health information provided here is for educational
IT IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
EVALUATION OR TREATMENT BY A HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL.
Drugs, and Street Violence
29 Sept '04 - Unpublished
On Sat 8/14/04, Sentinel & Enterprise had a story about
the overwhelming struggle facing police: street heroin and guns.
But more force, bigger guns, and hard-line attitude aren't the
Criminalizing personal choice just invites criminals in. Violence
naturally follows. "War on drugs" is a dangerous game
called "cops and robbers," a costly, ineffective merry-go-round.
It's strategically questionable and historically a failure everywhere.
Essentially, drug abuse is a societal symptom, not a fundamental
Better to shift all resources to education, outreach, rehab
and genuine health programs. There might be a temporary upsurge
in use, but it would be peaceful at least, and liberate the
overburdened police and courts.
Is there hypocrisy in pop-a-pill America, with its equally dangerous,
but sanctioned recreationals--alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and
sugar (yes, it is)? Are medical drug-pushers and our health-challenged
lifestyle biochemically damaging people or causing deficiencies,
thus facilitating criminality, violence, and drug abuse? Believe
Get-tough suppression oozes political correctness but doesn't
address underlying issues, which may then worsen and surface
even more unpleasantly.
Ever-greater enforcement could result in horrific gun battles
on our streets. Even if we wanted that, financial resources
for street war are being stolen by corporations via Washington,
DC. Our obscenely bloated sacred-cow military dissipates nearly
a half $trillion annually. We must control this hemorrhage.
Nor are we facing up to why and how heroin flows: "legitimate"
people in high places. Easily a half trillion dollars in laundered
drug cash flows through international banks and Wall Street
annually. This cash-fix props up our debt-ridden, bubble economy.
Street level enforcement is like sand-bagging the levee instead
of fixing the ever-increasing leak in the dam.
The kicker: The Afghanistan "War" was staged to restore
needed heroin flow interrupted by the Taliban. Unbelievable,
but true. Waking up is hard to do.
MA State Rep Candidates Debate on 9 Sept '04
10 Sept '04 - Unpublished
The State Rep. candidates were appreciated
by the crowd on Sept 9. Most are sincere and
had important things to say. But the general
focus needs to be expanded.
Our major challenges do not originate locally,
but are federal/international in origin--like
the many billions of dollars being stolen
from Americans via Washington, DC. The candidates
focused on local/state action. This will not
produce effective or lasting solutions.
The central issue is that the United States
has long been run by a traitorous elite cabal
that has put the financial power of the petroleum
and pharmaceutical industries behind the lawless
behavior of the government. Americans are
thereby accessories to an array of crimes
against humanity, including ourselves--as
in health care.
The death of a good Representative had a lot
to do with this particular race materialising.
But the quality of America's health care has
a lot to do with that loss. Candidates discussed
only administrative aspects. None questioned
conventional corporate-medical philosophy,
which is greed-driven and dangerously flawed.
It's why we lost Mary Jane.
9/11 has been exploited to rob us, destroy
the Constitution, and promote endless war.
We must support the call for a new, unrestricted
probe. I urge all citizens, politicians, journalists,
alternative papers, and community broadcasters
to study the facts about 9/11. You will begin
to get sick, but the awakening will be life-saving.
The blind spot of most Americans is that our
corporate-driven behavior and foreign policy
have long resulted in frequent murders of
innocent people in other countries. The travesty
is being intensified by acceptance of official
9/11 mythology, which projects hatred toward
Arab peoples to obscure the fact that 9/11
was devised, executed, and continues to be
covered up, by rich white men in Washington,
from Vietnam America Hasn't Learned
It seems the lesson America hasn't learned
from the Vietnam war, which was contrived
by elite corporatists for profit and power,
is that most wars are contrived for those
reasons--crimes made to look honorable--like
the Afghanistan and Iraq attacks. Enemies
Most soldiers "serve"--kill/maim
and get killed/maimed--with honorable intent,
but the real "war crime" is that
their honor is being ruthlessly exploited.
Some say we shouldn't denounce Vietnam because
many GIs died there. Dangerous reasoning.
We should understand Vietnam as a glaring
example of the ongoing chaos agenda. WW II
was contrived also. Iran-Contra we know. Terrorism
is also supported clandestinely by the elite.
Let's learn, not deny.
Forget personal war records. Let's discuss
David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl
Harbor" and the raging internet controversy
questioning the official version of the 9/11
wings at Pentagon
compelling is Ashcroft-gagged Sibel Edmonds's
documented evidence--FBI penetrated by a private
spy ring connected to international drug dealing
and money laundering. Investigations were
purposely scuttled so 9/11 would happen.
Emdonds and Daniel Ellsburg (Pentagon Papers/Watergate)
Emdonds's Story--Several Links
Edmonds: Open Letter to 9/11 Commissioner
At least four FBI agents have described internally
stonewalled pre-9/11 investigation. One, John
O'Neill (former head of FBI's antiterror division)
is dead as a consequence. Book, video, and
testimony, especially taken together, show
the 9/11 "Omission" Report is a
coverup of the BushCo 9/11 coverup. Yes--conspiracy!
That cleverly discredited, politically incorrect
The fundamental issue: The agencies and offices
of the US government (and other governments)
have long been usurped by corporatist traitors
posing as patriots to achieve private criminal
agendas. The flag-waving populace is brainwashed
with patriotism and is sleepwalking; thus
Congress becomes corrupt beyond belief and
supports perpetual war.
Social Violence and Drug Abuse - 1
Renewed community attention to crime, violence
and drug abuse is encouraging. But based on
locally reported solutions, we're shoveling
something against the tide.
Social disharmony grabs attention, prompting
politically correct responses. But a failure
in perception is that a lot we take for granted
as normal daily life is much more dangerous
than what we're complaining about, and even
underlies those issues.
If following parts of this letter sound like
a change of subject, it could indicate the
Neither loser running for US president, nor
any local official, talks about increasing
subsidies for organic and sustainable farming
practices or promoting local family farms--as
opposed to maintaining our $25 billion annual
subsidies to indsutrial agriculture. We reward
the largest factory farms and cotton plantations
for using unsustainable amounts of energy
(including petrochemical fertilizers), water,
and topsoil while bestowing us with health-robbing
food, pesticides and genetically modified
A drug tip for police: By far, no contest,
not even in the ballpark, the worst drug threat
is prescription drugs. The "need"
for these poisons is created, in part, by
the worst school cafeteria food in any industrialized
nation. We ignorantly poison kids with institutional
(and domestic) ingestibles politely called
food, then consciously poison them with "medicine"
to mask the symptoms of earlier poisoning.
Talk about crime.
Also, concerned citizens should read Harris
L. Coulter's book, "Vaccination, Social
Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault
on the American Brain." It talks convincingly
about the relationship between vaccinal neuro-poison
and behavior, between pharmaceutical/medical
greed and illness.
If we don't care what psycho/physical condition
people are in as we attempt to suppress unacceptable
behavior, then proceed as planned and hope
no citizen patrolperson gets injured or even
shot. Otherwise, we're well into failure mode.
Unrecognized, health-threatening legal crime
Many Effects of Toxins - 26
What do drug addiction, obesity, abnormal
menstrual cycles, antisocial behavior, crime,
violence, acute lymphocytic leukemia, diabetes,
depression, and attention deficit disorder
have in common?
They can all result from toxicity (poisons)
in the body. This consideration is absent
from corresponding articles in the Sentinel
& Enterprise, reflecting a lack of community
awareness that confounds solutions.
While the "addictive personality"
is recognized, the intimate relationship between
biochemical status and personality is ignored.
Toxic brain injury (encephalopathy) can easily
result in obesity and menstrual problems by
disturbing communication between the brain
and the pituitary gland. This disruption can
also affect the emotions of pleasure, sadness
and aggressiveness, for example. People can
feel violent and not even know why.
