We begin with the action page links. Please submit them both, or if you like read on first

http://www.nocrony.com (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor)


http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)

If the election results of this last week are any indicators, the American people are beginning to speak out in a way that has gotten the attention of Congress. For the last year we at the The People's Email Network have been preaching the power of the people speaking out. For those perpetual defeatists who have said that "they" (the Republicans because they were too controlled, and the Democrats because they were too spineless) would never listen to us, it is a wonder what a couple of election losses can do. This week we saw the breathtaking collapse of the majority cruelty budget with its agenda of budget cuts for the poor to finance additional tax cuts for the wealthy, and the conversion of the ANWR giveaway to the windfall profit pocketing oil companies into a virtual third rail. Our own participants generated 12,000 submissions opposing the latter. If only the people will speak out, they will be heard, and only if we are vigilant and CONTINUE to do so.

We are now at a critical crossroads in American judicial history. The Alito nomination represents a tipping point of disaster that the right wing has been spent 20 years working for. The only reason we are even approaching this looming crisis now has been the abject cowardice of those who are supposed to be protecting our rights (abetted by the failure of enough of us to speak out before), in waving through so many objectionable right-wing philosophical cronies without much more than a whimper of protest. All they need is one more John Roberts' style con job and we stand to lose our entire court system as a check and balance on the power of a president to impose corporate rule on every aspect of our lives. We have barely two months to build the people's consensus that will be needed to stop them and every day is increasingly precious.

It really is a very simple formula. If we all speak out to our members of Congress, one of two things MUST happen. Either 1) they will heed our voices and bend to the will of the people, and we win, or else 2) they further increase the motivation of those of us who are speaking out by ignoring us, in which case we have mobilized the base to vote them out of office next time, so again we win. The ONLY way we can lose is if not enough of us speak out. We created our one click resource so that you can send your personal message to all your members of Congress at once, and you can also make it a Letter to the Editor of your nearest daily newspaper, all at the same time. But most of all on this we need to have a unified message. We have proposed the following:


Please note that it is NOT enough to just oppose Alito on some particular statement or ruling. When Karl Rove climbed out from under his rock the other night to get a standing ovation (for getting away so far with outing a CIA agent?) from the Federalist society convention, he gloated about how they had already packed the courts with 200 of their ideological cronies. As they say in baseball, their bench is very deep, and it is not sufficient to bat away one, only to lay down for the next. They have their mantra and they have a corrupt corporate media to push it relentlessly. Their talking points are "Strict constructionist" and "It's a done deal" and "He deserves and up-or-down vote" and "Conservatives are the mainstream," despicable lies each and every one. And any one of us who dares let those words pass our lips in approval or resignation needs to have their mind washed out with soap.

Instead we must propagate our own concept and use every media resource in our power (especially the internet and progressive radio) to purge the propaganda of the other side. If you have a better idea as to what that theme should be, we would like to hear from you IMMEDIATELY so that everyone can be on the same page. But whatever it is we need to settle on it quick, fast and in a hurry, before the situation is allowed to drift any further to the right. So again, the key idea is that the most objectionable thing about Alito is that he is conservative at all, and in so being entirely out of step with what the American people are demanding from their elected representatives now. Some think he would be worse that Roberts. But regardless which one would win the reactionary potato sack race, we can ill afford yet one more.

http://www.nocrony.com (No right wing conservative to replace Sandra Day O'Connor)

The first and biggest lie of all is that there is any such thing as a "strict constructionist," meaning the only role of the courts is to apply the laws that Congress passes in terms of some frozen idea of the intent of the framers of our Constitution. Historically, there have been some very bad laws passed (including a fast one from just the other day we will address in a moment), and it has been the duty of our courts to step in and apply the ultimate doctrine of all law, what is known as "equity." The word appears prominently in the Constitution specifically in defining "The judicial Power of the United States . . . in Equity." From the earliest times in our legal traditions there were separate Courts of Equity set up to dispense justice and to arrive at a fair result even without a controlling law. It has ALWAYS been the place of the courts to correct what is clearly wrong and twisted and contorted, whether given explicit guidelines on how to do it by law and precedent or not. That is exactly what the framers meant in the Ninth amendment to the Constitution when they said:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

For example, suppose there were no laws against pollution and someone is dumping arsenic into a stream feeding your medieval pond in ages past and all your fish die. You go to the king's Court of Equity and you ask them to intercede, and hopefully they look at the case (assuming they are not ignorant of the poisonous effects of arsenic) and order the polluter to stop what he is doing. But the "strict contortionist" would say that there is no such law and that the arsenic dumper is just exercising his own "liberty" in doing so. We would all agree that is the wrong result. And yet corporate ideologues on the benches of our courts are making such decisions in favor of industrial polluters right now in defiance of the laws that we DO have, and none of their reactionary supporters are accusing them of any kind of so-called judicial activism in that regard. Remember, NOT acting is itself also a form of activism, and activism itself is only in the eye of the one being ruled against.

But even the Constitution itself may be no protection where, as just the other day with little advance notice, the Republican majority in the Senate approved an amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill forever denying the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere the right to challenge the legality of their detention by habeas corpus. Leaving aside the thorny problem of whether the courts could correct a law removing their own jurisdiction, the "strict contortionist" would say that Congress can pass any damn law they please (assuming it's one they agree with) even if it's contrary to the Constitution, and the courts should just fall in line (unless they should not).

The 14th Amendment, AFTER speaking of the rights of citizenship, goes on to say that no "person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due and equal process of the law. Article III makes it perfect plain that the judicial power of the courts extends to foreign nationals where the U.S. is a party. The motto emblazoned on the Supreme Court does not say "Equal Justice Under The Law for Americans Only." The "strict contortionist" is always babbling about judges who "legislate from the bench." And yet here the Congress is attempting to do an uninvited end run around an express ruling of the Supreme Court and in violation of the heart of the Constitution. Are you hearing anybody accuse them of "adjudicating from the legislature?" Maybe you just did.

McCain, who at least got the torture amendment right, in defense of his own vote to scuttle habeas corpus for those in Guantanamo said that we can't have them petitioning to complain about the food allowed. Well, gee, maybe they don't like being in lemon chicken hell with two kinds of fruit (just for staged photo ops) to be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. A spokesperson for the so-called moderate Senator Snowe asked "Do we need all those lawyers going down there to hear their complaints?" One can only wonder how much McCain would have appreciated it if a lawyer had turned up in his defense when he was being tortured himself in North Vietnam. But the "strict contortionist" would say that we can make up a subclass of humans called "enemy combatants," with the president king the sole arbiter of who should be so degraded.

Patrick Fitzgerald was perfectly able to convict terrorists in the cases he handled. Moussaoui, a real terrorist, chose to plead guilty when confronted with the evidence against him. Do we need lawyers going down there? You bet we do, and the more the better, to show the world that everyone in the United States of America gets a fair trial, even if you are an accused terrorist. The problem is the real reason they may be so afraid of letting these people into our courts is they are still trying the cover up the torture which has already taken place in our names. If the detainees are guilty of something let them be tried in open court in the glorious splendor of our freedom. For Congress to presume to pass anything to abort that is a stench in the nostrils of our own democracy.

http://www.millionphonemarch.com/habeas.htm (Restore Habeas Corpus)

We are a nation of laws, not of men. But it is still up to our Supreme Court to correct the law when it strays too far from the mean of true justice (equity), to be then applied equally to all. It is THAT which has made the United States the greatest country in the world, a legal system the envy of the world's citizenry. And that is what is threatened most by these patently biased nominees. The amount of damage they can do in the lower courts is thankfully limited by the overriding balance of hopefully the prudent reason in the Supreme Court, which is precisely what they have schemed these many years to tilt. Some say the Muslim extremists want to go back to the 13th century. The "strict contortionist" wants to go back to the 10th, a time when the judiciary turned a deaf ear and a cold heart to anyone who was not rich, or could not stand to hold a burning hot poker in their hand without screaming.

