Welcome to Thetruthnews.info
Is The U.S. Planning a Horrific Global Nuclear War?
By Michel Chossudovsky
01/17/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defence".
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".
Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theatre". (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its "coalition" partners).
The stated objective is to:
"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the "war theatre".
"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions
While the '2001 Nuclear Posture Review' sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document 'Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century' ). 'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:
"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)
"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.
The DJNO states that the:
"use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible" (DJNO, p 47)
The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible and allow for changes in the situation":
"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.
...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms." 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine'
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ('Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine')
We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research, February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with "theater" commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional "war theaters".
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006' )[http://www.globalresearch.ca].
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled 'Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike' , or JFCCSGS was created.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command and Control.
According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies...
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.
While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional "war theaters", very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week: January 26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism". He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build "a safer World" and combat terrorism. Although Chirac has made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ''rogue states" and "terrorist non-state organizations".
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration's National Security doctrine.
1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD), more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic terrorists".
These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation campaign.
The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror", i.e. countries such as Iran which allegedly possess WMD.
"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"
While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing — that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, 'Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War' , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.…" (Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney's "contingency plan" to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM) "theater" strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM, [http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy] , italics added)
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.
The "war on terrorism" and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the "Battle for Middle East Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against Muslim countries, describe them as "uncivilized", denigrate their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into "Islamic terrorism". Western governments are now accusing Iran of "exporting terrorism to the West" In the reactionary words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported to the rest of the world. "We will only secure our future if we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security depends on sorting out the stability of that region… You can never say never in any of these situations." (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)
Muslims are demonized (reminiscent of demonization against the Jews under the Nazi Germany propaganda machine during World War II), casually identified with "Islamic terrorists", who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the "civilized World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast, America's humanitarian "nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable."
The World is at a Critical Cross-roads:
Implications of Iran as an ally of Russia and China
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defence system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...
Supported by the Western mass-media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
Resistance to the Neo-fascist objectives of neo-conservative elites
The "anti-war movement" is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for not complying with the "reasonable demands" of the "international community". These same organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighbourhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a "diplomatic arm twisting" exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, "expressing concern over Iran's nuclear program", seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.
Humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
About the author
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, [www.globalresearch.ca] . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Copyright © 2005 The Canadian
The truth .mysite
Big Brother's new toy: Another bloated gas bag watching you from the sky
By James Renner
Cleveland Free Times
Last week, a fire ignited at the Akron Airdock that once housed a fleet of Goodyear blimps. Firemen rushed to the 211-foot-tall structure and quickly doused the flames. Reporters and photographers descended on the landmark. Many were surprised to learn the blimps were no longer being stored there.
Turns out Lockheed Martin -- the company that gave us the Trident intercontinental ballistic missile -- was renovating the site for an upcoming project when the fire started. It's being turned into a hangar for a prototype airship. If you're frightened of this administration's habit of spying on American citizens, you may want to stop reading.
The prototype is called the High Altitude Airship, or HAA. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Akron won the $40 million contract from the Missile Defense Agency to build HAA in 2003. It is essentially another blimp. A giant one. Seventeen times the size of the Goodyear dirigible. It's designed to float 12 miles above the earth, far above planes and weather systems. It will be powered by solar energy, and will stay in a geocentric orbit for up to a year, undetectable by ground-based radar. You can't see it from the ground. But it can see you.
"The possibilities are endless for homeland security," says Kate Dunlap, a Lockheed Martin spokesperson. "It could house cameras, and other surveillance equipment. It would be an eye in the sky."
According to a summary released by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, the HAA can watch over a circle of countryside 600 miles in diameter. That's everything between Toledo and New York City. And they want to build 11. With high-res cameras, that could mean constant surveillance of every square inch of American soil. "If you had a fleet of them, this could be used for border surveillance," suggests Dunlap.
Launch date: 2009.
Of course, mimicking its defense of warrantless wiretapping and phone-log data mining, the government maintains it only wants to protect its citizens from external threats. But as any geek can tell you, blimps were ubiquitous in The Watchmen, the seminal '80s graphic novel in which heroes have been driven underground and Nixon is still president.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching you.