An excellent study in England shows that kids
living near gas stations have four times the
"normal" rate of leukemia. This
suggests that toxins may underlie the "normal"
Is type 1 diabetes an autoimmune disease?
Maybe. But autoimmunity is also a misinterpreted
phenomenon. The un-exotic toxic factor is
not mentioned. One toxin called uric acid
can break down into one called alloxan, which
directly attacks pancreatic beta cells. Toxins
can also instigate desperate immune activity
(not immune derangement), resulting in collateral
damage to cells. Ninety percent of diabetes
would stop if toxic imbalance were addressed.
On 18 August, a story on A3 recounted a heroin
bust. Adjacent to it were big pictures of
very young kids "cooling off" with
ice cream. This foolhardiness is presented
as cute; whereas, we should also have a refined-sugar
bust--it's a drug analog. There's society's
dangerous hypocrisy in a nutshell.
The really sad part: Although toxin removal
usually reverses disease, we add toxins in
the form of drugs, such as vaccines, antibiotics,
psychoactives and chemotherapy. Solving the
effects of toxicity with toxins? Plainly stupid.
Profitable, but stupid.
Howard - Jay Ambrose Defends BushCo - 15 Aug
Poor Jay Ambrose, director of editorial policy
for Scripps Howard News Service. His sorry
lot is defending US NeoCon, Inc and marionette
G.W. Bush. Mr. Ambrose uses (admittedly clever)
balls of rhetorical yarn sprinkled with doublespeak
and accentuated with gaping holes where information
recent twisted tale on Friday, 8/13/04: "Bush's
foremost achievement--no attacks." Bush
deserves re-election for preventing terrorist
attacks since 9/11, says the Jayster.
He credits this record to Bush's "tough-minded
competence" and a friendship forged with
Pakistan. Not mentioned is our CIA's prior
long-term clandestine relationship with it's
Pakistani clone/analog, Interservices Intelligence
(ISI), which created the Taliban and installed
President Musharraf via assassination.
Learning from CIA, ISI has become involved
in heroin traffic (booming post-war), making
enough money to become a virtual state within
a state (like CIA). Like Saudi Arabia, the
financial sector of elite terrorist support
(Pakistan is tactical), Pakistan plays a dual
game. Not that US NeoConInc doesn't.
Omitted also is that al-Quaida rolled into
Pakistan through contrived US bombing patterns
during the "war."
A second great Bush Success is the liberty-busting,
unconstitutional Patriot Act, whose predecessor,
Hitler's Enabling Act, was predicated on the
known-to-be staged terrorist attack on the
Reichstag. No matter that before 9/11, investigations
that could have exposed it were purposely
stonewalled inside the FBI. Four agents have
said as much, and now Sibel Edmonds, with
proof in hand, is being gagged by John Ashcroft.
Ambrose ignores the usefulness of terror to
the elite corporatists, for whom it is the
ideal protection racket. It looks like your
anti-terror policy is succeeding when you're
pulling the strings. Terror + BushCo = 9/11.
"We'll protect you (from the threat we're
helping create). Now, be good little sheep
and go shopping--we'll be watching."
Who's watching the watchers?
Face Overwhelming Struggle: Heroin and Guns
- 15 Aug '04
On Sat 8/14/04, Sentinel & Enterprise
had a story about the overwhelming struggle
facing police: street heroin and guns. But
more force, bigger guns, and hard-line attitude
aren't the answer.
Criminalizing personal choice just invites
criminals in. Violence naturally follows.
"War on drugs" is a dangerous game
called "cops and robbers," a costly,
ineffective merry-go-round. It's strategically
questionable and historically a failure everywhere.
Essentially, drug abuse is a societal symptom,
not a fundamental problem.
Better to shift all resources to education,
outreach, rehab and genuine health programs.
There might be a temporary upsurge in use,
but it would be peaceful at least, and liberate
the overburdened police and courts.
Is there hypocrisy in pop-a-pill America,
with its equally dangerous, but sanctioned
recreationals--alcohol, caffeine, nicotine,
and sugar (yes, it is)? Are medical drug-pushers
and our health-challenged lifestyle biochemically
damaging people or causing deficiencies, thus
facilitating criminality, violence, and drug
abuse? Believe it.
Get-tough suppression oozes political correctness
but doesn't address underlying issues, which
may then worsen and surface even more unpleasantly.
Ever-greater enforcement could result in horrific
gun battles on our streets. Even if we wanted
that, financial resources for street war are
being stolen by corporations via Washington,
DC. Our obscenely bloated sacred-cow military
dissipates nearly a half $trillion annually.
We must control this hemorrhage.
Nor are we facing up to why and how heroin
flows: "legitimate" people in high
places. Easily a half trillion dollars in
laundered drug cash flows through international
banks and Wall Street annually. This cash-fix
props up our debt-ridden, bubble economy.
Street level enforcement is like sand-bagging
the levee instead of fixing the ever-increasing
leak in the dam.
The kicker: The Afghanistan "War"
was staged to restore needed heroin flow interrupted
by the Taliban. Unbelievable, but true. Waking
up is hard to do.
Articles One-Sided and Incomplete - 13 Aug
Fri, 20 Aug '04, Sentinel & Enterprise
from this version)
Two vaccine articles recently appeared in
the Sentinel & Enterprise. Like the article
on birth control chided by Mark J. Rollo,
MD in a letter on 11 August '04, both articles
are also one-sided and incomplete.
At best, vaccination is a clever trick pulled
on the body, abandoning wellness for a specific
effect. Vaccines aim at boosting a component
of immunity that is not primary, but a backup
Fitchburg pediatrician Dr. John McLaughlin
fails to mention that the best way to boost
immunity is not to toxify infants, but prepare
the inner environment to be unfavorable to
infection. Healthy mothers with a full complement
of probiotic bacteria in their bodies pass
this to infants via full-term breast feeding.
Doctor McLaughlin expresses displeasure with
parents who have apparently acquired awareness
in spite of pharmaceutical company propaganda
about slamming babies with vaccines "before
they can talk." However, babies can scream,
a reaction that occurs often enough, as toxicity
and neurological insult set in.
The piece extolling a new toxic insult in
the making doesn't mention that the Frankenscientists
don't have the understanding they'd like us
to believe, but are arrogantly meddling with
Nature. Abusing antibiotics, medicine has
created vicious antibiotic-resistant strains.
Oops, insufficient understanding.
No vaccine has been proven safe and effective
with proper double-blind studies. Nor have
the long-term effects of vaccines been studied.
It's all a big crap game based on a half truth.
We know that one batch of polio vaccine caused
most of the cases in the decade following
it's introduction. And if your child "loses"
in a vaccine reaction, he loses alone, because
the doctor waltzes away scott free [not to
mention the vaccine company (24 Sept '04)].
Instead of the ancient principles of wellness,
why is a contrived and artificial method of
questionable effect and safety recommended
by "authority"? Follow the money,
boys and girls.
al-Qaida's Ties to Saudis, US Oil
Sat, 24 Jan '04, Sentinel & Enterprise
The Fri, Jan 16/04 Sentinel & Enterprise
editorial about terrorism "Vigilance
the price of freedom" cautions people
about becoming complacent. FBI Special Agent
Kenneth Kaiser conveyed this warning during
a recent visit to our area.
We might heed another FBI agent as well. John
O'Neill died on 9/11 trying to save lives
as head of security for the WTC, a post he
assumed after resigning as the deputy director
of the FBI's NY office.
As chief FBI counterterrorism agent, O'Neill
had spent years tracking Osama and the Al
Qaeda network, only to be thwarted by political
interference when the trail led to the Saudis.
Shortly before his death, O'Neill told Jean-Charles
Brisard, co-author of "Forbidden Truth":
"All of the answers, all of the clues,
allowing us to dismantle Osama bin Laden's
organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia."
