Carter Dougherty
The International Herald Tribune
September 13, 2007

Frankfurt - Finance ministers and central bankers have long fretted that at some point, the rest of the world would lose its willingness to finance the United States' proclivity to consume far more than it produces - and that a potentially disastrous free-fall in the dollar's value would result.

But for longer than most economists would have been willing to predict a decade ago, the world has been a willing partner in American excess - until a new and home-grown financial crisis this summer rattled confidence in the country, the world's largest economy.

On Thursday, the dollar briefly fell to another low against the euro of $1.3927, as a slow decline that has been under way for months picked up steam this past week.

"This is all pointing to a greatly increased risk of a fast unwinding of the U.S. current account deficit and a serious decline of the dollar," said Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and an expert on exchange rates. "We could finally see the big kahuna hit."

In addition to increased nervousness about the pace of the dollar's decline, many currency analysts now also are willing to make an argument they would have avoided as recently as a few years ago: that the euro should bear the brunt of the dollar's decline.

The euro, shared by 13 countries, once looked like a daring experiment. But it has gained credibility and euro-denominated financial assets are as good as their U.S. counterparts. With a slow economic overhaul under way in European capitals, and a fundamentally sound corporate structure, a weaker dollar justifiably means a stronger euro.

"The euro has earned what it has gotten," said Stephen Jen, global head of currency research at Morgan Stanley in London. "It is not simply rallying by default."

So long as Americans buy more than they earn from exports - and they did, creating a current account deficit of $850 billion last year - the rest of the world financed the binge by bringing dollars into the United States for investment in stocks, bonds, real estate or other assets, thereby preserving demand for the dollar.

The continued appetite for U.S. investments stemmed from a track record of strong economic growth and a financial system that has been remarkably resistant to shocks.

But the latest turmoil in mortgage markets has, in a single stroke, shaken faith in the resilience of American finance to a greater degree than even the bursting of the technology bubble in 2000 or the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, analysts said. It has also raised prospect of a recession in the wider economy.

While most economists just a few months ago would have dismissed the prospect of a dollar collapse outright, they now are debating the possibility that something on par with the dollar debacle of the 1970s might just happen again.

When a currency collapses, the central bank can push up interest rates to attract needed investment, but strangle the economy in the process. Alternatively, it can let the currency fall and watch prices of imports - and eventually competing domestic goods - rise sharply.

Double-digit inflation resulted in the 1970s and only a global recession brought it to an end.

Today, the dollar's current weakness is being driven by uncertainty over how central banks will react to the turmoil in financial markets, unleashed by the collapse of the U.S. market for subprime mortgages given to borrowers with shaky credit histories.

The European Central Bank put off an interest rate increase it had planned for September, but is still inclined to tighten credit at least one more time by the end of this year. By contrast, the U.S. Federal Reserve has hinted at a rate cut at its meeting next Tuesday - a step that would diminish the appeal of dollar-denominated assets, almost certainly sending the dollar lower.

But across a horizon of 18 months to two years, investors are pondering how quickly the dollar will fall, a question to which there are no easy answers.

After a run of strong growth, the U.S. economy has lurched into a phase of slower expansion, and last Friday the most serious warning sign appeared - an outright deterioration in employment growth.

The data has coincided with profit warnings from major U.S. retailers like Wal-Mart Stores and Home Depot, suggesting that consumer spending, the backbone of the American economy for years, was ebbing. This step would logically follow the rapidly cooling housing market, since Americans have spent heavily with money borrowed against rising home values.

A drop in consumer spending by Americans means fewer imports. The current account deficit peaked at 6.8 percent of gross domestic product in late 2005 and is now running at about 5.5 percent, with figures for the second quarter of 2007 due out on Friday.

A lower deficit means less capital needs to flow into the United States, and is consistent with a steady decline in the dollar. Since the middle of last year, the dollar, weighted for trade flows, has fallen steadily against a broad range of currencies, according to data collected by the Fed.

All this suggests that, in spite of headline-grabbing news about the latest low, the dollar could be adjusting gradually as the U.S. economy becomes driven less by lending on the back of rising home price.