The truth .mysite
Sovietizing America: The Devil's 7 Prong Fork
by CHARLOTTE ISERBYT
By James Renner
Cleveland Free Times
Our family has seen many changes in the past year which necessitated my pulling a "Houdini act" and withdrawing from the political activist scene.
One of the changes in my life was a move from the city to the countryside to a house overlooking the magnificent Kennebec River in Maine. This great river attracts wonderful birds, including our nation's symbol, the Bald Eagle. They appear frequently, especially when the river freezes, swooping down onto the ice flows which provide a solid base from which they can feed. Would that our nation, whose symbol is the Bald Eagle, had similar solid constitutional support from its government thus enabling Americans to continue to live as free citizens.
The Bald Eagle, still free, is flying with both wings. The United States, no longer free, is flying with but one wing as pilots would say "on a wing and a prayer."
This article explains why our formerly free country is in the 21st Century flying with only one wing.
The most devastating aspect of The Fork's use is that we victims hadn't the foggiest idea we were being victimized, but thought, to the contrary, that the government had our best interests at heart.
The government, in partnership with the "usual suspects:" the elitist, internationalist corporate sector, the tax-exempt foundations, the Federal Reserve Bank, the educational system, the controlled media, and some important religious denominations, has year after year, consistently, worked to create an environment which keeps its citizens ignorant regarding what is really going on, thereby creating the necessary citizen apathy which allows "the usual suspects" to accomplish the dismantlement of the greatest, freest, most successful nation in the history of the world.
If Americans do not understand how they have been victimized by "The Seven Prong Fork," if they do not start asking questions, and demanding answers; if they do not take action to reverse our nation's slide into world government, they will experience, in the very near future, what George Orwell described so well in his novel 1984:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face-foreverand remember, that is forever."
For the history of regional governance and subversion in the United States and abroad the reader can go to americandeception.com, a FREE website, which provides scanned primary research, and click on researcher/writer D. Niwa's "hot-off-the-press" The Emerging North American Union (NAU), which includes a most useful Timeline (1921-2006); Maureen Heaton's The Impossible Dream; and The Don Bell Reports.
This website also makes available to the public, for the first time, the 4000-page transcript of the 1953 Reece and Cox Congressional Committee hearings related to the investigation of the subversive activities of the tax-exempt foundations, for which Norman Dodd served as Research Director.
During a meeting in New York City in 1953 Dodd was told by Rowan Gaither, the President of the Ford Foundation, that the White House instructed the foundations "to use their grant-making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."
The foundations, especially Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford, concerned that the American people, to whom they owed their tax exemption, would have access to the record of these hearings, scooped up all available copies immediately after the hearings were abruptly terminated in 1954. President Eisenhower, carrying out the above treasonous directive to the foundations, signed the first agreements with the Soviet Union in 1958 at the peak of the Cold War.
(Had those hearings NOT been terminated, it is unlikely Americans would be looking at the demise of their nation under the NAU, or that the virtual merger of Russia's and the United States' basic political, economic, cultural, educational, and law enforcement systems would have taken place over the past 48 years.)
THE DEVIL'S SEVEN PRONG FORK consists of:
Prong 1: Semantic Deception, covered by George Orwell in 1984, calls for lying through the deceitful use of words. Few Americans question the innocent-sounding words/phrases such as "regionalism," "consolidation," "democracy" "free trade," "public/private partnerships," "school choice," "base closures" "faith-based," "freedom," "patriot," "security," "prosperity," "peace" et al.
Why has no one told the American people that regionalism, be it local, county, state, national or international, is COMMUNISM?
The regionalization (consolidation) of the world is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International.
At that meeting, the official program proclaimed: "Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations."
What Stalin called for is taking place in front of our very eyes, with the NAU and other emerging global regional groupings, following the model of the European Union.
Regionalism erases constitutional, geographical borders and in so doing does away with locally-elected officials, creating larger and larger municipal units managed by faceless, highly-trained, socialist change agent bureaucrats.