O'Neill was correct, but there's more.
Brisard's research exposes the intrigue, money
trail, and the businesses and activities that
connect Osama to the greater bin Laden family,
the House of Saud, other wealthy Saudi bankers
and merchants, Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence,
the bin Mahfouz family, Islamic charities,
US oil tycoons, US elitist investment group
the Carlyle Group, George W. and H.W. Bush,
and Dick Cheney. Every patriot should read
Too many fortunes and "sensitive"
relationships link to Al Qaeda, so we "dare
not" take the direct approach. Much better
to spread apprehension, jockey alert colors,
spend billions on "security" and
perpetual war, and surrender civil liberties.
Much better to blast Afghanistan and Iraq
than deal with the Saudis, Pakistan, and the
factors that provoke terrorism. And very much
better, as the media shamefully has, to ignore
Ellen Mariani, the courageous widow suing
Bush under the RICO act for complicity in
Vigilance on terrorism is indeed a price of
freedom. But there's still more. Civic vigilance--what
our Declaration describes--could dramatically
reduce the need for Agent Kaiser's variety.
It could expose and remove what FDR, Eisenhower
and others warned about: corporate greedmasters
and powermongers befouling and corrupting
the processes of government, posing as patriots
but playing a duplicitous role and paving
the way for war, terror, war on terror, war
on Mother Earth, war on sanity itself. We
need REAL vigilance--and a little elective
landscaping (to pull the weeds and bushites).
Issue Inaccurately Defined, Poorly Addressed
14 Dec '03, Sentinel & Enterprise (Was
heavily edited at paper—full version
News and comment about street drugs often
include perilous misinformation, tiring political
correctness, and shabby hypocrisy. Holier-than-thous
looking down their nose at users; cops and
politicians rattling about getting the "scum"
dealers. But even those with sensible, compassionate
views seem to pay insufficient or no attention
to the basics.
No attention: The drug-flow game begins with
"respectable" people in high places.
Factual movies have shown investigators getting
"too close" and being threatened
or called off ("Deep Cover," "Above
the Law"). Let's face it, this neatly-avoided
ugly truth happens
in real life.
No attention: The Central Intelligence Agency
has been a major heroin profiteer for decades
(cocaine too). Now strongly suspected: One
reason the CIA/Mafia snuffed JFK was his stated
intention to dismantle the CIA's heroin-running
Air America in SE Asia.
No attention: Most heroin now originates in
Afghanistan. The Taliban had destroyed poppy
fields it controlled (our ally, the Northern
Alliance, didn't!), taking a big chunk out
of the $500 billion/year laundered cash that's
shifted around, stabilizing big banks (recall
BCCI scandal) and corporations, thus actually
(biggest secret!) underpinning the US economy.
That cash crunch spawned desperate need for
unjustifiable aggression (we must dog
the truth of 9/11). Now the poppy
fields flourish, heroin flows, and the economy's
propped up (pro tem). CIA continues its clandestine
crimes. Holy heroin, Batman!
Insufficient attention: America is the consummate
spiritually challenged, health-ignorant, hypocritically
drug-dependent culture, heartily embracing
drugs for every pain and problem. Legality/illegality
is irrelevant, except that legal drugs kill
about 130,000 people/year. This assault is
ignored, while the self-righteous stigmatize
illegal drugs and users, exemplifying our
prevalent disdain for the hallmark of a true
No attention: Some of our favorite culture-drugs
are not acknowledged as such, leaving them
uncontrolled and quite dangerous. Refined
sugar, politely called food, is decidedly
drug-like--addicting and pathogenic. Parents
who fret about getting Johnny to the drug-free
zone, but load him up with (milk-sopped) frosted
mini-flakes are, frankly, destructively ignorant.
And giving sugar to a child before the age
of informed consent is child abuse condoned.
Other adored drugfoods are white flour and
coffee. Caffeine addiction is portrayed as
being cute. Food junkies are also. The effects
aren't as familiar and politicized as those
of the "evil" drugs, but are just
as bad, even worse, depending on dose. It
all comes together in your popular donut and
espresso shops. Just try to quit.
After impairing kids with sugar, white flour,
chemically based consumerism, and conventional
diet (including school lunch), we address
certain resulting disorders by drugging with
Ritalin—an accepted abomination. ADD/ADHD,
and, I suspect, Asperger's, are usually correctible
in safe, natural ways conveniently ignored
by medical drug dealers. Holy hypocrisy, Batman!
Insufficient attention: One way to de-fang
the legal-drug criminals is to focus on wellness,
not "disease management"--the M.O.
of profit-motivated corporate medicine, whose
financial health depends upon widespread revolving
illness, which legal drugs help perpetuate.
Insufficient attention: One way to de-fang
street dealers and untouchable elite criminals
(who love drug profits and the laundry cash-flow)
is to decriminalize/legalize, control, and
perhaps tax, the drugs, which are here anyway.
The worst societal problems are caused by
their very illegality.
Insufficient attention: Fundamentally, drug
abuse is a spiritual and wellness issue, not
criminal. Rather than address sociocultural
failure, we support drug crime with the self-righteous
"pompous assitude" that conveniently
shifts blame to evil dealers and dirty druggies.
A misguided, wastefully expensive, backfiring
futility. Holy denial, Batman!
Cops chasing revolving dealers would be funny
if not so despairing. Jail one, another pops
up. OK, it's police job security, but needlessly
clogs the legal system. Resources would best
be applied to outreach, health awareness,
education, and rehab, freeing good cops to
go after shady cops, politicians and judges--a
worse threat to Commonwealth, Country, and
Planet than drugs.
Progress on the drug issue will not begin
until the awareness, integrity, and activism
of politicians, officials, and the public
ramp up a notch or three. Holy mission impossible,
20 Sept '03, Sentinel & Enterprise in
My View" feature.
No doubt, many Muslims hate America. Why,
is the crux of the al-Qaeda terrorism issue.
Bush propaganda, willingly absorbed by angry,
fearful Americans right after 9/11--that Muslims
simply hate our freedom--doesn’t wash.
It’s suicidally naive to base our posture
and response, even in part, upon such nonsense.
Since the Ottoman Empire fell, interference
and violent insult have been visited upon
Muslim peoples, first by Britain, then the
US. It is now perpetrated by a cabal of multinational
corporations, primarily US companies, using
unprincipled political leaders, clandestine
agencies, and military force.
Terrorism is, in part, outraged, tactical
response to imperial aggression. It is coming
suddenly around a corner and bashing a bully
gang leader with a pipe. A revolutionary war
against a force unassailable by any other
means. "Security" and "kicking
butt" are useless. This machismo posture
is held by Bush media lapdogs and the historically
challenged. Killing people unafraid to die
for good reason, with thousands waiting to
replace them, is patently stupid delusion.
See, we’ve long been killing people
for phony reasons--that’s the problem!
Network terrorism would fade if:
1) the obscene wealth and power of the relative
few were not predicated upon deadly interference
with the affairs of the many;
2) the power elite’s clandestine support
of terrorism ceased.
As they do other forms of chaos, like illness
and drug addiction, the elitists love, instigate,
and support terrorism. The duplicitous sheiks
of Saudi Arabia (coddled by the elite, and
connected to the Bush cabal) are the primary
source of terrorist funding. And elitists
use terrorism, and fear of it, to keep the
world off balance--a variation on the protection
Skeptics and doubters are strongly urged to
read "Forbidden Truth," by Brisard
and Dasquie. "Alice in Wonderland and
the World Trade Center Disaster" by David
Icke provides a broader, well-documented history
of corporate intrigue, and explains why the
official 9/11 story is a monumental lie.