The problem, as every economist knows, is that the current account deficit - about $770 billion - is still colossal in absolute terms.

And foreigners are being asked to provide those dollars at a time when the subprime turmoil is threatening to spill over into the broader economy.

Put another way, at a time when the psychology of crisis has gripped financial markets, intangible attitudes toward the dollar have become all the more important. And with growth strong elsewhere in the world, there are appealing places to go besides the dollar.

"The problem is that the deficit is still very, very large," Jen said. "And there are plenty of other investment opportunities outside the United States."

Pressed to make an educated guess, most economists opt for calm, believing the dollar is unlikely to go into a tailspin even as they mark up the odds of one.

The major holders of dollars - notably the Chinese, with their $1.3 trillion in currency reserves - have little incentive to see the dollar weaken, and their support provides the dollar with a bulwark of strength. And since investors need to stay diversified, and U.S. markets are deep and liquid, abandoning the dollar wholesale is hardly a realistic option.

"Rather than a precipitous decline, we are probably be looking at a move steadily lower," said Simon Derrick, chief currency strategist at Bank of New York in London.


Monday, September 17, 2007


September 7, 2007


Something just occurred to me....

On Aug. 30th we had the B-52 nuke incident, no one knows for sure if there were 5 or 6 nukes yet.

If there were 6, ONE IS MISSING

On Sept. 3rd, we are being told that a famous man went missing... a highly connected famous man.

for days they have been searching for him.....


This all just hit me when I was watching the news for the first time in about two weeks, and I heard them say that the MILITARY is helping to look for this Fossett guy.

WHAT? The Military????

It was then that it hit me....


Nevada Guard Aids Search for Missing Pilot Fossett

Air Force units assist in search for adventurer Steve Fossett


They even have GOOGLE searching for the guy FROM SPACE!!


This Fossett guy is ONLY missing because they needed a cover story... they had to find a way to explain all of the military planes that were going to be flying around over Nevada.

They needed a good excuse and VOILA... Fossett provided it!!

As soon as they locate the nuke, they will produce the set up "crash" scene!

Right now that man is in a bunker somewhere with his plane hidden inside or underneath of a mountain being held in safe keeping away from public eyes until they find what they are really looking for.........


and then they will take him out to some remote location and set up the "crash" scene.... or, there is a chance that Fossett is in on this whole thing and that he volunteered to "disappear" for a few days into some government bunker so that he could play a part in saving the country from being nuked.

In which case he will show up in a week or two with some heroic story of survival and everyone will be amazed that he made it.

I don't know why it took me so long to get this one but...

they are DEFINITELY NOT looking for a missing man using ALL of these military resources and EVEN going as far as to have satellites searching FROM SPACE....




September 16, 2007



I am working on confirming the details but at this time I can tell you I have information indicating these military members have been killed. Check back later. . . . more details to follow


Minot Base Officials Say Airman Dies While On Leave


The Minot Air Force Base said an airman has died while on leave in Virginia.

Caddo deputies work double-fatality accident
September 15, 2007

By John Andrew Prime

Caddo Parish sheriff's deputies worked a wreck this morning in which two people from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed.



Saturday, 15 September 2007,


Although not widely known, John Frueh, the pilot mentioned, apparently was actually a Major with Air Force Special Operations Command. John committed suicide by gunshot.

As to Todd Blue, who died while on leave in Virginia: According to a personal friend, Todd also committed suicide.

Two others, identified by name:

Minot-based Airman Adam Barrs died on July 2.
Minot-based Airman Weston Kissel died on July 17.
One died in a motorcycle accident while on leave in Tennessee. The other was found dead in his home.

In all, apparently six deaths of Minot-based Airmen have occurred since last October.

I post wondering if other readers find this string of events to be deeply troubling.