A communist writer, Morris Zeitlin, admits that regionalism is communism in an article entitled "Planning is Socialism's Trademark" published in the Communist Party's Daily World 11/8/75. Go to deliberatedumbingdown.com where the deliberate dumbing down of AmericaA Chronological Paper Trail can be downloaded FREE.
Zeitlin's article is found on Page 134.
More recently, former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev confirmed Zeitlin's comments when he, during a visit to London on March 23, 2000, referred to the emerging European (regional) Union (EU) as "the new European Soviet." Does this not make the NAU the New American Soviet?
Regionalism has been fostered not only by the left, as would be expected, but by mainstream conservative leadership as well.
I recall, at a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the mid-seventies an exchange of views between the former editor of National Review, William Rusher, and myself. I asked "Why doesn't the conservative media (Human Events, National Review, etc.) ever discuss regionalism? His response was: "I guess they just don't think it's very important."
On December 28, 2006 Michael Medved, neoconservative writer and radio talk show host, wrote "Shame on Demagogues Exploiting 'North American Union'", an article which confirms what Rusher said but goes even further by actively supporting the NAU (regionalism).
Medved's article Townhall.com is a vitriolic diatribe in which he attacks concerned, well-informed and highly-respected Americans, including journalists, due to their opposition to the NAU and the highway through Texas and the Great Plains connecting the USA, Mexico, and Canada. He calls them "paranoid, lunatics, losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists."
His hysterical ranting indicates that CNN's Lou Dobbs and Jerome Corsi, amongst other writers, are succeeding in waking up Americans to the fact that their nation is on its way out as a Constitutional Republic unless they act quickly.
Dobbs described the merger controversy this way in a recent CNN broadcast:
"For any American to think that it is acceptable for the president of the United States andour government, to proceed without the approval of Congress or a dialogue and a debate and a public voice from the people of this country is absolutely unconscionableWhat they're doing is creating a brave new world, an Orwellian world, in which the will of the people is absolutely irrelevant."
EARTH times.org reported 1/7/07 "'A U.S.-European economic partnership like NAFTA is critical to both regions' economies', new European Union President Angela Merkel of Germany says."
The late Andrew Carnegie, who, in 1886, called for "creating two nations out of one people" (return the United States to the 'mother' country-England) must be smiling from his grave!
Other examples (IN SOLID CAPS) of the use of deceptive words follow:
* President Bush's PATRIOT Act is probably the most unpatriotic, treasonous Act ever passed by the Congress.
* President Bush's FREEDOM (Mental Health) Initiative will eventually, if fully implemented, mandate mental health screening and services lifelong for all Americans. Anyone familiar with the history of the Soviet Union will immediately recognize this initiative's resemblance to the Soviet Union's use of the mental health system to incarcerate political dissidents.
In 1948 Alger Hiss, Soviet agent, redefined "health" as a "state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." The international elite view those opposed to world government as "mentally sick."
* The President's innocent-sounding FAITH-BASED Initiative is referred to in an article in The Washington Post as "communitarian." Most dictionaries define communitarianism as a form of communism.
* And one certainly could ask how the SECURITY and PROSPERITY Partnership (Canada, Mexico, and USA) is going to make us more secure or more prosperous, considering the freedom and security-destroying effects of the Real ID Act, NAFTA, CAFTA, the Office of Homeland Security and the prosperity and job-destroying (redistribution of wealth) effects of NAFTA and CAFTA.
Prong 2: the constant use of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Hegel's (1770-1831) Dialectic in moving persons toward predetermined goals and objectives.
About thirty years ago, before I had the foggiest idea of education change agent manipulation of the community, including teachers, to get destructive immoral and non-academic programs initiated without too much flack, I unknowingly played out the dialectic method but this time in regard to doing laundry. I put my red woolen sweater in the laundry (hot water) with my husband's white cotton shirts. The result: pink cotton shirts for my him and a red sweater the size of a wash cloth for me. The important result, as it relates to how the dialectic plays out, is that I never had to do laundry again, not for my husband, not for either of my two sons. The mandate was "Don't give Mom your laundry!" Now, had I never wanted to do laundry again and had I understood how the use of the dialectic inevitably gets what one wants, I would have done exactly what I unknowingly did with such success.