These nominees are being hand picked not for their fairness, but for their willingness to tow the corporate crony line, to defer to the president dictator, and in some specious way attempt to make it sound perfectly reasonable. Sure, Alito has some very offensive opinions on the record as an appellate judge, but were he unwisely be allowed to ascend to the Supreme Court he would no longer be bound by the controlling letter of higher precedent, and only by his own "respect" for that precedent. And we are very sure he would say he still respects Roe v. Wade very much in the morning after he casts the deciding vote to overturn this case he so clearly believes was wrongly decided.

In short, just like Roberts, Alito will don the sheep's clothing of not being one of those mean old nasty "activist" judges only long enough to try to sneak past his confirmation hearing . . . again. In fact, they can recycle the outfit Roberts used since he himself no longer has any need of it. To get on the appellate bench, Alito promised that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, where he had extensive holdings. Yet he broke that promise the first chance he got, until someone called him on it, and did it again in another parallel case. The "strict contortionist" would say (and Alito in fact did say) that he was being "unduly restrictive" in his initial sworn representation to the Senate. And we can expect he will say he was also being unduly restrictive in promising restraint when the stampede of precedent reversals begins for which the mouths of the right wing have watered for so long.

At its best and brightest moments our Supreme Court has been a bulwark against injustice not otherwise struck down. The real danger is in allowing a clearly ideological extremist to be unleashed in yet another seat on our highest court, to be then only restrained by a sense of fairness they have demonstrated they do not possess. The most unpopular second term president in American history would not have freely nominated anyone who would not give his most reactionary supporters every decision they could have predetermined themselves. The only objections you hear coming from the right wing are concerns that Alito might not be sufficiently and manifestly in their pockets, their basis for demanding the withdrawal of the crony Miers, who you should know was also introduced for enthusiastic applause by Rove at the Federalist soiree.

Alito must be rejected, and each and every other subsequent candidate of this federalist gang, by filibuster if that is what it takes, until the people get what they deserve and will demand, no worse than a true moderate centrist as a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. To win we must do much more than nitpick this or that case or whatever. This goes far beyond opinions to effectively immunize employers from race discrimination cases or to strip search 10 year old girls or whether Alito dishonored his promise to recuse himself. We must put our foot down as the true majority of the American people to say that NO conservative whatsoever is acceptable for this seat. We need every voice out there on our side to repeat that essential position every day for the next two months.

And for that to happen we the people need to speak out with our own voices now and send a personal message on what YOU have to say to your Senate.

Informant: Scott Munson

Torture is the Worst Possible Thing We Could Do


Informant: John Calvert

The Corporate Media’s Threat to Freedom

by Mike Whitney

Confidence in the media has never been lower. A broad section of the public doesn’t believe anything they read in the papers nor do they see reporters as impartial observers of world events. This should be no great surprise. The model of a privately owned media ensures that the facts are massaged to suit ownership, a practice that inevitably undermines credibility. The marriage between the media and the state increases the danger to the public interests. This is especially true when the media becomes a marketing tool for the government, promoting its vastly unpopular wars, its attacks on the social safety net, and its vicious assault on civil liberties. The media has become an adversary to the people it is supposed to serve. It now functions exclusively as a weapon in the imperial arsenal, exalting the state and its wartime agenda, while savaging the institutions of democracy and personal liberty. Its role as state-propagandist is conspicuous in everything from its blind devotion to the president to its obfuscation of facts that discredit the administration. If we consider a few of the critical stories the mainstream media suppressed, we get a clearer idea of its overall agenda...


Unpacking the Slogan: “Support Our Troops”


Testimony Given by CIA Director Suggests Manipulation of Pre-war Intelligence

Rediscovered Testimony Given by CIA Director in 2001
Suggests Manipulation of Pre-war Intelligence

by Jason Leopold

President George W. Bush’s attempt Friday to silence critics who say his administration manipulated prewar intelligence on Iraq is undercut by congressional testimony given in February 2001 by former CIA Director George Tenet, who said that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or other countries in the Middle East, Dissident Voice has found. Details of Tenet’s testimony have not been reported before...


Bush Team Has Good Reason To Worry

by Evelyn J. Pringle

In its systematic and concerted effort to portray a link between Saddam and bin Laden, the White House propaganda team was so successful that a poll conducted in late 2002 showed that over half of the people polled believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11. While that may have been great news for the home team back then, the problem for Bush today is that he is never going to get 50% of Americans to erase their memory of all the statements that were made, and believe the line that members of the administration never said anything to make people think that Saddam was involved in 9/11...


An Open Letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

by Jim Glover

Dear SLPD:

In your editorial of November 12, you continue to beat up on military whistleblower Jimmy Massey, who had the temerity to point out that our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq might not be acting as humanely as our mythology would have them do. You conclude by congratulating yourself as follows: Absolute truth is hard to come by, but as the bloggers bloviate and the blowhards blow, good reporters and good newspapers are out there digging. Really? Perhaps, then, you could answer a few questions that have been bothering me about good newspapers...


How could America have given George W. Bush a second term?

Red State Road Trip: A 60-Minute Documentary

How could America have given George W. Bush a second term? Filmmaker Chris Hume decided to find out by embarking on a 6,000-mile, cross-country journey in search of America’s soul. The result: a fascinating, hilarious, and often disturbing road-trip adventure.


Yellowcake to 'Plamegate'

The intelligence community's "failure to undertake a real review of the documents - even though their validity was the subject of serious doubts - was a major failure of the intelligence system," the presidentially appointed Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States concluded last March.


US Troops Used Lions in Torture

"They took us to a cage - an animal cage that had lions in it within the Republican Palace," he said. "And they threatened us that if we did not confess, they would put us inside the cage with the lions in it.... And they opened the door and they threatened that if I did not confess, that they were going to throw me inside the cage. And as the lion was coming closer, they would pull me back out and shut the door, and tell me, 'We will give you one more chance to confess.' And I would say, 'Confess to what?'"