A news report that a Minot Airman died while on leave published by Air Force Times datelined September 13 at 4:49 PM Eastern:

A similar report from local station WDBJ Channel 7. This story was taken from an Associated Press report dated September 12 at 3:15 PM Eastern:

Another story with similar information published by the Minot Air Force Base on September 12:

Another story by, citing information obtained from their KXMC-TV station in Minot:

Another story written from the Associated Press dispatch published by

A report dated September 12 from KFYR-TV, an NBC affiliate in Minot:

Yet another similar report, by The Minot Daily, citing Associated Press as a source:

WVIR-TV also reported, again relying on an Associated Press feed:

The death was reported on the KXMB web site based on an Associated Press release issued on September 12 at 2:19: reported similarly, based on a later feed on September 12 at 4:04 PM Eastern from the Associated Press. Many other outlets also used the 4:04 version of the story. For sake of brevity, I haven't listed them all.

As to Mr. Todd, I pursued local sources. Including the local newspaper in Wytheville, Todd's home town:

As to John Frueh: I won't post multiple links to news stories, almost all of which relied on feed from the Associated Press. Instead, I will link the aspect I mentioned that was NOT widely published, by AP or locals: His rank and assignment. I see no need to comment as to how I chased this story long enough to stumble across this particular link, or where I found it. ("Welcome to the Majors" pg 3)



Sunday, 16 September 2007, 8:58 a.m.

WASHINGTON, DC -- US military bases in the continental United States (CONUS) will go on special lockdown between September 17 and September 21

Military Drills - False Flag Provocation, Attack On Iran? 'Solid Curtain' And 'Citadel Shield 2007' Military Drills Raise Spectre Of Imminent False Flag Provocation And Attack On Iran

By Webster G. Tarpley 9-13-7 Full Article Here:

$4.5 billion put options bet on catastrophe, September 21 is the drop dead date on those trades.

Militia goes to Defcon 3. Probable Threat status;f=32;t=000212;p=1#000000

Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year

Presidential candidate says Neo-Cons waiting for right opportunity

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
(Put out the day after the Options "Bin-Laden Trade" release)

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse -Ron Paul says martial law provisions in place to deal with economic discord
(This story Ron Paul put out the day after the Iran attack release!)

Here's an article: "DISPELLING THE BenLaden "Options Trades"


Sunday, September 16, 2007

U.S. Secret Air War Pulverizes Afganistan and Iraq

By Conn Hallinan
Foreign Policy
Sept. 14, 2007

According to the residents of Datta Khel, a town in Pakistan's North Waziristan, three missiles streaked out of Afghanistan's Pakitka Province and slammed into a Madrassa, or Islamic school, this past June. When the smoke cleared, the Asia Times reported, 30 people were dead.

The killers were robots, General Atomics MQ-1 Predators. The AGM-114 Hellfire missiles they used in the attack were directed from a base deep in the southern Nevada desert.

It was not the first time Predators had struck. The previous year a CIA Predator took a shot at al-Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, but missed. The missile, however, killed 18 people. According to the Asia Times piece, at least one other suspected al-Qaeda member was assassinated by a Predator in Pakistan's northern frontier area, and in 2002 a Predator killed six "suspected al-Qaeda" members in Yemen.

These assaults are part of what may be the best kept secret of the Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts: an enormous intensification of US bombardments in these and other countries in the region, the increasing number of civilian casualties such a strategy entails, and the growing role of pilot-less killers in the conflict.

According to Associated Press, there has been a five-fold increase in the number of bombs dropped on Iraq during the first six months of 2007 over the same period in 2006. More than 30 tons of those have been cluster weapons, which take an especially heavy toll on civilians.

The U.S. Navy has added an aircraft carrier to its Persian Gulf force, and the Air Force has moved F-16s into Balad air base north of Baghdad.

Balad, which currently conducts 10,000 air operations a week, is strengthening runways to handle the increase in air activity. Col. David Reynolds told the AP, "We would like to get to be a field like Langley, if you will." The Langley field in Virginia is one of the Air Force's biggest and most sophisticated airfields.

The Air Force certainly appears to be settling in for a long war. "Until we can determine that the Iraqis have got their air force to significant capability," says Lt Gen. Gary North, the regional air commander, "I think the coalition will be here to support that effort."

The Iraqi air force is virtually non-existent. It has no combat aircraft and only a handful of transports.