Prong 3: the use of Gradualism (put the frog in cold water and gradually turn up the heat until the frog is dead, without having the faintest idea what happened to him.)
For over 150 years we have had gradualism used on us. Richard Gardner, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to Italy, said in a 1968 speech "The Hard Road to World Order:" "In short, we are likely to do better by building our 'house of world order' from the bottom up rather than the top down.
It will look like a great, 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James's famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us to world order faster than the old-fashioned frontal attack."
Prong 4: Control of the Media. David Rockefeller, in Baden-Baden, Germany, 1991, thanked the major media for keeping secret the elitists' plan for the world. He said:" it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government."
Prong 5: Endless Money Supply depends on the unconstitutional, private Federal Reserve Bank's ability to create hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, when necessary. The education "industry," for example, has been a recipient of whatever it wanted to "deliberately dumb down" and "condition" future Americans so they don't know what is happening to them or their country.
If you haven't been taught what economic/political system you have, why would you be upset if, as is the case today, the public/private partnerships implement the corporate fascist/socialist planned economy?
Your neighbor's glazed expression when asked if he approves of the NAU or, at the local level, the consolidation of all the cities in his county (regionalism) is a good example of the damage inflicted on their brains (cognitive dissonance) by the public education system.
Prong 6 relates to control of agenda of Republican and Democrat Parties, allowing only those individuals with an international socialist philosophy to be nominated and, once elected, ensuring they vote the One Party (internationalist) Line.
Prong 7 is UN control of education lifelong under the umbrella of the school district (community re-education). The late Professor Benjamin Bloom, an internationalist closely associated with UNESCO, and the father of The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, in which all teachers have been trained, said in his book All Our Children Learning: "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students."
The UN and the tax-exempt foundations have created a socialist America through Skinnerian/Pavlovian behavior modification programs (animal training which bypasses the brain) and the radical change from academics to the communist/fascist polytechnical (lifelong school- to- work job quota system) being implemented today under the controversial No Child Left Behind/ No American Left Alone Act
This writer hopes the reader will copy The Devil's Seven Prong Fork and get it into as many of his acquaintances' hands as possible. Our elected officials might read it and develop a new perspective on why they are voting as they are voting.
Understanding the use of The Devil's Seven-Prong Fork is the major key to victory over those who are surreptitiously robbing our children and grandchildren of their God-given freedoms, freedoms guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Let us all work to restore freedom to our great nation; let us work to enable the United States of America to fly again with both wings, as does the Bald Eagle, our nation's majestic symbol of freedom.
© 2007 Charlotte T. Iserbyt - All Rights Reserved
* Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower. Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.
Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.
Order The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
The truth .mysite
The Matrix of Manufactured War
by HENRY MAKOW PhD
Recently a feud between Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell gave their ratings a boost.
Mel Gibson and Michael Richards also made gratuitous attacks that helped their bottom line.
What if the world's great conflicts were just as phoney?
What if Bush and Chavez, Blair and Putin, Olmert and Ahmadinejad were all part of a giant Punch and Judy Show?
What if we were riding the roller coaster, cheering and groaning, and biting our fingernails for nothing?
What if it were all staged like professional wrestling (only thousands of innocent people were dying?)
Many of us consider Ahmadinejad, Putin and Chavez the "good guys" in the fight against the New World Order. It's possible they are controlled by the Illuminati as well. Our hidden masters control everything else. Would they leave war to chance?
I can't prove this grand hypothesis today. However, there is some anecdotal evidence.
First, take past wars. None of them were anything like inevitable.
I have shown how World War One was made possible by British food subsidies to the Germans, and ended when this trade stopped. World War Two, which Churchill called the most "unnecessary war in history" was also engineered through loans to the Nazis and the policy of "Appeasement." The Masonic bankers also engineered US entry into WW II.