Strong parallels exist between the rise of
the Third Reich and current events. From the
staged terrorist attack on the German Reichstag,
to 9/11, to the theft of freedoms by Hitler’s
Enabling Act. Neo-Nazis now populate our government
(Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld...). High-level
planning/complicity in 9/11 will be exposed--soon
enough, it is hoped, to avoid America’s
subjugation to fear and tyranny.
To defuse terrorism, Americans must show the
world the stuffing to apply the Declaration
of Independence and exorcise Washington's
corporate demons. We don’t even have
to blow ourselves up, like some revolutionaries,
but only dismantle--impeach--Bush & Co.,
or at the very least, un-elect President Never-Elected.
America should then issue a global apology
for being so long distracted by comfort, back-yard
barbecues, sports, entertainment, and the
All’s-Well Myth of America-the-Great,
that we have neglectfully abetted the foul
usurpation of government.
Most importantly, we should avow that the
process of lifting the yoke of greed-driven
oppression has begun, and that we will systematically
expose and curtail corporate agendas that
supersede the self-determination, human rights,
dignity and the very lives of other peoples.
I have no doubt this would take the steam
out of al-Quaeda, and we are the world's hope
Want to honor 9/11 victims and heroes meaningfully?
Supplement the now self-sorry, self indulgent
passivity of "mourning" and "remembering"
with investigating and exposing the truth
about this treason. Then we’ll have
earned the right to "never forget."
As it is, we're shamefully letting them all
down. Begin: http://www.911-strike.com/
Failing this approach, when terrorist-killing
patriotic zealots blindfolded by Bush and
the flag finally decide to peek, they won’t
find a semblance of America amid the neo-fascism
already attempting to strangle the world.
Peter Tocci is a freelance writer and editor
Uranium/US Hypocrisy in Iraq
1 Aug '03, Sentinel & Enterprise (Edited
at paper—full version here.)
To anyone but the very naive and/or historically
challenged, it's rather obvious that if CIA
Director George Tenet stands up and takes
the fall on the Niger/uranium faux pas, he'll
be "taking a bullet" for Bush.
To be fair, it must be said Bush wasn't, and
isn't, aware of a number of critical things.
After all, his marionette strings are nearly
visible. So, it could be that he didn't know
of the bogus intel. By no means, however,
does this irrelevancy mean that people all
over high places were unaware.
Such conclusion comes easily once you understand
that the puppet-master power-elite were not
concerned one iota about weapons in Iraq,
other than as a fulcrum for leveraging the
war. Maybe Bush's masters felt he'd sell it
better in ignorance.
Least of all were the elite concerned, as
suggested in "An intelligence breakdown,"
a Sat, 7/12/03 Scripps Howard (SH) editorial,
about "the legitimate reason that (Saddam)
was a murderous despot whose continued existence
was a destabilizing influence on the entire
Arab world and a constant distraction in the
war on terrorism." This pathetic hypocrisy
is another distraction from the real motives:
control of a dwindling world oil supply, elimination
of a potential threat to regional Israeli
military superiority, huge profits for war-mongering
corporations in both the blow-it-up and fix-it-up
phases, and plain genocide.
A major destabilizing influence in the Arab
world has been decades of British/American
imperial interference. In this regard, no
one who proffers the "murderous despot"
excuse for the war crime in Iraq mentions
that the CIA backed Saddam's rise, and explains
why, during the despot's worst moments, our
rich Uncle was patting him on the behind and
scuttling attempted uprisings.
Nor has any such excuse-maker explained the
laundry list of despots the democracy-pushers
have nurtured historically, or by which parameters
they determine which despot to kill and which
to kiss (China brutalizing Tibet, for example.
Athough ready Chinese slave labor partly explains
our tolerance). "Practical" matters
are rarely hindered by morality or integrity
in such decisions.
A recent blatant hypocrisy is cozying up to
Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov, a dictator who
incarcerates political prisoners, tortures
them, and has even boiled two people alive,
according to a forensic report commissioned
by the British embassy last August. But, thar's
oil 'n' gas out thataway.
Nor were the warmasters concerned about terrorism,
which is a convenient tool of the elite and
heavily funded by an important partner of
Ironically, the SH editorial unintentionally
reveals a truth: Saddam was indeed a "distraction
in the war on terrorism"—i.e.,
the expensive, phony war on terrorism, intended
to deflect attention from the ongoing Saudi/Al
Quaeda financial connections discovered by
American authorities in 1999 through the bin
Mahfouz family charity network. Osama is married
to a bin Mahfouz. Intelligence breakdown?
Remember the Bank of Commerce and Credit International
(BCCI) scandal? For the historically challenged,
it showed how terrorism is also funded by
laundered drug money, whose flow, by the way,
is greatly facilitated by the elite's faucet
we call the CIA (the Afghanistan War was motivated
in large part by restoring heroin flow choked
off pre-9/11 by Taliban destruction of poppy
fields in Afghanistan).
There was no justification for war even if
Saddam had WMD, or they're found (or planted)
closer to the 2004 election. The second inspection
team would have finished the job nearly completed
by Scott Ritter and the first team. And unimaginable
suffering and destruction would have been
avoided and many thousands of innocent lives
The SH editorial also blames "intelligence
breakdown" for the current loss of British
and American lives in Iraq. Preposterous.
Pre-war opponents saw this coming a mile away,
no multibillion-dollar intelligence needed.
But don't be fooled, and don't fool yourself,
into thinking the elite are the least concerned
about human life. Like our government, our
military is just another tool for their ruthless
agenda--why people fear and hate America.
Deja Vu - 25 June '03
"It’s deja vu all over again in
Iran," asserts Ann McFeatters’
editorial in the 6/21/03 Sentinel & Enterprise.
She refers to the recent unrest, revolution
and anti-American sentiment in that Mid-East
"cauldron." We can forgive the redundancy
in "deja vu all over again" ("deja
vu" means "over again"), but
not the rest of her analysis, which, even
with two deja vus, misses the real ones.
She mentions the infamous hostage crisis during
the Carter Administration. To understand this
and other unrest in Iran, you need to be aware
of the extent of US meddling (cauldron stirring)
in Mid-East affairs and nations.
For one thing, Saddam was assisted to power
and supported by the CIA. Who was CIA director
at the critical moment of Saddam's enthronement?
Why, GHW Bush. One of Saddam's "jobs"
was to get into a war with Iran and destroy
it, for which we armed him. Also, the hostage
crisis was covertly manipulated by none other
than Daddy Bush to discredit Carter and potentiate
the much "tougher" Reagan/Bush ticket.
Prior to Iran becoming our enemy, we supported
a friend (lapdog) in the brutally murdering
Shah. But the Shah got out of hand by overstepping
the economic/industrial development prescribed
for his country. Iran is oil-rich (virtually
trashing dreams of political autonomy for
Naughtily, the Shah wanted to fully industrialize
Iran and become a major trading partner with
Europe. His plan for the biggest petro-plastics
factory in the world was a major step in that
direction. Very powerful interests didn't
want such industrialization, however. Iran,
like Iraq, was designated an oil colony on
the elitists' map, a supplier of fuel and
little else--perhaps a weapons customer.
So we brought in the Ayatollah Khomeini, who
had CIA connections while he was in exile—in
Paris, I believe. It was obvious to keen observers
(except our mainstream media) that the Shah,
with his army and well-armed, murdering secret
police, could never have been overthrown by
a bunch of rag-tag students—unless his
support got the order to stand down or desert.
Then the Shah was escorted away, escaping
justice. This angered his oppressed and criminally
brutalized people, whose hostage demand was
the Shah's return for trial. These aspects
shed a different light on Iranians "demeaning
the US flag" as Ms McFeatters facilely
relates. It might dismay some self-righteous
folk, but people don't just hate America arbitrarily.
The Ayatollah was charged with the mission
of taking Iran back to the relative Stone
Age. He did his job well, derailing industrialization
under the cover of radical Islam. Saddam's
Iraq also had a modernization process going.