Große Koalition: BUND befürchtet Rückschläge in der Chemie- und Agrarpolitik


Für den Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) bietet der Koalitionsvertrag von CDU/CSU und SPD in wesentlichen Teilen keine ausreichenden Antworten auf die umweltpolitischen Herausforderungen. "Das nur halbherzige Antasten der umweltschädlichen Subventionen" bewertet der Umweltverband als ungenügend. Akzeptabel sei die faktische Fortsetzung der bisherigen Energiepolitik. Hervorzuheben sei "die Tatsache", dass die SPD eine Verlängerung der Laufzeiten für Atomkraftwerke verhindert habe. Bei den Themen Chemikaliensicherheit und Gentechnik haben sich Union und SPD nach Auffassung der Umweltschützer jedoch dem Druck einflussreicher Industriebranchen gebeugt. Die drohende Verwässerung der Schutzbestimmungen vor gefährlichen Chemikalien und das Aufweichen bislang vorbildlicher Haftungsregeln in der Agro-Gentechnik seien gravierende Rückschläge beim Verbraucherschutz.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

Friedensbewegung kritisiert Deutschlands "weltweite Ambitionen"

Geostrategische Ziele: Friedensbewegung kritisiert Deutschlands "weltweite Ambitionen" (15.11.05)

Für die deutsche Friedensbewegung ist der außenpolitische Teil des Koalitionsvertrags von CDU/CSU und SPD vor allem eine Sammlung "wohlklingende Phrasen". Und dort, wo es konkret werde, sei er problematisch. "die stärkere Betonung der nationalen Interessen im Europäischen Einigungsprozess, die Rehabilitierung des Anbiederungskurses der CDU/CSU an die US-Kriegspolitik gegen den Irak, eine aktivere Industriepolitik zur Konsolidierung der deutschen und europäischen Rüstungsproduktion, die offensivere Formulierung geostrategischer Ziele in Osteuropa, im Nahen und Mittleren Osten und in Asien, den in Erwägung gezogenen Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Inneren, die Unterordnung der Entwicklungspolitik unter sicherheitspolitische Belange." Die Experten der drei Parteien hätten im Wesentlichen fortgeschrieben, was auch in der rot-grünen Koalition außenpolitischer Konsens gewesen sei: Die Bundesregierung beschreite weiter "den Weg Deutschlands von einer europäischen Mittelmacht zu einer hoch gerüsteten Großmacht mit weltweiten Ambitionen".

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

A terrorist attack would validate the President's war on terror


Dec 6 - National Day of Counter-Recruitment

November 14th, 2005

Please forward to anyone who might be interested!



ENDORSED BY: Cindy Sheehan, Pablo Paredes, war resister; David Airhart, Iraq War vet and Kent State student facing expulsion for peaceful counter-recruitment; Tariq Khan, George Mason University student assaulted for peaceful counter-recruitment; Charles Peterson, Holyoke Community College student assaulted for peaceful counter-recruitment; David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org; Traprock Peace Center; Anthony Arnove, editor, Iraq Under Siege and co-editor with Howard Zinn, Voices of a People’s History of the United States.

* Say No to the Solomon Amendment!

Campus Anti-War Network is calling for actions around the country to show the federal government that they cannot intimidate schools for kicking out military recruiters. On December 6, the Supreme Court will hear the FAIR v Rumsfeld case (brought by several universities), which will decide whether schools can ban military recruiters wihout losing federal funding. Currently, the Solomon Amendment allows the government to cut off federal funding from schools that ban military recruiters. This policy forces schools to accept military recruitment, even though the military’s anti-gay “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates university anti-discrimination policies.

* Bring the movement for COLLEGE NOT COMBAT to a recruiting station near you!

On Dec 6, when the Supreme Court hears FAIR v Rumsfeld, students will hold protests at military recruiting stations across the country, including in San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and many other cities. In Washington, D.C., a press conference and demonstration will take place outside the Supreme Court.

This action comes amid increasing revelations of the horror of the Iraq occupation. Recent video footage shows that the US used chemical weapons (white phosphorus) in Fallujah, laying bare the lies about “weapons of mass destruction.” Occupation is not liberation. On December 6, we refuse to let the military recruit young people to kill and die in a war based on lies.

December 6 is also the one-year anniversary of Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes’ refusal to board his ship in protest of the war, which sparked a national campaign that displayed and strengthened the growing refusal of soldiers to fight this war. Recently, the counter-recruitment movement won a victory in San Francisco, where 60 percent of voters approved a proposition to oppose military recruiters in schools and support scholarships to counteract the poverty draft, which targets the poor, and people of color.

Let’s mobilize on Dec 6 to counter the military’s ability to wage its illegal war and to support the right of universities to oppose military recruiting on their campuses.

Say No to the Solomon Amendment! COLLEGE NOT COMBAT! TROOPS OUT NOW!

We welcome all organizations to endorse this day of action or to sponsor it with us. If you want to endorse, or you want to organize an action in your area, email recruitersout@yahoo.com and check out our website at http://www.campusantiwar.net

Ashley Smith

Join CINDY SHEEHAN, HOWARD ZINN, DAHR JAMAIL, war resisters PABLO PAREDES and CAMILO MEJIA, Progressive Democrats of America director TIM CARPENTER, Iraq Vets Against the War & Campus Antiwar Network member DAVID AIRHART, and many more in supporting this day of counter-recruitment action on December 6! (Full endorsement list below.)


December 6, 2005

Campus Antiwar Network - http://www.campusantiwar.net

* Say No to the Solomon Amendment!

Campus Anti-War Network is calling for actions around the country to show the federal government that they cannot intimidate schools for kicking out military recruiters. On December 6, the Supreme Court will hear the FAIR v Rumsfeld case (brought by several universities), which will decide whether schools can ban military recruiters wihout losing federal funding. Currently, the Solomon Amendment allows the government to cut off federal funding from schools that ban military recruiters.
This policy forces schools to accept military recruitment, even though the military’s anti-gay “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates university anti-discrimination policies.

* Bring the movement for COLLEGE NOT COMBAT to your town!

On Dec 6, when the Supreme Court hears FAIR v Rumsfeld, students will hold protests at military recruiting stations, federal buildings and school administrative offices across the country, including in San Francisco, Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and many other places. In Washington, D.C., a demonstration will take place on the steps of the Supreme Court.

We are proud to join the fight against anti-gay discrimination in the military. We also believe that recruitment for the war in Iraq has no place in schools. Our action comes amid increasing revelations of the horror of the Iraq occupation. Recent video footage shows that the US used chemical weapons (white phosphorus) in Fallujah, laying bare the truth about exactly who is using “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. Nobody should have to take part in this to pay for school! On December 6, we refuse to let the military recruit young people to kill and die in a war based on lies.

December 6 is also the one-year anniversary of Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes’s refusal to board his ship in protest of the war, which sparked a national campaign that displayed and strengthened the growing refusal of soldiers to fight this war. Recently, the counter-recruitment movement won a massive victory in San Francisco, where 60% of voters approved a College Not Combat proposition to oppose military recruiters in schools and support scholarships to counteract the poverty draft — which targets the poor and people of color. Today, with the Bush administration in a growing crisis and expanding calls for immediate withdrawal, we want to spread the “College Not Combat” movement across the country!

Let’s mobilize on Dec 6 to counter the military’s ability to wage its illegal war, support the right of universities to oppose military recruiting on their campuses, and bring the troops home from Iraq!

Say No to the Solomon Amendment!