"food subsidies" http://www.savethemales.ca/001583.html
"US entry" http://www.savethemales.ca/001449.html
The war supposedly was fought for the independence of Poland yet in the end, Eastern Europe was under the heel of the Russians, the 1939-1941 allies of the Nazis.
Instead of Nazis, Polish nationalists were massacred by Soviets. An improvement? Sounds to me like war for its own sake, or for Communism.
Our War on Terror is the natural successor of the "Cold War"; both as phoney as three-dollar bills.
The war on Iraq? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Iran? Do any of them make any sense? These wars are unwinnable. How do you win a guerrilla war without annihilating everyone? They are not meant to be won.
As Dick Cheney intimated, the Iraq War will last 40 years i.e. as long as the Cold War. Both sides are subsidized and controlled by the world's central bankers and their secret societies - intelligence agencies.
War is an end in itself. It concentrates money and power in the hands of our Satan-loving elites. It provides human sacrifices to their bloodthirsty god and brutalizes and demoralizes humanity.
It is a waste of energy to discuss the "political reasons" for these conflicts.
They are a ruse.
OUR "MISLEADERS" (term coined by Jordan Maxwell)
After debating for months whether the US was winning or losing in Iraq, someone decided it was losing. As the "decider," Bush stoutly accepted responsibility and even shed a tear at a soldier's funeral.
That didn't prevent the demonizing of poor George. His opponents assailed his sanity, intelligence, virility and honor. What do they expect of an admitted Satanist?
George is not to blame. Every President in the Twentieth Century has been a hand puppet of the Rothschild-Rockefeller cartel of cartels. They wouldn't let George manage a gas station let alone the "Free World." Luckily, Bush just reads the teleprompter. Henry Kissinger, CEO of the visible NWO, issues the orders.
"Kissinger's orders" http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=2027
Derision only gives Bush credibility heightening the illusion the US has a functioning democracy, mass media and justice system. Remember, the US government is ultimately responsible for the slaughter of 3000 Americans in broad daylight Sept. 11.
The US ruling class and punditry are complicit in the ongoing cover-up.
The most obvious "controlled conflict" is the two party system.
Let's look at the "opponents" of globalization and the New World Order.
Chavez, Putin and Ahmadinejad were all obscure figures handed power by a hidden hand. Like Bush, they certainly lack the stature of real "deciders."
Chavez and Ahmadinejad vilify Bush and the USA, but, like Chavez' mentor Noam Chomsky, cannot pronounce the words "Rothschild" or "central banker."
Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution is Freemasonic in origin, as is his Communism. Someone claims he met Chavez at a meeting of the Grand Lodge of Texas in the 1990's. Chavez led a failed coup but got out of jail after only 2 years. Wikipedia reports that he later received campaign funds from large banks.
"met Chavez" http://www.justrage.com/article.php? story=20060921131223285
Now Chavez and Ahmadinejad are busy establishing an Anti-American coalition in South America: More controlled conflict. But before that we may see an attack on Iran in March-April and a war that will make Iraq look like a picnic. Do you hear Putin warning the US to keep their hands off?
I suspect that the bankers set up Nationalist and anti-Globalist spokesmen and groups in order to control both sides. The tip off is if these people are getting corporate/government support and coverage in the mass media.
Canadian examples are Naomi Klein, Maude Barlow and Mel Hurtig.
On the other hand, you know Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party is legit because she talks about the bankers and consequently gets no media. In the US, Aaron Russo is legit for the same reason.
"Canadian Action Party" http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/home.html
It's apparent that political action requires money. The bankers mint it. The rest of us are too busy making a living to be anything but bystanders and victims.
You can't turn on the media without someone (usually Zionists like Charles Adler or Glenn Beck,) stirring up hostility against Iran and Muslims in general. They keep talking about how war-like Islam is when we are invading them! Any future conflict may destroy Israel, but these highly paid shills don't care.
War for its own sake is the goal.
War is considered "revolutionary" because it advances the Masonic bankers' goal of the New World Order.