Improving the runways has allowed the Air Force to move B1-B bombers from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to Balad, where the big aircraft have been carrying out daily strikes. A B1-B can carry up to 24 tons of bombs.

The step-up in air attacks is partly a reflection of how beaten up and overextended U.S. ground troops are. While Army units put in 15-month tours, Air Force deployments are only four months, with some only half that. And Iraqi and Afghani insurgents have virtually no ability to inflict casualties on aircraft flying at 20,000 feet and using laser and satellite-guided weapons, in contrast to the serious damage they are doing to US ground troops.

Besides increasing the number of F-16s, B1-Bs, and A-10 attack planes, Predator flight hours over both countries have doubled from 2005. "The Predator is coming into its own as a no-kidding weapon verses a reconnaissance-only platform," brags Maj. Jon Dagley, commander of the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron.

The Air Force is also deploying a bigger, faster and more muscular version of the Predator, the MQ-9 "Reaper" -- as in grim -- a robot capable of carrying four Hellfire missiles, plus two 500 lb. bombs.

The Predators and the Reapers have several advantages, the most obvious being they don't need pilots. "With more Reapers I could send manned airplanes home," says North.

At $8.5 million an aircraft -- the smaller Predator comes in at $4.5 million apiece -- they are also considerably cheaper than the F-16 ($19 million) the B1-B ($200+ million) and even the A-10 ($9.8 million).

The Air Force plans to deploy 170 Predators and 70 Reapers over the next three years. "It is possible that in our lifetime we will be able to run a war without ever leaving the US," Lt Col David Branham told the New York Times.

The result of the stepped up air war, according to the London-based organization Iraq Body Count, is an increase in civilian casualties. A Lancet study of "excess deaths" caused by the Iraq war found that air attacks were responsible for 13% of the deaths -- 76,000 as of June 2006 -- and that 50% of the deaths of children under 15 were caused by air strikes.

The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan from air strikes has created a rift between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United States.

"A senior British commander," according to the New York Times, has pressed U.S. Special Forces (SF) to leave southern Afghanistan because their use of air power was alienating the local people. SFs work in small teams and are dependent on air power for support.

SFs called in an air strike last November near Kandahar that killed 31 nomads. This past April, a similar air strike in Western Afghanistan killed 57 villagers, half of them women and children. Coalition forces are now killing more Afghan civilians than the Taliban are. The escalating death toll has thrown the government of Hamid Karzai into a crisis and the NATO governments into turmoil. "We need to understand that preventing civilian casualties is crucially important in sustaining the support of the population," British Defense Minister Des Browne told the Financial Times.

It has also opened up the allies to the charge of war crimes. In a recent air attack in southern Afghanistan that killed 25 civilians, NATO spokesman Lt. Col Mike Smith said the Taliban were responsible because they were hiding among the civilian population.

But Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions clearly states: "The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants." Article 50 dictates that "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilian does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

The stepped-up air war in both countries has less to do with a strategic military decision than the reality that the occupations are coming apart at the seams.

For all intents and purposes, the U.S. Army in Iraq is broken, the victim of multiple tours, inadequate forces, and the kind of war Iraq has become: a conflict of shadows, low-tech but highly effective roadside bombs, and a population which is either hostile to the occupation or at least sympathetic to the resistance.

It is much the same in Afghanistan. Lord Inge, the former British chief of staff, recently said, "The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people is much more serious that people want to recognize." A well-placed military source told the Observer, "If you talk privately to the generals, they are very worried." Faced with defeat or bloody stalemate on the ground, the allies have turned to air power, much as the U.S. did in Vietnam. But, as in Vietnam, the terrible toll bombing inflicts on civilians all but guarantees long-term failure.

"Far from bringing about the intended softening up of the opposition," Phillip Gordon, a Brookings Institute Fellow, told the Asia Times, "bombing tends to rally people behind their leaders and cause them to dig in against outsiders who, whatever the justification, are destroying their homeland."

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Barksdale Missile Number Six:
The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

Someone, operating under a special chain of command within the United States Air Force, just stole a nuclear weapon.

by Chuck Simpson
Sept. 11,2007

Some History

Barksdale Missile Number Six deserves far more public attention than it's received to date. Missile Number Six is potentially the major story of at least this year.