Organized by the Campus Antiwar Network - http://www.campusantiwar.net - RecruitersOut@yahoo.com


ORGANIZATIONS: Bay Area United Against War; Bloomington Peace Action Coalition; the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors; Central Vermont Peace and Justice; the City of Berkeley, CA, by unanimous vote of its city council; Cities for Peace; Free Palestine Alliance; International Action Center; International Socialist Organization; Justice in Palestine Coalition; Mid-South Peace and Justice Center; Mt. Diablo Peace & Justice Center; Peninsula Raging Grannies; San Juan Peace Network; Stop the War Coalition (UK); Texans for Peace; Traprock Peace Center; Youth Against War and Racism

INDIVIDUALS*: AHMED SHAWKI, editor, International Socialist Review and member, steering committee, National Council of Arab-Americans; ANTHONY ARNOVE, editor, Iraq Under Siege; BONNIE WEINSTEIN, Bay Area United Against War; BRIAN WILLSON, member, coordinating Committee, Humboldt Bay Veterans For Peace, and Commissioner, Arcata City Nuclear Free Zone and Peace Commission; CAMILO MEJIA, war resister; CARL WEBB, war resister; CEYLON MOONEY, co-coordinator, Wheels of Justice Tour, Voices for Creative Nonviolence; CHARLES JENKS, Advisory Board Chair, Traprock Peace Center; CHARLES PETERSON, Holyoke Community College student assaulted for peaceful counter-recruitment; CHARLIE JACKSON, co-founder, Texans for Peace; CINDY SHEEHAN, mother of U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, who camped outside Bush’s Crawford ranch to hold him accountable; DAHR JAMAIL, writer; DAVID AIRHART, Iraq war veteran and Kent State student who beat expulsion charges for peaceful counter-recruitment; DAVID ROVICS, progressive songwriter and musician; DAVID SWANSON, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org; DAVID ZIRIN, author, What’s My Name Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States; DENNIS KYNE, Gulf War veteran and activist; DIRK ADRIAENSENS, coordinator of SOS Iraq and member of the Executive committee of the Brussells Tribunal; FRANCES CROWE, founder of Northampton Draft Information Center in 1968 (she counseled over 2000 young people on the draft) and co-founder of Traprock Peace Center and Western Mass AFSC; HOWARD ZINN, author of People’s History of the United States; M. JUNAID ALAM, co-editor of LeftHook.org; KATHY KELLY, Co-coordinator, Voices for Creative Nonviolence; LINDSAY GERMAN, convenor, Stop the War Coalition (UK); MICHAEL LETWIN, Co-Convener, NYC Labor Against the War, and Former president, UAW Local 2325; NATYLIE BALDWIN, Mt. Diablo Peace & Justice Center; NORMAN SOLOMON, author and syndicated columnist; PABLO PAREDES, war resister; PALOA PISI, publisher of Uruknet (Italy); PAT ELDER, co-founder, DC Anti-War Network; PHIL GASPER, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University in California; RANDY KEHLER, Vietnam War draft noncooperator, long-time peace activist/war-tax refuser, former national coordinator, Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, co-founder and first Director of Traprock Peace Center; RANIA MASRI, writer and researcher; SHANNYN SOLLITT, Peace Activist/Educator -NetWorks Productions; SHUJAA GRAHAM, exonerated Death row prisoner, anti death penalty activist; TARIQ KHAN, George Mason University student assaulted and arrested for peaceful counter-recruitment; THOMAS F. BARTON, publisher of G.I. Special; TIM CARPENTER, director of Progressive Democrats of America; TODD CHRETIEN, author of Proposition I/College Not Combat ballot initiative in San Francisco; WARD REILLY, South East National Contact - Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Baton Rouge *All affiliations are for identification purposes only

We welcome all organizations to endorse this day of action and/or organize with us. If you want to endorse, organize an action in your
area, or learn about the action nearest you, email recruitersout@yahoo.com and check out our website at

Campus Antiwar Network - http://www.campusantiwar.net

Ashley Smith

Schnüffler ohne Skrupel

Neuer BND-Skandal lässt viele Fragen offen.

Carte Blanche für Menschenrechtsverletzungen?

Jordanien: CIA und GID http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21353/1.html

Umfrage ermittelt Meinung britischer Parlamentsmitglieder zu Vorsorgemaßnahmen in Bezug auf Mobiltelefone und Masten


fgf 10-11-05

Die Online-Publikation „spiked“ hat sechs britische Parlamentsmitglieder (MPs) über ihre Meinung zur Sicherheit von Mobiltelefonen und Masten befragt. Weiteres Umfragethema war die Besorgnis ihrer Wähler und deren Meinung über die von den Behörden ergriffenen Vorsorgemaßnahmen nach der Veröffentlichung des Stewart Reports im Jahr 2000. Die Antworten zeigen, dass die Parlamentsmitglieder - genau wie die Bevölkerung - unterschiedlicher Auffassung darüber sind, ob Mobiltelefone ein gesundheitliches Risiko darstellen oder nicht. Einig sind sich allerdings alle darin, dass Vorsorge eine vernünftige Maßnahme ist.


Doppelte Moral

Die UN kritisiert weit verbreitete Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Irak, das Pentagon musste nun doch den Einsatz von Napalm-ähnlichen Brandbomben in Falludscha einräumen.


Strikes Multiply Amid Increase in Labor Fights

Luckily for U.S capitalism both the U.S. anti-war movement and the established labor organizations do not think that there is any relationship between the oppression of the Iraqi workers by the War on Iraq and the oppression of U.S. workers. Whew U.S. capitalism would sure be in a lot of trouble if the anti-war movement and the workers struggles in the United States began to UNITE. What if ant-war demonstrations/rallies were combined with STRIKES and shut downs and work stoppages in vital sections of the United States economy (the ports and harbors of the United States for instance)? How about an anti-war movement that shut down the U.S. harbors, the rail heads, the busses and the taxi system? The workers are generally ready to do that but for some reason the U.S. anti-war movement does not want to do work stoppages and STRIKES against the War on Iraq. Why? Why aren't anti-war actions include work stoppages and STRIKES in addition to the marches, holding ups signs and listening to speeches that the anti-war movement does at this time? The port truckers and the bus drivers (well a dissident section of the bus drivers at any rate) and the taxi drivers are ready to talk to anti-war movement activists but so far few anti-war activists have been willing to put in the time to talk to the port truckers, the bus drivers and the taxi drivers. Maybe it is time to start talking and to start to UNITE.

Jim DeMaegt

Strikes Multiply Amid Increase in Labor Fights
November 15, 2005

The number of work stoppages in the U.S., including strikes by unions and management-sponsored lockouts, is on the upswing as tensions rise between workers and companies that are seeking to cut wages and benefits.

The trend extends beyond the troubled auto and airline industries, as continuing strikes by telecom workers at Sprint
Corp. and machinists at Boeing
http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=ba Co.'s rocket division attest. Last week, graduate teaching assistants at New York University walked off the job and musicians at Radio City Music Hall remain locked out by Cablevision Systems
http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=cvc Corp. Unions representing copper workers at Asarco LLC, meanwhile, finally reached a tentative agreement with the company to end a four-month strike.

It remains to be seen if a surge in strikes will exacerbate labor's battered image, experts say. At a time when many workers question the relevance of unions in a mobile service economy, such increases could reinforce stereotypes of militant industrial workers. And yet, workers could be drawn to unions willing to strike to resist cuts to health-care benefits, in particular.

"A strike is a dangerous thing in terms of public relations," says Gary Chaison, a labor expert at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Unions are presented with the opportunity to demonstrate strength, but if they lose, strikes can "point out tremendous weakness," he said.

Work stoppages, including both strikes and lockouts resulting from deadlocked negotiations and other labor disputes, are up 14% this year, according to Bureau of National Affairs Inc., a Washington, D.C., publisher of legal and regulatory information. There were 231 work stoppages initiated through the end of August, compared with 202 in the same period last year, with the vast majority being strikes. The group tracks work stoppages at companies of all sizes mainly from government reports, union publications and news reports. (The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, by contrast, only tracks work stoppages involving 1,000 or more employees.)

The United Auto Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Service Employees International Union, the International Association of Machinists and the United Steelworkers of America have all engaged in more work stoppages through August than they had last year, according to BNA data. The Teamsters were involved in 47 work stoppages through August of this year, far more than any other union, up from 38 the prior year.