It "overturns" the natural and divinely intended development of mankind by destroying nation, religion, race and family. Fabian Harold Laski actually referred to the two great wars as "revolutions." http://www.savethemales.ca/000275.html
To have a war, the bankers need to create and provision two sides. Thus all wars are waged against humanity by a small satanic criminal network that owns 50% of the world's wealth. The mainspring is the world's private central bankers. http://www.savethemales.ca/280802.html
The Hindus have a term for the "Matrix." They say "Maya" or "illusion" governs our lives.
We didn't guess anyone would go to so much trouble to create it.
Perhaps liberation lies in recognizing that conflicts are artificially created and controlled.
*** Henry Makow Ph.D. is the author of "A Long Way to go for a Date." His articles exposing fe-manism and the New World Order can be found at his web site www.savethemales.ca He enjoys receiving comments, some of which he posts on his site using first names only. firstname.lastname@example.org
The truth .mysite
Bush: Pardons for Drug Dealers, No Mercy for Border Patrol Agents
On January 17, former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos began serving prison sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively for an incident involving the non-fatal shooting of Mexican drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila.
Follow this link to the source article: "Free the Border Patrol Two"
Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders' January 18 column opened with these sentences: "Prison doors clanged shut last night, leaving two Border Patrol agents locked up among the very types of felons they once helped put away. The agents' families have been wiped out financially, their kids will grow up without a father watching over them, their freedom has been stripped from them...."
Despite appeals for clemency from the Border Patrol agents' families, 51 members of Congress and tens of thousands of citizens nationwide, President Bush refused to pardon the agents. However, just before Christmas, President Bush did pardon several drug dealers, continuing a pattern of freeing narcotics traffickers.
One of the incredible features of this case is the fact that it was initiated by the Department of Justice, which sent its people down to Mexico to find admitted veteran drug dealer Aldrete-Davila and offer him immunity and legal help if he would testify against the Border Patrol agents. To make matters worse, DOJ officials assisted Aldrete-Davila, who had been wounded in the buttocks (after attacking Ramos and Compean while smuggling 743 pounds into the U.S.), in launching a $5 million lawsuit against the Border Patrol. The drug dealer gets off scot-free, and gets rich besides — while exemplary Border Patrol agents go to jail.
This seems to be character with the Bush Administration's scandalous "catch and release" policy, which over the past six years has released thousands of illegal aliens — including murderers, rapists and other violent felons, without even requiring bail, simply on their word that they would show up in court at a later date. Of course, few ever did.
However, when Agents Ramos and Compean requested that they be allowed to remain out of prison (where they would be put in danger, possibly in units with illegal aliens they had arrested) their requests were denied.
On December 21, 2006, President Bush pardoned these drug offenders:
• Marie Georgette Ginette Briere — possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• George Thomas Harley — aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine.
• Patricia Ann Hultman — conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and other controlled substances.
• Eric William Olson —possession with intent to distribute, possession, and use of hashish.
Bush also commuted the sentence of Phillip Anthony Emmert, who was serving time for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
On September 28, 2005, President Bush pardoned these drug offenders:
• Adam Wade Graham — conspiracy to deliver LSD
• Larry Paul Lenius — conspiracy to distribute cocaine
• Larry Lee Lopez — conspiracy to import marijuana
• Mark Lewis Weber — selling Quaalude tablets, selling, using and possessing marijuana
He also pardoned Jesse Ray Harvey, a United Mine Workers union member convicted of blowing up mines in West Virginia.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the nation's top law enforcement official, has authorized war crimes, dismissed the Geneva Conventions, redefined torture to allow most types of torture, helped establish military commissions that deny defendants the right to a fair trial, claimed the U.S. Constitution does not provide the right to habeas corpus, and defended violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This week,leading bloggers
inspired by John Dean proposed impeaching Gonzales as the first step towards impeaching Bush and Cheney.
Urge your Representatives to Impeach Alberto Gonzales:
NEW MEXICO CAN HELP IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
A state legislature can compel the U.S. House to begin impeachment proceedings with the help of just one Representative:
New Mexico State Senators Gerald Ortiz y Pino and John Grubesic will introduce a resolution to do just that on January 23rd, the same day Bush delivers the "State of the Union."