Until 1968 under the Airborne Alert Program, informally called Operation Chrome Dome, the Air Force routinely kept about a dozen strategic bombers with nuclear weapons flying at all times.

One predictable result was crashes and incidents. In 1968 the Department of Defense published a list of 13 serious nuclear weapons accidents that occurred between 1950 and 1968. In 1980 the list was revised to include 32 incidents through that year.

Notably, the Pentagon has not acknowledged any accidents since 1980. This alone highlights the importance the Pentagon is placing on the recent transportation of nuclear weapons from North Dakota to Louisiana.

Through 1968, several reported incidents involved plane crashes or malfunctions, beginning with the crash of a B-29 near Fairfield, California in August 1950. The resulting blast was felt 30 miles away.

In July 1950 a B-50 crashed near Lebanon, Ohio. The high-explosive trigger for the nuclear weapon detonated on impact. The blast was felt over 25 miles away.

In May 1957 a nuclear weapon fell from the bomb bay of a B-36 near Albuquerque, New Mexico. Parachutes malfunctioned and the weapon was destroyed on impact.

In October 1957 near Homestead, Florida a B-47 crashed. The nuclear weapon was burned.

In March 1958 a B-47 accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon near Florence, South Carolina. The high-explosive trigger detonated on impact.

In November 1958 a B-47 crashed near Abilene, Texas. The trigger of the nuclear weapon exploded upon impact.

In July 1959 a C-124 crashed near Bossier City, Louisiana. Both plane and nuclear weapon were destroyed.

In October 1959 a B-52 with two nuclear weapons was involved in a mid-air collision near Hardinsburg, Kentucky. One weapon partially burned.

In January 1961 a B-52 broke apart in mid-air near Goldsboro, North Carolina. Two nuclear weapons were released. The parachute on one weapon malfunctioned, and contamination was spread over a wide area. The uranium core was never recovered. Daniel Ellsberg reported that detonation was a very real risk because five of six safety devices failed.

In that month near Monticello, Idaho a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons exploded in mid-air. No information was made available as to the weapons.

In March 1961 a B-52 with two nuclear weapons crashed near Yuba City, California.

In January 1964 a B-52 carrying two nuclear weapons crashed near Cumberland, Maryland.

In January 1966 a B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed after a mid-air collision near Palomares, Spain. Two weapons exploded on impact, with resulting plutonium contamination. A months-long program was undertaken to locate and extract the other two weapons from the ocean. Major policy changes were taken under consideration.

In January 1968 a B-52 carrying four hydrogen weapons crashed and burned near Thule AFB in Greenland. Explosives in one bomb detonated, spreading plutonium contamination. Apparently, the other three weapons have never been accounted for.

Following large public protests Denmark, which owns Greenland and prohibits nuclear weapons on or over its territory, filed a strong protest. A few days later the Secretary of Defense ordered the removal of nuclear weapons from planes. After that order was issued, all aircraft armed with nuclear weapons were grounded but kept in a constant state of alert.

In 1991 by Presidential order, nuclear weapons were removed from all aircraft. Bomber nuclear ground alerts, during which nuclear weapons are loaded onto bombers during test and training exercises, were halted. After that time, all nuclear weapons to be delivered by plane were permanently maintained in secure storage facilities.

August 30, 2007

All of which makes the transport of nuclear weapons in combat position on a combat plane so newsworthy.

On August 30, for the first time since 1968, nuclear warheads in combat position were carried by an American bomber. Numerous international treaty provisions were violated in the process.

That Thursday, a B-52H Stratofortress flew from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana while carrying twelve cruise missiles. Either five or six of those missiles were armed with nuclear warheads.

Cruise Missiles

The missiles on the B-52 were AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile units, specifically designed to be launched from wing pods of B-52H planes.

A total of 460 units were manufactured by Raytheon. A total of 394 units are currently maintained by the Air Force. Apparently, 38 are to be modernized and upgraded in Fiscal Year 2008 and the other 356 are to be decommissioned pursuant to the 2002 Moscow treaty.