The recent upswing is "a sign of frustration, almost to the point of desperation," says Prof. Chaison of Clark University. "For many workers there's no alternative. They feel that they were badly beaten up in past negotiations or that companies are making tremendous demands on them."

Many labor leaders said the strikes have been effective, pointing to the more than 18,000 Boeing machinists who recently renegotiated a more favorable health-care benefits package after striking.

More major unrest could be on the horizon. Some analysts predict the showdown between the UAW and Delphi Corp., which is seeking sharp cuts in union pay, health-care benefits and pensions, could culminate in a strike -- potentially crippling auto plants that depend on steady supplies of Delphi parts.

The vast majority of the more than 20,000 contract negotiations each year result in new contracts. Yet the increase in strikes is a stark turnabout from the steady declines of recent years. Labor experts attributed the drop to the difficulty of waging successful strikes as the percentage of union workers at many workplaces declines, and as companies increasingly hire replacement workers to thwart strikes.

Despite media focus on strikes in ailing industries, the increase in strikes could also partly be driven by the improved economy, since unions often view strikes as a more effective threat when companies are faring well and labor markets are tight. "Strikes tend to rise during economic expansions rather than contractions in the economy," says Joseph Tracy, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

But others, including union leaders, argue that the increase indicates the harsher negotiating climate. "Employers are taking a much harder bargaining position, and that's naturally going to be met by an elevated level of worker militancy," says Ron Blackwell, chief economist for the AFL-CIO. "Given what we see going on this year, you have to expect the level of strike activity would increase."

At Sprint, union members said that after absorbing rising health-care costs for several years, they are unwilling to accept concessions when the company is profitable. "If they can prove where they're hurting, we might be able to help them out," says Eddie Hicks, president of Communications Workers of America local 3871 in Bluff City, Tenn., where about 300 workers have been on strike since Oct. 10.

A total of roughly 500 workers, mostly technicians, remain on strike at Sprint, though the company says it has reached tentative agreements with two of four striking bargaining units. Sprint spokeswoman Debra Peterson said the company is asking striking unions to accept conditions that already apply to the vast majority of its employees, including many union-represented workers. "We believe that we are offering a very competitive compensation and benefits package for our employees," she says.

While several recent high-profile strikes have failed, including at Northwest Airlines
http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=nwac , where the company hired replacement mechanics to keep operations running, that may not deter frustrated workers, several labor experts said.

The aggressive public-relations tactics of unions that broke away from the AFL-CIO this year -- including the SEIU, Teamsters and Unite Here -- to create a rival labor federation called Change to Win Federation, could carry over into increased strikes at companies that can't easily bring in replacement workers, says Richard Hurd, a professor of labor studies at Cornell University. "Is this an aberration this year or is it going to be sustained?" he asks. "If defensive strikes are effective at holding onto benefits," work stoppages could well increase next year.

The breakaway unions say they left the AFL-CIO because they wanted to devote more resources to organizing new members for more aggressive campaigns. "There have been efforts in a number of industries by employers to take a hard line unnecessarily. Unions are fed up with it," says Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, a Change to Win union that represents 450,000 mostly hotel and apparel workers. "Unions are in a fighting mode."

Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com

051115 - R - Mobilfunk - Newsletter


ödp-Petition wird zurückgewiesen

Pressemitteilung von: ödp Rems-Murr

(openPR) - ödp-Kreisrat Gerhard Geiger findet es sehr merkwürdig, dass der Petitionsausschuss seine Petition für bessere Verbraucheraufklärung und technische Vorsorge vor vermeidbarer gepulster HF-Strahlung als normale Petition, nicht jedoch als die neuerlich mögliche öffentliche Petition angenommen habe. Dabei hatte ihm selbst das Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz im April 2005 sehr wohl auf seine Anfrage attestiert, dass Vorsicht vor den DECT-Telefonen geboten sei. Was hier der Petitionsausschuss bzw. noch mehr der Verbraucherschutz- und das Umweltministerium tue, so Geiger, sei eine unbegreifliche Nachlässigkeit. Es werde alles getan, um die Bürger über die wissenschaftlich erkannten möglichen gesundheitlichen Folgen der gepulsten DECT- und Mobilfunk-Strahlung im Unklaren zu lassen. Die Sache erinnere an die Jahrzehnte behinderte und verleugnete Raucheraufklärung. Es wäre besonders bei der DECT-Technik eine Bagatellmühe der Politik, eine auf reine Nutzungsintervalle beschränkte DECT-Strahlung (CT2-Technik) bei der entsprechenden Industrie vorsorglich hinzuwirken, erklärte Kreisrat Geiger bei der Vorstandssitzung des ödp-Kreisverbands in Fellbach. Mobilfunk ja - doch mit Maß, auch bei den Grenzwerthöhen, die ohnehin nur thermische Kriterien erfüllten.

Die eigentlich dem Wohle des Bürgers verpflichteten Politiker wären wohl vordergründig nur der Industrie hörig, vermutete Geiger. Ihre eigentliche Funktion, vor allem durch vorsorgliche Information zur Vorsorge und sinnvoller Anwendung moderner Techniken beizutragen, erfüllten sie nicht. Dabei, so Geiger, sei es technisch leicht möglich, zumindest bei den schnurlosen DECT-Heimtelefonen eine Strahlungsabschaltung im Stand-By-Betrieb einzuführen. Immerhin, so zeigten auch lokale Messungen, bestrahle die DECT-Telefone in der Regel den Menschen noch wesentlich stärker als die Mobilfunktechnik. Geiger: "Es ist geradezu lachhaft diesen minimalen Einsatz eines solchen Schaltelements nicht zu ermöglichen - nicht ermöglichen zu wollen!" Man müsse sich die Frage gefallen lassen, wie sehr die Politik hier korrumpiert sei. Es gebe zu Denken und sage viel aus, dass es keinen Haftpflichtversicherer gebe, der Betreiber von Mobilfunkanlagen schütze - auch dies sei dem Verbraucher kaum bekannt. Eigentlich, so Geiger, wäre längst eine Anzeige gegen diesen "Verbraucherschutz" und "Umweltschutz" fällig. Mit der Frage, ob ein solcher Schritt möglich sei, wandte sich Gerhard Geiger nun an die Dachorganisation der Mobilfunkinitiativen.

Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (ödp) Kreisverband Rems-Murr
Geschäftsführer Guido Klamt, Steinbeißstr. 60, 70839 Gerlingen
Tel/Fax 07156-175257


Die Wirkung elektromagnetischer Felder, emittiert von Mobiltelefonen, auf den menschlichen Schlaf

Bereits im Vormonat veröffentlichten Australische Medien Forschungsergebnisse aus Melbourne, die von einer Beeinflussung menschlicher Gehirnströme durch Mobiltelefone berichten. Die Ergebnisse der Studie wurden nun in der Ausgabe 16 der Zeitschrift "Neuroreport" veröffentlicht: The effect of electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones on human sleep; Loughran SP, Wood AW, Barton JM, Croft RJ, Thompson B, Stough C.; Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1973-6.


Aus: FGF-Infoline vom 10.11.2005

Schwedisches Gericht bezeichnet die Emissionen von UMTS als eine "gefährliche Aktivität"



Schwedisches Gericht bezeichnet die Emissionen von UMTS als eine "gefährliche Aktivität"

Das oberste Gericht für Umweltrecht in Schweden hat in einem Berufungsurteil festgestellt, dass die Emissionen von 3G-Mobilfunksendeanlagen (UMTS) eine Gefahr für die Umwelt mit sich bringen. Als Begründung wurde unter anderem angegeben, dass Risiken nicht ausgeschlossen werden können und dass schon die bloße Furcht von Anwohnern vor solchen Anlagen eine Verletzung des Umweltrechts bedeute.