Many bombs, sanctions and facilitated lootings
later, however, and that has been stonewalled
as well. Both operations further the long-term
agenda of Israeli military superiority in
the region, to which we taxpayers happily
donate about $165 million/day.
Rememer that web of lies, the Iran-Contra
affair? That was a Reagan/Bush covert follow-up
to the secretly arranged hostage resolution,
selling missiles to an enemy government with
whom our ally, Saddam, was at war and using
the money to arm the Contras for genocide
in Central America (the Contras were terrorists;
but they were our terrorists, so we called
those death squads freedom fighters).
Terrorism, or other (trumped up or instigated)
"offenses," can be seen as excuses
to bring blame and war and fire down on the
head of any nation that attempts to defy its
mandates, set by the international banking
power elite. Particularly ironic is that these
ruthless elitist thugs usually manage to find
and hire corrupt citizens within the victim
countries to assist their dirty work (to our
great detriment, this is nowhere more true
than in America).
Iran seems once again on the road to modernization.
Also, alleged nuclear weapons buildup. Harboring
terrorists. Even before the recent vicious,
unjustifiable Iraq slap-down, peace activists
and knowledgeable investigative journalists
were saying Iran could be next. Deja vu, all
Ownership/Jay Ambrose - 13 June '03
In "Limiting freedom for the public good,"
(Sentinel & Enterprise, June 10, 2003),
Jay Ambrose smugly assures us that monolithic
corporate ownership/control of the media is
good for America. He scoffs at concerns that
this could result in news coloration or suppression,
saying never have there been more information
outlets than we have now.
As he is wont to do, however, Mr. Ambrose
makes statements which sound true, but are
beside the point; and he omits pertinent aspects
that work against his preconceived conclusions.
Yes, there are many information outlets. However,
the mainstream ones are now owned and controlled
(in certain ways) by only a few companies.
With FCC corporate bootlicking, this scenario
darkens considerably. But we are to believe
this is improvement, and media owners always
put public good ahead of special interests,
stockholders (such as Saudi oil sheiks) and
the global agendas of corporate America. Excuse
me while I roll on the floor laughing—no,
Let's say a huge defense contractor owns a
major media outlet (GE/NBC, for example).
Can we be sure there's no top-down influence
keeping a lid on the covert machinations of
the war/reconstruction profiteers? You have
to be completely naive, sleepwalking, or have
your head deep in the sand to say you're sure...and
you'd be wrong.
The chief absurdity in the concern about journalism,
Ambrose says, is a proposed alternative to
leave much of it in the hands of the federal
government. If true, this is a bad idea primarliy
because, due to decades of a flaccid mainstream
media, the American people, to whom the media
should belong, have relinquished ownership
and control of the Government to...let's see—oh,
Neglected by Mr. Ambrose is the dismal failure
of the mainstream media to uncover the sordid
details of America's scandals in timely fashion.
For example, the JFK assassination was ignored
for 30 years—not in the independent
media, however. The Bush/CIA/Mafia looting
of the S & L banks in the 1980's has never
been reported, nor has the damning evidence
(presented in the book Forbidden Truth
by Brisard and Dasquie) about secret flirting
with the Taliban for an oil pipeline right
up to 9/11.
The mainstream obediently demonizes figures
the establishment wants to make convenient
enemies of, but who they often play with behind
the scenes. No better examples exist than
the Taliban, Osama and Saddam. Global CIA
drug-running, which is supported at high political
levels (and renewed in Afghanistan after the
Taliban had destroyed the poppy fields), has
never blazed across the front pages.
I've never seen a piece in the mainstream
about the criminal unconstitutionality of
the Federal Reserve system and its influence
by international bankers. Nor did the mainstream
even begin to expose Bush Administration lies
and manipulations regarding Iraq. On the contrary,
with crafted, media-borne PR, the Bushites
got people believing that Saddam was behind
9/11 and that he had Al Quaida connections.
Where do revealing stories appear? Mostly
in books; in certain periodicals; in the "underground"
press, such as the old "Covert Action
Bulletin," "The Spotlight,"
"In These Times," "Idaho Observer,"
"American Free Press," and so on.
To be fair, to give the impression of truly
investigative work, the mainstream does present
information on corporate/government scandal,
crime and conspiracy. But articles are scattered,
usually too shallow, and rarely pursued in
continous fashion to conclusion (one exception
is the story designed to distract people,
such as the Clinton follies). The "new"
news then comes along to occupy and re-program
Americans' short attention span. Thus, there
is not only subject matter control, but control
of the method of its presentation.
Apparently, all Mr. Ambrose allows to impinge
on his senses is mainstream output. His position
on this issue seems therefore colored by acute
unawareness that fascist corporations are
taking over America with renewed vigor. I'm
waiting to see a mainstream exposé
of a new wave of this process—touch-screen
voting machines, whose programming is "proprietary"
(sounds like "national security").
Howard /WMD - 8 June '03
Once in a while, Scripps Howard News Service
publishes an editorial with a progressive
political theme, although usually leaving
out pertinent factors, so as not to shine
with too "liberal" a light, apparently.
Such is the case with "Show us the weapons,"
in the Thurs, June 5, 2003 Sentinel &
Scripps Howard (SH) is now bravely questioning,
better late than never, Bush Administration
pre-war prevarications about weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Directed by Jay Ambrose,
who recently castigated the European Union
for rejecting genetically modified organisms
marketed as food (words he will be someday
be forced to eat also), the SH editorial arm,
which usually swings a rather self-righteous,
neo-conservatively oriented bat, wants Congress
to "begin asking the hard questions."
Given the stumping for Bush and the "war"
SH did leading up to the Iraq debacle, it
must have been a painfully begrudging admission,
if only by implication, that perhaps SH should
have listened more closely to peace activists
before the second wave of Iraq's destruction.
They were yelling at the top of their lungs
about Bush lies and criminality, while SH
was prattling on about evil Saddam and looking
down its nose at protesters.
Omitted from this piece is that people from
the intelligence community are coming out
saying that Bush-ites and the Pentagon skewed
and "cherry picked" intelligence
reports to worsen Iraq's image. Omitted is
the fact that even if Saddam had chemical
and biological weapons, they are not WMD,
only so classified for convenience. Ignored
is American covert assistance to Saddam's
rise to power, our weaponizing of him, and
that he played the vicious role expected of
him according to plan.
SH also avoids the responsibility of stating
directly that without WMD "revelations
of mass graves, torture chambers, and the
sheer evil..." were emphatically not
enough to justify pre-emptive war. These realities
were regularly well-tolerated, even wanted,
by Washington elitists during the Reagan,
Daddy Bush and Clinton eras (essentially the
same underlying administrations) when it was
Furthermore, based upon the murderous regimes
America has supported, even created, over
decades, the destruction and death in Iraq
on those bases would have been worse than
intolerable hypocrisy, and still prohibited
under the Geneva Convention.
Also omitted is that, with clever spin, Bush-ites
gradually convinced a large portion of the
sleepwalking American people that Saddam was
behind 9/11 and that he had terrorist connections,
when it is Bush-ites themselves with the connections,
and who, as strong evidence now indicates,
played significant roles in bringing the towers
down to further the war and global-domination
SH quotes Dick Cheney's assertion in March
2003 that Iraq had "reconstituted nuclear
weapons," but omits that two months later
Rumsfeld blurted at a hearing of the Senate's
appropriations subcommittee on defense, May
14, "I don't believe anyone that I know
in the administration ever said Iraq had nuclear
In a bit of pathetic back-pedaling, SH says
that if the weapons don't turn up, "the
American people were at best badly misled,
and at worst lied to." Badly misled?
Boy! I'm just going to have a hissy fit if
I was misled, especially badly. Only partially
and obliquely does SH suggest that the vicious
chicanery and criminal conduct of the Bush
Administration continue unabated.