Raytheon has publicly announced the AGM-129 missiles are to be modified to accomplish a "classified cruise missile mission". This has widely been interpreted to mean conversion to bunker-busters, most likely for use in Iran. This widely accepted explanation is being used to explain why armed cruise missiles are being flown in American airspace.

Nuclear Warheads

The AGM-129 was specifically designed to deliver a W-80 nuclear warhead. The W-80 weapon has a variable yield capability, of 5 to 150 kilotons. For comparison purposes, the bomb used on Hiroshima was 13 to 15 kilotons, or equivalent to 13,000 to 15,000 tons of TNT explosive.

News Stories and Flawed Explanations

The story of the B-52 flight was first reported by Army Times, owned by Gannett, on Wednesday September 5. Gannett relied on information provided by "anonymous officers". The story was picked up by Yahoo Wednesday morning, published by USA Today and The Washington Pos, and then quickly spread.

In response, the Pentagon quickly spread an official explanation.

The Air Force admitted to an inadvertent error: The intent was to transport ACMs without weapons. According to military officers, the nuclear warheads should have been removed before the missiles were mounted on the pylons under the wings of the bomber.

In the words of the Pentagon:

"There was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases. The weapons were safe and remained in Air Force control and custody at all times."

For almost the first time in the history of the nation, the military has publicly and promptly admitted it "made a mistake". This in itself is truly astounding.

To reinforce the military's claim that a mistake was made, a system-wide stand-down was ordered for September 14.

That official explanation was quickly explained away. The mistake was made intentionally, so a "deliberate leak" of a secret operation could occur.

The CIA and the Office of Counter-Terrorism in the State Department explained that Barksdale AFB is a "jumping off point" for re-supply of the Middle East.

The "deliberate leak" was intended to serve as a veiled warning to Iran. This deliberately misleading explanation is evidently intended to lead the public or Iran or both to logically conclude the missiles are bound for Iran.

Bluntly, State and the CIA converted a whistleblower leak by true American patriots into a deliberate leak by official Washington, to scare Iran.

By this means Washington has led the public to forget or overlook the real issue.

To begin, the multiple official explanations reek to high heaven. They collectively read suspiciously like flimsy cover stories concocted in hasty desperation. And no amount of pretty lipstick will be able to make the official explanations pretty.

Transportation Violations

More conflicting explanations followed. These missiles are part of a group scheduled to be decommissioned. This would explain why they were shipped out of North Dakota.

But the missiles were not transported on their way to decommissioning. Missiles are normally decommissioned at Davis-Monthan AFB at Tucson. Nuclear weapons are decommissioned at the Department of Energy's Pantex facility near Amarillo, Texas, accessed through Kirkland AFB in New Mexico.

And military policy requires minimization of the number of flights made with nuclear weapons aboard. So the weapons should not have been mounted on the missiles, flown to Louisiana, un-mounted and flown to New Mexico.

The mode of transportation is also a major issue not defused by official explanations. Per standard operating procedures, or SOPs, both missiles and nuclear warheads are transported primarily by air, in specially modified C-130s or C-17s. Under no peacetime circumstances do military SOPs allow transport of nuclear weapons mounted in cruise missiles mounted in combat positions on combat planes.

Department of Defense Directive Number 4540.5, issued on February 4, 1998, regulates logistic transportation of nuclear weapons.

By delegation of Commanders of Combatant Commands, movement of nuclear weapons must be approved by commanders of major service commands.

Commanders of Combat Commands or service component commanders must evaluate, authorize and approve transport modes and movement routes for nuclear weapons in their custody.

The Air Force is required to maintain a Prime Nuclear Airlift Force capability to conduct the logistic transport of nuclear weapons.

Under SOPs, combat planes with combat-ready nuclear weapons can only be flown on the authority of the Commander in Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the National Military Command Authority.

All of these transportation regulations were flagrantly violated on August 30.

Handling Violations

Violations of regulations concerning handling of the nuclear weapons in North Dakota are worse.