Gefunden bei www.elektrosmoginfo.de
Schwedisch http://www.ssi.se/News/newsEntire.asp?ID=188
Quelle: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=275

Holländische NGOs drängen Europa, Mobilfunk-Antennen weit weg von Wohnungen zu installieren


"Wählen Sie bevorzugt Orte, an denen keine Menschen leben oder arbeiten, stellen Sie sicher, dass die Bürger umfassende Informationen über alle unterschiedlichen Quellen elektromagnetischer Strahlung erhalten und führen Sie Forschung durch, insbesondere mit Kohortenstudien über die Auswirkungen auf Menschen in der Nähe von Antennen.“ Kürzlich veröffentlichten holländische Nichtregierungsorganisationen diese dringenden Empfehlungen an die Europäische Union und die Regierung der Niederlande.


Aus: FGF-Infoline vom 17.11.2005

Omega der Forschungsgemeinschaft Funk e.V. (FGF), gehören alle deutschen Mobilfunkbetreiber an.

Antrag auf Mitteilung der Strahlung von WLAN in Lufthansaflugzeugen


Volker Hartenstein, MdL a.D.


Bitte veröffentlichen Sie folgende Stellungnahme in Ihrem Verteiler:

Es wird immer wieder geklagt darüber, dass die Behörden und Betreiber sich weigern, Strahlungsleistungen an BIs und Betroffene herauszugeben.

Seit Ende 2004 sind die Aufsichtsbehörden (z.B. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft, für Verkehr, etc.) durch das verbesserte Umweltinformationsgesetz (s. Anhang) verpflichtet, diese Informationen zu besorgen und weiterzugeben. Es gilt eine Frist von einem Monat für die Beantwortung.


Bitte machen Sie reichlich Gebrauch davon und lassen Sie sich nicht durch das Gerede der Betreiber und Behörden über Geheimhaltungsverpflichtungen oder schutzbedürftigen Daten abschrecken - das Gesetz ist sehr eindeutig auf der Seite der betroffenen Bevölkerung: Emissionen müssen öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden.

Anlagen als Beispiel: - UIG 12/04 - Antrag auf Mitteilung der Strahlung von WLAN in Lufthansaflugzeugen - Antrag an RegTP wegen Strahlungswerten in Wolfratshausen (wurde an Zentral eweitergegeben - bis jetzt noch keine Antwort)


Hans Schmidt
1. Vorsitzender Bürgerinitiative Wolfratshausen zum Schutz vor Elektrosmog e.V.

Dr.-Ing. Hans Schmidt
Gebhardtstr. 2d

82515 Wolfratshausen

Tel: 08171/29751
Fax: 08171/911035

WOR, den 06.11.05

An das

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie
Fax: 01888/615-4436

Betr: fly net / WLAN auf Langstreckenflügen der Lufthansa

Antrag nach UIG auf Mitteilung der Strahlungsdaten in Lufthansa-Flugzeugen mit WLAN

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

als Elektrosensibler und Vielflieger habe ich seit Februar dieses Jahres versucht, von der Lufthansa Auskunft darüber zu bekommen, wie hoch die Strahlungsdichte in den von ihnen mit WLAN ausgerüsteten Flugzeugen ist (siehe Schreiben vom 6.2.05 Anlage). Endgültig abgelehnt hat die Lufthansa mein Begehren mit Schreiben vom 23.09.05 (siehe Anlage): „Obwohl wir Ihr Anliegen sehr gut verstehen, bitten wir um Ihr Verständnis, dass wir Ihnen die Untersuchungsergebnisse sowie die von Ihnen gewünschten detaillierten technischen Daten wie Frequenz, Pulsung und Leistungsflussdichte nicht zur Verfügung stellen können.“ - Die Daten sind also wohl vorhanden, aber werden nicht zugänglich gemacht.

Die Lufthansa untersteht der Aufsicht Ihres Ministeriums. Sie ist zudem (siehe §2, Absatz 2 des UIG) eine juristische Person des Privatrechts, die öffentliche Dienstleistungen erbringt, und dabei der Kontrolle des Bundes oder einer unter der Aufsicht des Bundes stehenden juristischen Person unterliegt.

Hiermit beantrage ich nun ganz offiziell nach dem neuen Umweltinformationsgesetz die Weitergabe der von mir im Schreiben vom 6.2.05 geforderten Daten, da es sich eindeutig um Emissionen handelt, die laut §9 UIG grundsätzlich weiterzugeben sind.

Ich weise außerdem ausdrücklich auf die in §3 UIG fixierte Frist von einem Monat hin, die für die Beantwortung bzw. die Auskunft gilt.

Bitte bestätigen Sie den Eingang dieses Schreibens und, falls Sie nicht die richtige Stelle im Behördenapparat sind, leiten Sie dieses Schreiben an die richtige Stelle weiter und geben Sie mir darüber Nachricht.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Anlagen: mein Schreiben an die LH vom 06.02.05
Endgültige Absage der LH vom 23.09.05

Senate Republican Leaders Seeking Iraq Exit Strategy


Finally Medical Journal Admits the Truth About Bird Flu

The British Medical Journal recently featured an editorial on the bird flu in which they state the following:

The lack of sustained human-to-human transmission suggests that this AH5N1 avian virus does not currently have the capacity to cause a human pandemic.

Theoretical Speculation

While they do go on to say the virus could mutate with a influenza A virus and has the potential to acquire the means for rapid human to human transmission, it does not have this ability now; the preparation and warnings are entirely about a theoretical speculation.

No Lawsuits or Compensation Allowed

Meanwhile, the Bush administration's proposed $7.1-billion pandemic flu plan seeks broad restrictions on lawsuits against producers of vaccines and antiviral drugs, and makes no mention of how those injured or killed by adverse reactions could be compensated.

Yesterday's Wired magazine does an excellent review of detailing why this plan will fail. They conclude:

"...it will take at least five years to create enough manufacturing capacity to reach that goal. Then it will take another eight months to create a new vaccine that combats the specific strain that would be killing people. In other words, it would be 2011 at the earliest before every American could be vaccinated against a bird flu pandemic."

The other, even more serious shortcoming of the plan is that it would protect vacine producers and distributors except in cases of "willful misconduct," a term to be defined later.

Lawsuits Not An Undue Burden

Bush has called "the growing burden of litigation" one of the greatest obstacles to vaccine production. But critics have pointed out that lawsuits against vaccines are relatively rare; a recent study of the subject found only ten lawsuits related to flu vaccine over the past 20 years.