SH should have been exhorting Congress to
ask the hard questions before America gave
sanction-induced, slow agonizing death to
well over a million people (50% children)
in a decade and allowed the Cradle of Civilization
to be raped. And now it's back swinging the
pro-Bush bat with regard to North Korea. Make
your words soft and sweet, Scripps Howard,
for you may have to eat them (again)--even
if it's only another forced nibble.
"Killer Policy" - 2 June '03
With "A killer policy on foods in Europe"
(Sentinel & Enterprise editorial on Fri,
5/30/03), Jay Ambrose, director of editorial
policy for Scripps Howard News Service, has
provided yet another contrivance of lies and
omissions. He asserts that GMOs, or genetically
modified "food," is good for us,
the planet, the economy, and starving Africans,
who the European Union (EU), he says, is killing
with its stance on the issue.
I worry about the mental state of anyone who
doesn’t immediately see the insanity
of crossing a tomato with a fish. And hunger
is caused, not by lack of food, but by denying
people access to food already available. It
is worsened by financial rules of the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund imposed
upon many Third World nations, that force
agricultural products to be exported to service
The United States artificially depresses the
world food supply to keep prices up: tons
of surplus grain sit in storage, and the USDA
subsidizes farmers to keep production down.
And every year, the United States disposes
of 48 million tons of food.
Listen to Ambrose's clumsily preposterous
complaint about the EU: "...they embrace
hopeless superstitions about modernity."
Well, informed modern people don’t even
refer to transgenics as "food,"
but Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
Contrary to Ambrose’s special-interest
soapboxing, far more economic and empirical
evidence exists to show that GMOs are a disaster
than that they’re safe.
The fight has intensified globally, as reported
and updated daily on the website www.organicconsumers.org.
A truth carefully avoided by Ambrose is the
convenient dumping of GMO corn on impoverished
nations. With all this rejected non-food lying
around, the U.S. says to the Africans, "Eat
this or starve." Nice, eh? But starving
Africans refuse the "Frankencorn,"
and not for the politico/economic reasons
proffered by Ambrose (he doesn't mention that
many more countries than the EU fear this
Consumer concerns over food safety, nutrition,
and environmental sustainability have reached
an all-time high. There is increasing distrust
of "industrial food" and GMOs, and
growing wisdom for organics.
The lie that the transgenic organisms are
safe because people here have been unknowingly
eating them, yet everyone’s fine, is
beneath even Ambrose. No appropriate human
studies have been done. Many diseases have
unknown origin, so how does he know what he’s
saying? He doesn’t. But studies have
shown that, when faced with a choice, animals
instinctively choose real food over the GMO.
Ambrose says GMOs haven’t even caused
indigestion. Many things that sicken and kill
people don’t cause indigestion (wait--the
idea of GMOs does make me sick to my stomach).
Independent scientists, every organic-consumer
organization, and many environmental groups
have been issuing warnings. If it weren’t
for big money buying the FDA, scientists and
politicians, there would be no GMOs.
Only seed patent holders like Monsanto benefit.
Such giant Frankenseed companies have manipulated
the law so that if their pollen drifts and
changes your crop from real to GMO, you must
either destroy your crop or pay a royalty
that will all but eliminate your profit--because
you are in possession of their patented DNA.
Nature has become intellectual property.
The ability of these organisms to corrupt
normal plants reveals one goal of GMO pursuit:
to monopolize markets for biotech seed companies.
Then, the GMO will stand up to even more poisons
the petrochemical industry wants to dump on
farmlands by the millions of tons every year.
Ahhh, the benefits of "modernity."
Ambrose says Europeans have "dodged the
truth" because more "eco-fanatics"
have "wormed" their way into political
power there than here. Naturally. The biggest
bloodthirsty biotech seed companies are here,
their pockets stuffed with sleazy and spineless
politicians. GMOs can exist only in a milieu
where the real cost of food is many times
greater than the retail price because of government
gifts to agri-giants.
Eco-fanatics? Oh, yes; people with the common
sense and integrity not to be bullied or bought
by special interests promoting life-threatening
technology. Speaking of worms, no self-respecting
earthworm would, or even could, live in lifeless
soil contaminated by GMOs and poison chemicals.
Not to worry, though! Here comes corporate
puppet Mighty-Bush to save the day, lodging
a formal complaint against EU with the World
Trade Organization. That servant of corporate
global empire-building draws protests wherever
it meets, and is well worthy of them.
I’m surprised Ambrose doesn’t
have "I Love Monsanto" stamped on
his forehead. Maybe it’s stamped someplace
Responsibility - 8 May '03
This responds to the 4/24/03 Guest Commentary
("Reducing physician liability will benefit
all") by Drs. Charles A. Welch and Svend
W. Bruun. Their Commentary responded to an
April 15 Sentinel & Enterprise editorial
("Checks, balances work both ways").
The main issues are medical malpractice insurance
costs, patient safety, and proposals to reduce
physician liability. Several aspects warrant
Medicine's basic tenet is "First, do
no harm." A system of preventive reportage
by doctors and nurses to head off patient
damage might be helpful. Hospital personnel
see where "trouble" is, but the
taboo on speaking up allows it to fester.
Without internal "policing," elimination
of the cap waiver on noneconomic jury awards
is ill-advised, and could worsen problems
by relieving pressure.
A corollary might be a system similar to car
insurance. You have an "accident,"
your premiums soar, not others’. The
Commentary asserts (open endedly) that the
"State Board of Registration has vastly
improved its record of disciplining errant
doctors." Disciplining? I say, one serious
incident, you’re up for a major review.
Two, you’re flipping burgers.
Even if only 5 percent of doctors account
for all malpractice payouts, the fact looms
that U.S. doctors kill around 200,000 people
a year--130,000 with drugs (figures vary).
This approximates the death toll from three
jumbo jets crashing daily. Can the lonely
5 percent be doing all this, or is more involved?
Is malpractice definition deficient, or is
a lot going unrecognized or unacknowledged?
One unmentioned problem is a major, inherent
dilemma: Of what interest is widespread wellness
to a corporate industry whose financial health
depends upon widespread illness? This conflict
traps patients, and, to a considerable extent,
the economy under a trillion-dollar juggernaut.
No shortage of intrigue demonstrates the subjugation
of health to profit. Books abound on the subject
of industry malfeasance--many written by doctors
themselves. A medical education has been described
as "the warping of unsuspecting, immature
minds into a meticulous system of commercial
Cozy relationships (including investment)
between doctors and greedy pharmaceutical
companies lead to overprescription. Drugs
cause damage, sometimes insidious, that might
never erupt as a malpractice issue, or is
not considered such--even though it is.
Paradoxically, conventional medicine is not
predicated upon wellness, which threatens
income, but upon symptom manipulation and
disease management--where the real money is.
Many doctors have good intentions, but are
trained and function in a system heavily controlled
by the private interests of the pharmaceutical
and medical-supply industries.
Painfully, there is far more money in research
and ineffective treatment than in cures. Thus,
we will be regaled with another summer of
rides, walks, runs, hops, skips, and jumps
for phony research on multiple sclerosis and
breast cancer, for example, when these are
already being cured unconventionally.
Conventional wisdom insists that "diseases"
are primary entities, as opposed to secondary
symptoms of underlying imbalances, that can
be "cured" by toxic chemicals (drugs)
and/or surgery. These methods are sometimes
excusable in crisis intervention (medicine's
strong point) but are generally not conducive
to wellness. The mandate to apply them routinely
is a form of de facto malpractice which makes
conventional medicine too dangerous.
Often enough, treatment forces the disappearance
of symptoms, giving the impression of a cure.