A sophisticated computerized tracking system is used for nuclear weapons. Multiple sign-offs are required to remove the weapons from their storage bunkers.

The AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile was designed to carry nuclear weapons. No non-nuclear warhead is available for this missile. So the only possible error could have been loading nuclear warheads on the missiles instead of practice dummies.

The practice warheads have standard blue and yellow signs declaring "Inert, non-nuclear". The nuclear warheads have at least three distinctive red warning signs. This error is therefore highly improbable, absent tampering with signage.

Nuclear weapons are transported from the storage bunker to the aircraft in a caravan that routinely includes vehicles with machine guns front and rear and guards with M-16s. All steps in the process are done under the watchful eyes of armed military police.

Rules require that at least two people jointly control every step of the process. If one person loses sight of the other, both are forced to the ground face-down and temporarily "placed under arrest" by observant security forces. All progress stops until inspections are made to assure the weapons weren't tampered with.

All nuclear weapons are connected to sophisticated alarm systems to prevent removal or tampering. They could only be removed from the storage bunker by turning the alarm off. And the squad commander clearly would not have authority to turn off the alarm.

The Impossible Mistake

Bluntly, the mistake of loading nuclear weapons on a combat aircraft in combat-ready position is simply not possible to make. Safeguards are far too stringent and far too many people would be involved. Particularly given that the mounting was in violation of policy that's been in place without exception for almost 40 years.

No discipline is expected to be meted out. The New York Times tried to imply the commanding general had been fired. Actually, the squad commander in charge of munitions crews at Minot was "relieved of duty pending an investigation". He has not been removed from his position or disciplined. The crews involved have been "temporarily decertified pending corrective actions or additional training" but have not been disciplined. No mention has been made of the wing commander.

Note carefully: These actions amount to nothing at all. The wing and squad commanders are still in place and the crews can easily be re-certified.

Successful Confusion

Washington's efforts to confuse the public have been successful. Attention has shifted from the crucial issue.

This news has already become non-news. The August 14 stand-down will momentarily become news, followed by announcements of more stringent restrictions, improved safeguards and additional training. The public always has been and always will be safe.

One of the major issues will be avoided:

Someone in an irregular chain of Air Force command authorized loading and transport of nuclear weapons.

And that would never have been done without a reason. Given the magnitude of regulatory violations involved, the reason must be extremely important.

The paramount issue will be avoided, if necessary with repetition of the reassurance that the Air Force was in control at all times. The weapons were only missing during the 3.5-hour flight.

At Barksdale, the missiles were considered to be unarmed items headed for modernization or the scrap heap, and of no particular importance. They were left unguarded for almost ten hours.

According to one report, almost ten hours were required for airmen at Minot AFB to convince superiors that the nuclear weapons had disappeared. According to information provided to Congress, this time lapsed before airmen at Barksdale "noticed" the weapons were present. News reports will continue to overlook this fact also.

Even here the focus is on time. The number of missiles and warheads issue was overlooked.

Early news reports spoke of five nuclear warheads loaded onto the bomber. Apparently, this information was provided from Barksdale.

That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot. This information has also been forgotten.


Six nuclear weapons disappeared from Minot AFB in North Dakota.

Five nuclear weapons were discovered at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.

Which leads to my chilling conclusion:

Someone, operating under a special chain of command within the United States Air Force, just stole a nuclear weapon.

What next?

The answer has been provided several times, most recently by CIA Director and General Michael Hayden. On September 7, dressed in full military uniform, Hayden told assembled members of the Council of Foreign Relations:

"Our analysts assess with high confidence that al-Qaida's central leadership is planning high-impact plots against the U. S. homeland."

"We assess with high confidence that al-Qaida is focusing on targets that would produce mass casualties, dramatic destruction and significant aftershocks."

An eye for an eye. Use of nukes will justify use of nukes. A perfect excuse to wage nuclear war against Iran.

I suspect Hayden is absolutely correct, except for his mistaken identification of the "central leadership" that is planning detonation of a nuclear weapon on American soil.

Chuck Simpson's blog: The Geronimo Manifesto