British Medical Journal October 29, 2005; 331(7523): 975-976

Los Angeles Times November 4, 2005 SOURCE:


Bush's fowl play

Propaganda Matrix
by Jeffrey Tucker


As part of this plan, there is a website, pandemicflu.gov, which is also a helpful link if you haven't so far believed a word you have read. Here you can click around and find the Mother of All Flu Reports: The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza. Be assured that 'the federal government will use all instruments of national power to address the pandemic threat.' That includes FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and a hundred other concrete palaces in DC...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Abused by the Senate

Boston Globe
by staff


People in the custody of the federal government should not be without basic human rights. The Senate needs to rescind its vote last week that would prevent 750 so-called 'illegal combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from appealing their imprisonment in federal court. ... US troops are fighting to safeguard the United States, with its guarantees of personal liberty, not to have civil rights limited in the name of national security. Habeas corpus is a venerable principle of Anglo-American law under which prisoners can challenge their status in court. Congress has the power to limit it under extraordinary circumstances. The early phase of the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to maintain Washington's lifeline to the North, met that criterion. The war on terror, for all its importance, does not...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Questions for Judge Alito

Washington Times
by Nat Hentoff


Since I am not a member of the Senate Judiciary committee, I have taken the uninvited liberty to suggest a series of questions during the confirmation process of Judge Samuel Alito that bear on Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's assertion that this nominee for the Supreme Court respects long-range Supreme Court precedents. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and after the fact, got Congress to agree. ... [I]n a landmark decision in 1866, Justice David Davis declared the imprisonment was unconstitutional because the civilian courts were still open. He ruled: 'The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. The Government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence.' Does Judge Alito agree, even in this war against terrorism, that the Constitution must be strictly constructed?


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Mr. Bush, meet Mr. Taft

The American Prospect
by Michael Tomasky


Watching and reading George W. Bush's Veterans' Day speech last Friday confirmed my belief that it's a good thing Karl Rove wasn't indicted. If this is the best these people can do, Rove is doing Bush a lot more damage from his White House office than he would as an indictee. The speech was humiliating to Bush and the United States of America on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. OK, actually, I do. I'll begin with the outright lie. My critics, Bush whimpered, 'are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.' No such thing ever happened. That bipartisan investigation ... is ongoing right now. ... The probe is finally proceeding -- but it sure hasn't 'found' anything. There is no other way to interpret Bush's sentence: It is a direct, unmediated, Nixonian lie. What kind of pathetic man would utter such a lie on Veterans' Day, when over 2,000 U.S. soldiers have died?


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Libby's secret defense fund

by Joe Conason


I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby may have taken the perp walk for the Bush White House, but he will never walk alone. As the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney considers his options -- including possible cooperation with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald -- friends of the administration are rallying to his side. Unlike his old boss Cheney, the indicted Libby lacks the millions of dollars needed to mount a proper Washington scandal defense, but evidently he will have no trouble attracting the assistance of right-wing operatives, administration aides and Republican lobbyists. Actually, someone who personifies all those categories and more has materialized to mastermind the Scooter Libby defense committee, with promises of financial assistance and supportive publicity... [subscription or ad view required]


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Supreme suck-up

by Bruce Reed


Since Halloween, Sam Alito has been dressing up as a mild-mannered civil servant who followed his father into the family business. Unlike the nakedly careerist John Roberts, who bounded from one Reaganite political post to the next, Alito was supposed to have spent his youth as a career bureaucrat in short sleeves and a pocket protector. Newly released papers from the Reagan library show that Alito was as much of a right-wing suck-up as Roberts. In a 1985 job application to become a Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Ed Meese, Alito boasted of his longstanding conservative credentials: 'The greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign' -- when Alito was all of 14...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

The politics of war and the patriot card

by Pat Buchanan


Echoed by anti-Bush media that can smell blood in the water, the Democratic Party is charging that Bush misled, deceived or lied us into war. With polls showing 57 percent of the nation no longer believes Bush to be honest and truthful, the unanswered charges have had a devastating impact. But Bush has a last card to play, and on Veterans Day, he played it, the ace of trumps in any president's hand: the patriot card. Speaking in Pennsylvania to the troops, Bush said that pro-war Democrats like John Kerry saw the same intelligence he did and voted to take Saddam down, and that Democrats now accusing him of faking intelligence are undercutting our fighting troops in Iraq. Translation: Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. We are one step away from the T-word. With his poll ratings at rock bottom and little to lose, Bush has just escalated the war politics...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Don't blame the Italians

by Justin Raimondo


Cornered by their critics, overwhelmed by massive antiwar sentiment, and pursued by the relentless Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the War Party is in full retreat, hiding behind the ramparts of an elaborate edifice of lies. The administration's defenders are shooting blindly, averring -- per Norman Podhoretz -- that, since 'everybody' believed what the administration was claiming about Iraq's alleged WMD prior to the invasion, we're all living in the same alternate universe. In the Bizarro World of the neocons, if we all believe a lie, that makes it true. Or, rather, that makes the whole idea of truth irrelevant, and we should all 'move on,' as the Clintonites used to say...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Power Uber Alles

by Paul Craig Roberts


Habeas corpus prevents authorities from detaining a person indefinitely without charges; the guarantee of habeas corpus ensures that no one can imprison you without a trial. The Bush administration wants the power to detain indefinitely anyone it declares to be an enemy combatant or a terrorist without presenting the detainee in court with charges. In England the power to arrest people and to hold them indefinitely without charges was taken away from kings centuries ago. Bush apparently thinks he is the reincarnation of an absolute monarch. ... On Thursday November 10, the Republican controlled US Senate voted 49 to 42 to overturn the US Supreme Court's 2004 ruling that permits Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detentions. How dare the US Supreme Court defend the US Constitution and the civil liberties of Americans when we have terrorists to fight, argued the Republican senators. What are civil liberties, the Republicans asked rhetorically, but legal tricks that allow criminals and terrorists to escape...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Scrapping liberty in guise of patriotism

Albany Times Union
by Tom Teepen


President Bush's position on torture, and his administration's, has degenerated into political gibberish. In Panama last week, Bush perfunctorily reiterated the claim that the United States doesn't use torture, then launched into one his patented and passionate soliloquies about the evil of terrorism and how it must be opposed by every possible means, in effect an argument for the torture he had just supposedly disavowed. ... In the name of protecting us, this administration is abandoning our historic values, cramping our personal freedoms, violating our privacy, making a mockery of justice and asserting a right for the president, as commander in chief, to ignore U.S. law if he wishes to. Who is to protect us from our protectors?


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Civil rights attorneys leave Justice Dept

Washington Post


The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which has enforced the nation's anti-discrimination laws for nearly half a century, is in the midst of an upheaval that has driven away dozens of veteran lawyers and has damaged morale for many of those who remain, according to former and current career employees. Nearly 20 percent of the division's lawyers left in fiscal 2005, in part because of a buyout program that some lawyers believe was aimed at pushing out those who did not share the administration's conservative views on civil rights laws...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Senate puts Chertoff on notice

Washington Times


Concerned that the nation's borders are not properly protected against terrorists, illegal aliens and drug smugglers, a Senate committee warned Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that if he fails to correct the situation promptly, they will. Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME], chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Sen. Joe Lieberman [D-CT] want to know whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should be merged to 'enable them to operate more effectively.' In a report made public last week, the Homeland Security Department's Office of Inspector General recommended that the two agencies -- with overlapping jurisdiction for border security and immigration enforcement -- be merged, questioning whether they had the ability as separate organizations to carry out their homeland security missions. The report, requested by Collins and Lieberman, said a lack of effective coordination between the agencies had affected apprehension, detention and removal efforts...


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Spain Looks into CIA's Handling of Detainees

On the Spanish island of Majorca, the police quietly opened a criminal investigation in March after a local newspaper reported a series of visits to the island's international airport by planes known to regularly operate for the Central Intelligence Agency. Now, it has emerged that an investigative judge in Palma has ordered the police inquiry to be sent to Spain's national court, to consider whether the CIA was routing planes carrying terrorism suspects through Majorca as part of its so-called rendition program.