To support and stay informed about this and similar efforts around the country, sign this petition:
Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino: email@example.com
Sen. John Grubesic, Rules Committee Vice Chair: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please ask these Rules Committee Members to cosponsor:
Sen. Linda Lopez, Rules Committee Chair: email@example.com
Sen. Cisco McSorley: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sen. Dede Feldman: email@example.com
Send them a message something like this (change and expand as you like):
Please cosponsor, along with Senators Ortiz y Pino and Grubesic, the resolution to petition the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If we go into the next presidency having established that a president can lie us into war, spy on us in violation of the law, detain without charge, and torture, we will be throwing away the democracy we've struggled to keep and expand for over 200 years. We all have a solemn duty to work for the impeachment of men who have made our executive branch of government into a monarchy. You are in a position to play a key role in making this happen. Please do the right thing. Make the choice you would want your great-grandchildren to be proud of.
More information: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/nm
YouTube Impeachment Campaign
Get a video camera or a cell phone that records and make your own, personal appeal to YOUR Representative for Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Please title it like this so that it gets the most play:
End War - Impeach Bush & Cheney 4 Peace, (your name and state postal code here)
Example: End War - Impeach Bush & Cheney 4 Peace, Mikael in MN
YouTube allows you to watch, share, and post videos to your site. You don't need a YouTube account (called a "channel") to view videos, but you do need one to post your own videos. To set up your own video "channel" visit http://www.youtube.com/signup
To watch videos posted by AfterDowningStreet, visit: http://www.youtube.com/afterdowningstreet
To watch videos posted by others or to post your own, go to the AfterDowningStreet YouTube group: http://www.youtube.com/group/afterdowningstreet
To find videos not posted to group, search for the tags: impeach, impeachment
"60-Minutes" Taped Soldier Making Appeal for Redress, Now Refuses to Air the Story
"60 Minutes" interviewed Ronn Cantu and other active-duty soldiers challenging this war with an appeal for redress. Please call CBS and ask them to air the 60 Minutes Appeal for Redress segment. They have it ready to go but it's been pushed back twice now. Call 202-457-4321 opt. 3 opt. 4 opt. 1 or 2 or 3 (there are three different producers and you can leave a message for each of them). The main number for CBS News in New York is 212-975-4321. You can Email 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml
Tom Hayden Creates First in Series of PodCasts from Progressive Democrats of America
This Inaugural Podcast from PDA sets a tone and an opportunity for the Grassroots as PDA Board Member Tom Hayden shares his views on our collective participation in the ongoing battle to hold Congress and the President accountable. A welcome message from PDA Executive Director Tim Carpenter and his hope for this series are part of what we all believe will be another tool you can use to help strengthen this country and to also help grow PDA. This is the first in an ongoing series with topics and guests that will help empower, educated, and illuminate. Please feel free to send feedback to firstname.lastname@example.org . Enjoy and share!
March and Lobby in Washington on January 27th, 28th, and 29th
Come to Washington, D.C., on January 27. Join in the march for peace being organized by United for Peace and Justice ,
and impeachment events on January 28th being planned by Progressive Democrats of America .
Make appointments now to meet with your Congress Member on January 29th to demand impeachment and peace. Get organized with others in your Congressional District .
TIP: Buy a dozen or more Impeachment Shirts , bring them to D.C., sell them at a profit, and pay for your trip.
Sign Up for Lobby Day Now
Register now for the UFPJ Congressional Advocacy Day (lobby day) January 29, 2007
March to the Capitol on J27 -- march into your Rep. and Senators' offices on J29!
Plan to spend three days in D.C. On Saturday, march. On Sunday, take part in workshops and training sessions on peace and impeachment. Meet with fellow activists from your state and congressional district and prepare for Monday. On Monday, lobby your Congress Member and Senators for two things:
1. No more funding for this war.
2. Investigations of the justification for and conduct of this war.