Medicine thereby avoids responsibility for
different symptoms (new "disease")
arising later from the same, unresolved, underlying
a Holistic wellness consultant and 20-year
student of health and the history of medicine,
I've seen both patients and doctors hurt by
this system. Problems will not abate until
we end this arrogant, legalized, lucrative
monopoly-go-round. I suggest “regime
change”--the widespread adoption, dissemination
and practice of long-established, much safer,
non-invasive wellness principles--with freedom
of choice and third-party support.
"It is time to act so that we can preserve
the quality of health care we have become
known for throughout the world," says
the Commentary. But, after a century of this
"quality," disease is rampant; and
"we" have long been shamefully deficient,
comparatively speaking, in many areas--infant
mortality for one.
Antiwar Protests - 28 April '03
On Sat 4/5/03, the Sentinel & Enterprise
ran the story, “A pacifist wants to
move beyond antiwar protests” which
stated that protests should have stopped after
the Iraq war began, and anti-war activists
should have begun addressing the psychological
needs of Americans afflicted by the war. Prayer
vigils that welcome military family members,
and efforts to counsel and console sufferers
were suggested. Worthy suggestions. But activists
should also augment another function--public
Some people think we should have avoided the
Iraq violence; others don’t. The difference
seems based upon a difference of information
people have at hand. Vietnam protests helped
prevent more suffering by bringing pertinent
information out of the media shadows. Unfortunately,
to be well informed, we can’t just sit
back with the evening news or a couple of
mainstream news publications. For example,
defense contractor General Electric owns NBC.
There are heavy oil (Saudi) investments in
Fox. The other networks are similarly tainted.
We must actively seek alternatives.
Questions each of us might consider are: do
private interests who stand to profit enormously
covertly encourage and even contrive threats
in the first place? And what if they also
control the government?
Quite sufficiently, covert treachery is historically
proven. And if there’s even the slightest
chance going forward, doesn’t each of
us owe it to our young men and women to investigate?
Many protesters invested tremendous time and
effort, sometimes in the bitter cold, when
they could have been relaxing at home. Most
honor our soldiers, but worry that their devotion
is criminally abused. Granted, such ruthlessness
isn’t an easy thing for many Americans
to face up to or want to understand. Some
deny or reject it out of hand (condemnation
Proven treacheries: Battleship Maine--a scam
that fomented war with Spain; Gulf of Tonkin--a
lie that led to the Vietnam War, which was
CIA instigated; JFK assassination--a CIA/Mafia
operation covered up by the Warren Commission;
Iran-Contra--weapons sales to the enemy of
our supported friend, Saddam; BCCI scandal--CIA
people and Saudis supporting arms dealers,
laundering drug money, and financing terrorism;
CIA/Mafia/Daddy Bush & Sons orchestration
of the S&L Scandal in the 1980s. And strong
evidence now points to homeland treachery
Consider the Carlysle Group, US-based international
arms broker and investment group: President:
Frank Carlucci, former CIA deputy director.
His sidekick, James Baker III, Secretary of
State under Daddy Bush. Overseas representatives:
John Major, former British Prime Minister;
Daddy Bush, former CIA director. Carlysle
financially manages the Saudi Binladen Corporation
(Osama’s family) which helped George
W. make millions at Harken Energy. Osama’s
brother was represented on Harken’s
When government becomes infiltrated by such
ruthless elitist manipulators, patriotism
and military courage become exploited commodities.
Private war agendas are woven into purported
noble ones. This is the "hook"--a
con-game variation on the "protection
racket." We end up fighting for corporate
conflict-makers who consider soldiers expendable
tools. Right after Congress passed a support
resolution for our soldiers in Iraq, the House
voted to cut veterans’ benefits by nearly
$25 billion over ten years. A revealing, (and
The U.S. is the most dangerous infiltrated
government, with a military budget equaling
the total of the next 28 nations, and bases
in 120 countries. That means a huge citizen
responsibility, and demands vigilance, investigation,
and involvement with representatives.
Key point: the government is NOT the country
(Constitution). Soldiers are sworn to uphold
and protect the Constitution "...against
all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC." But
it’s also a primary civilian duty to
protect the country from the government, when,
in the course of human events...
Carrying signs goes only so far. The peace
movement and activists can play an important
role in continuously expanding public awareness.
Trillions of dollars, the environment, and
the lives of soldiers and innocents are at
Response - 1 April '03
David Hatton's 3/31/03 letter (Those who disagree
with U.S. military action in Iraq are unpatriotic)
in response to Anthony Lorenzen's 3/22 letter
is emotional, chauvinistic drivel--a pompous
sixth-grade ramble full of misinformation
and omissions. I'm sure Mr. Lorenzen is capable
of his own response, but I want to add my
Hatton says that UN Resolution 1441 stipulates
use of force. It does not, but uses the phrase
"serious consequences." Those thirsting
for conflict and blood would interpret that
as meaning Shock and Awe.
He admonishes Lorenzen to get the facts. Here's
some: Former Chief Inspector for UNSCOM, Scott
Ritter, has stated over again that the first
wave of inspections was achieving major success
until it was aborted prematurely at the behest
of the U.S. government, apparently in anticipation
of the need for an excuse for the current
war. The lie was that Saddam "kicked
the inspectors out." This was around
the time that Halliburton was doing all that
business with Saddam, an acknowledged enemy
of the U.S. What do we call this? Oh, yes—treason.
Hatton is indignant that anyone should question
our "military members." They are
angels beyond reproach, while he ignores the
ones who have come out against this war. He
says top officials such as Tommy Franks have
said they'll find chemical weapons. A possibility,
since we sold them to Saddam (not to mention
West Nile virus) in criminal violation of
international treaty. Hatton says that Iraq
has already launched weapons "they don't
have." All Iraqi weapons in use, including
missiles, have been defensive ones allowed
by Res 1441.
On the other hand, the "humane war"
is once again being fought with radioactive
munitions. In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000
Depleted-Uranium rounds, poisoning our own
soldiers and leaving at least 320 metric tons
of DU on the battlefield (a Pentagon admission).
A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that
some 500,000 people will die before the end
of this century, due to radioactive debris
left in the desert. Can you imagine the moaning
from Bush if Saddam had committed such a war
crime? Now, three British soldiers in action
have protested the war and how it's being
fought, increasingly endangering civilians.
That's courage and integrity.
Hatton praises our "elite government
intelligence agencies," such as FBI and
CIA. They cannot lie, be mistaken, or be servants
of money and power. FBI whistle-blower Colleen
Rowley (a Time Magazine person of the year)
exposed her supervisors, who prevented field
agents from looking into Zacarias Moussaoui's
computer. He was arrested before 9/11, but
only later was the plot exposed. In other
words, 9/11 could have been stopped. The supervisors
were promoted. Forgotten in a simliar scenario
is John O'Neill, the former director of antiterrorism
in the New York office of the FBI, who resigned
in protest of official obstruction he faced
when investigating Saudi involvement in terrorism.
And it has been shown that the Warren Commission
covered up the conspiracy to assassinate JFK,
in which the CIA took part. Forgotten is Iran-Contra,
where CIA was selling weapons to Iran while
Saddam was fighting it with our support and
blessing. Anyone who trusts implicitly the
CIA and our secrect agencies is either brainwashed
or on the stupid side of naive.
Hatton notes the more than 40 countries who
support the war effort, but fails to note
that in the overwhelming majority of them,
the people are majorly opposed. It's only
the more knowledgeable and trustworthy leaders,
possibly browbeaten, bribed and sucking up,
who have come along for the ride, maybe sent
a wheelbarrow along. Let's face it, it's the
U.S. and Britain, with some Aussies.
I'll give Hatton the point about flag burning
not being patriotic, but add that flag burners
and blind flag wavers like him both miss the
point: The flag stands for the country and
the Constitution, not the government. If "following
the Constitution and dissenting doesn't make
you a patriot," then how does violating
it and bending obediently to corrupt "authority"
do so? The Constitution and the Declaration
make it a solemn duty of each citizen to protect
the country and the Constitution from the
government with constant scrutiny, questioning
and even dismantling if needed. I submit that
such need has never been greater in U.S. history.
Forgotten - 25 March '03
I congratulate the Sentinel & Enterprise
for the "Osama bin fogotten" editorial
on 3/24/03. It notes that the Bush administration
never mentions Osama bin Laden unless directly
questioned, and that it omitted the mention
of his name from a progress report on the
war on terrorism recently sent to Congress
by Bush. It's suggested that "the White
House doesn't want to dwell on the fugitive
terrorist still being at large." This
is plausible enough, if a bit obvious; but
we need to look at plausible motives for the
Many independent investigators believe that
it goes deeper than the implied embarrassment
over "losing" him. This matter is
extremely important, especially to the 9/11
families, and needs further investigation
and coverage by the media. Over 400 members
of the families are suing the US government,
not just for prior knowledge, but for complicity.
Their lawyer, Stanley Hilton, former senior
adviser and counsel to Bob Dole, claims to
have solid evidence highly incriminating to
the U.S. government.
of this has also come out here and there in
mainstream news--but only in pieces. The families
have been in a lonely and difficult struggle
with this, and I believe they deserve strong
public support. It's critical because the
war on terror, and the current sacrifice of
life in Iraq are predicated on the official
Osama is not "bin forgotten" at
the White House, but it might be pleased if
the rest of us forgot about him and the questionable
circumstances surrounding the Tower attack.
The official 9/11 Commission has been stonewalled
in two important ways. First, only $3 million
have been allocated to investigate the worst
attack on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor. Compare
that to the $70 million spent investigating
the sexual dalliance of Bill Clinton. Secondly,
Bush has appointed two highly suspect individuals
in a row to head the Commission, the second
one being a business partner with Osama's
brother-in-law. If the Warren Commission could
obscure the truth about the assassination
of its own government's president, what can,
or would, a commission not cover up? And allowing
Bush to pick the chief investigator smacks
of the fox guarding the hen house.
elements in the government have been sabotaging
investigations. FBI whistle-blower Coleen
Rowley (a Time Magazine person of the year)
exposed her supervisors, who prevented field
agents from looking into Zacarias Moussaoui's
computer. Moussaoui had been arrested before
9/11, but because of the stonewalling, only
later was the computer data on the 9/11 plot
other words, the attack could have been stopped.
supervisors were promoted. Too soon forgotten
also is John O'Neill, the former director
of antiterrorism in the New York office of
the FBI, who resigned in protest of official
obstructions he faced when investigating Saudi
involvements. He died in bitterly ironic fashion--in
a Tower courageously trying to rescue people.
It looks very much like members of the Bush
administration (some of whom have been in
positions of power for over 25 years) are
deeply complicit in the attacks on America.
These corporate elitists are internationalists--fascists
posing as patriots. They advise, influence
and control the government that sends our
young people to battle to serve selfish and
ruthless agendas. They establish, coddle and
dance with dictators, and they work to create
"reasons" to wage war and rescind
our civil liberties. This is all coming out
with increasing momentum. Once it breaks,
it will gel America into solidarity, as we
see who and where the enemy is and in what
way it regards human life and the Constitution.
Editorials Answer - 21 March '03
Two Sentinel & Enterprise editorials on
Friday, 3/21 deserve special comment: “This
War is Justified,” and “Why should
the U.S. invade Iraq? It’s simple,”
by Jay Ambrose. Both “Psy-Ops”
pieces attempt apology for the notion of Liberation
Through Obliteration as an acceptable form
of international politics. Both are so ludicrous
that it avails little to address their canned,
sound-bite rhetoric directly.
In light of past government and corporate
scandals, it’s amazing that some people
allow no possibility of anything other than
noble motives for a brutal attack on a living
city of about 5 million people. Nothing underhanded
can be going on, right? Nothing worth questioning,
Even though widely-exposed scandals are relatively
few compared to what actually goes on in the
world, they serve as windows to what happens
in big business/politics/intrigue. Examples
include the JFK assassination and coverup
(GHW Bush/CIA/Mafia); Watergate and the Pentagon
Papers; Iran-Contra; Pacific Gas and Electric’s
willful poisoning of its employees and its
entire host community (Erin Brockovich story);
the Karen Silkwood story (willfully exposing
people to radioactivity), the vicious Union
Carbide incident in Bhopal, India; and the
vinyl chloride assault, wherein chemical companies
knowingly poisoned employees and the American
These examples provide a common lesson. Where
big money and/or special interests are at
stake, human life often comes last. These
incidents represent only millions of dollars
for which corporate types have proven they
are eager to subvert inalienable human rights.
It would be naive, if not purely stupid, to
regard them as isolated or specialized incidents.
What can we imagine the incentive to be when
the stakes are in the multiple billions or
even trillions, as with oil, weapons, war
After WW II we rebuilt Germany and Japan.
Who are “we”? The payers were
the taxpayers while the profiteers were those
who reaped billions from both sides of a war
they contrived behind the scenes. The elitists
must roll around on the boardroom floors laughing
at the gullibility of the people, who repeatedly
fall for the ruthless, bloodthirsty, blow-it-up/fix-it-up,
good-cop/bad-cop con game in the name of freedom
and justice. (Most terrorism is also a “protection
Similarly, after Desert Storm, Bechtel, Inc.,
whose government servants were its execs Caspar
Weinberger and George Schultz, got the Kuwait
reconstruction contract. Pre-war speculation
about rebuild profits never materialized because
the damage, though significant, wasn’t
as great as anticipated. That tactical error
has been corrected with Shock and Awe. And
even before the first “liberation”
bomb was dropped, Halliburton (which sends
a $million/year to Dick Cheney) had lined
up $billions in reconstruction contracts in
Iraq. Mr. Ambrose is correct. It’s “simple,”
all right--a simple matter of accounting.
Baghdad is now in flames and rubble. This
is somehow “justifiable” and “simple?”
Such target practice to get one man who might
someday have weapons he could use to attack
the U.S. (once he convinces the Saudis to
finance his future terrorist group instead
of al-Qaeda)? When non-violent disarmament
could have been accomplished with persistent
This horrific, unconstitutional, unprovoked
attack on a dense urban area in violation
of the Nuremburg Charter is a monstrous terrorist
act. It makes 9/11 (Saddam had nothing to
do with that) a walk in the park. The Bush
Administration's criminal resort to limitless
violence in order to achieve its objectives
is hypocrisy and cowardice in the extreme:
the most powerful military in the world waging
a first-strike attack with advanced weaponry
against an impoverished country on the pretext
that it may someday possess a mere semblance
of such weapons.
Meanwhile, with over 60 unresolved UN resolutions
(one as old as #342), longtime invader and
occupier of neighbors’ lands, chronic
ethnic cleanser, possessing nuclear weapons,
and with a high living standard, Israel gets
$14 million/day of our tax money string-free
to buy high tech weapons and armored bulldozers
to level buildings and peoples’ homes
and any women in the way. Oh what rhetoric
we’d hear if Saddam ran over someone
with a bulldozer. Truth be told, Israel needs
liberation far more than money.
The world has entered a new phase. The Bush
Administration seems hell bent on bullying
defiance. The attack on Iraq suggests that
raw military power will be the means to a
newly brazen corporate empire, possibly with
an Israeli/American facade. The authors of
the editorials should rejoice in the accomplished
goal: Saddam is no longer the butcher in the
world’s eyes. George Bush and America
G. Tocci is a Holistic wellness consultant
and health writer dba Associated Health Services
in Leominster, Massachusetts.
out Holistic Health
Peter G. Tocci
22 Walker St. #2
Leominster, Mass. USA 01453