Pombo's Poison Pills

Kelpie Wilson: Buried in the bowels of the budget bill is a stunning poison pill - one of the biggest land grabs in history. Engineered by the Chair of the House Resources Committee, Mr. Richard Pombo, this pill is disguised as a modification to mining law. It would transfer up to 350 million acres of public land into private ownership in order to fund a $70 billion tax cut for the rich. The only appropriate response is to regurgitate this poison pill all over their slick designer shoes.


Effects of EMR frequency emissions from masts

Here's a copy of my email to Mr. Vousden at Downs School, Brighton. I sent it to BECTA as well.

Dear Mr. Vousden,

Apologies for not explaining why I sent this email to you. I wrote in support of Mr. Graham Parfitt, but had not realised it was in relation to WLAN and not masts.

In relation to WLAN, my fears are the same. I have recently been reading 'The Zapping of America' by Paul Brodeur. He tells of the cover-up of the effects of microwaves and Electromagnetic freqency emissions from the protective devices put up by the Dept. of Defense in America and the probability of genetic damage to human beings. A similar situation exists in our own country, with government ignoring the incontrovertible proof and evidence dating from as long ago as the 1930s.

My own experience of damage from computers, is that a year ago I opted for extra lessons, spending 4 hours per week at class as well as the time I spend at home. Since then my eyes have been increasingly sore, bloodshot and sight blurred and I have been diagnosed with Seborrheoic Dermatitis - itching, dry, spotty facial skin which is getting worse. I think I sent you the document re: the damaging of mast cells in the skin from microwaves emanating from Computers? In case I did not, I will try to find it and attach it to this email, otherwise I will post it to you.

I agree with Mr. Parfitt that it would not be a good idea to inflict too long a period of computer studies upon young children

Very sincerely,

Gillian Lyden



WLANs in schools

Environmental Sensitivities - A Definition


The Allergy and Environmental Health Association of Quebec

Environmental Sensitivities - A Definition

Environmental sensitivities can occur when people become sensitive to substances or phenomena in their everyday environment at levels well below what would be considered to be acceptable to “normal” people. Sensitivity reactions can be triggered by scented products, cleaning products, laundry detergents, paints, petrochemicals, cigarette smoke, pesticides, pets, plants, fuels, electromagnetic radiation, molds and foods.

The effect of environmental sensitivities can be overwhelming. Productive people may suddenly or gradually become unable to tolerate offices, homes, schools, hospitals and public places. Employers, who may or may not be aware of the problem, may refuse to make the accommodations necessary to allow people affected to continue working in safety. Many people with sensitivities lose their jobs if they are not provided with the accommodations they need to work productively. Some become homeless. All too often, retirement savings are depleted and debts are incurred in an attempt to create safe living conditions and to fund the cost of treatment. Treatment of these problems can be expensive and difficult to obtain, and includes avoidance of offending agents. Some people with sensitivities do improve after many years if they are able to find a safe environment in which to live and work, and if they can obtain (and afford) treatments that are both tolerable and effective for them. Sadly, despite skills and education, some people with sensitivities end up on social assistance. Many become socially isolated as they are forced to retreat from places and activities they love, and for some, the devastation extends to losing spouses, family and friends who may not believe that they are ill.

The disability may be invisible, but it is real. Like others with disabilities, persons with sensitivities have special needs which include, but are not limited to: housing in a safe and tolerable environment so that their bodies can heal, well-tolerated, environmentally safe products available at a reasonable cost, consumer self-help groups, a support system, tolerable meeting places, publicly funded treatments, safe hospitals, schools and other pubic facilities, and accommodation in the workplace. Like all Canadians, we are entitled to freedom from discriminatory treatment, which includes the right to accessible workplaces, accommodation and public facilities. Notably, environmental sensitivities have been recognized as disabilities by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and many provincial human rights commissions.

NICHT SICHER: Internet-Telefonie kann belauscht werden


Gated Nations: Rückzug hinter Mauern

Republikanische Abgeordnete fordern den Bau einer großen amerikanischen Mauer zu Mexiko, um die Einwanderung zu verhindern.

„Vom großen Aufbruch in die Offenheit, in eine grenzenlose Welt von Freiheit und Demokratie mit einem globalen Fluss von Menschen, Informationen und Gütern, wie sich das manche nach dem Ende des Kalten Kriegs und der Mauer zwischen Ost und West vorstellten, ist heute nicht mehr viel übrig geblieben. Schon eher lässt sich beobachten, dass überall neue Mauern errichtet werden, um die Grenzen vor unerwünschten Eindringlingen zu sichern…“ Artikel von Florian Rötzer in telepolis vom 06.11.2005


Aus: LabourNet, 15. November 2005

Die gewerkschaftliche Sicht auf Europa ist unrealistisch und weltfremd

Europa – Ausweg aus der Globalisierungsfalle? Die gewerkschaftliche Sicht auf Europa ist unrealistisch und weltfremd

Überarbeiteter Vortrag von Werner Sauerborn auf der Europakonferenz von attac D am 4./5. März in Stuttgart.


Aus: LabourNet, 15. November 2005

Wal-Marts Ethik

Mitbestimmung ist auch bei US-amerikanischem Verhaltenskodex in Deutschland einzuhalten

„… Das Landesarbeitsgericht hat in seiner Sitzung am 14.11.2005 folgende Abschnitte des Kodexes als mitbestimmungspflichtig eingestuft: Anordnung und Nutzung der Telefonhotline; Annahme von Geschenken und Zuwendungen; Belästigung und unangemessenes Verhalten (mit Ausnahme des Passus, der Gewalt auf dem Betriebsgelände oder in Ausübung der arbeitsvertraglichen Tätigkeit verbietet.) Nicht mitbestimmungspflichtig sind nach Ansicht der erkennenden Kammer folgende Abschnitte des Verhaltenskodexes: Pressemitteilungen im Namen der Firma ohne Zustimmung durch die entsprechende Abteilung; Privatsphäre (Die hierin enthaltene Berechtigung zur Einsichtnahme in Personal- bzw. Krankenakten ist nach der Ethikrichtlinie nur berechtigten Mitarbeitern und solchen mit einem betrieblich begründeten Anliegen vorbehalten.); Einschränkungen bei Beziehungen/Liebesbeziehungen (Die entsprechenden Regelungen verstoßen gegen das Grundgesetz und sind daher von vornherein unwirksam.)…“ Pressemitteilung Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf, Beschluss vom 14.11.2005 – 10 TaBV 46/05 (pdf)


Aus: LabourNet, 15. November 2005

Australia: Putting a muzzle on the media

The Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, now pending in the Senate, further entrenches severe risks for the operation of a free press in this country. We cannot preserve our democracy if we destroy institutions that serve it.


From Information Clearing House

Secretive firm helps U.S. wage information war abroad

Contracts list such activities as tracking foreign reporters; "pushing" news favorable to U.S. forces; planting television news segments that promote American positions; and creating a grass-roots voting effort in Puerto Rico on behalf of the U.S. Navy, according to Pentagon records.


John Cusack: On Bush

How depressing, corrupt, unlawful and tragically absurd the administration's world view actually is...how low the moral bar has been lowered...and (though I know I'm capable of intellectually lazy notions of collective guilt) how complicit our silence as citizens is.


From Information Clearing House

Detainees Deserve Court Trials

Habeas corpus is older than even our Constitution. It is the right to compel the executive to justify itself when it imprisons people. But the Senate voted to abolish it for Adel, in favor of the same "combatant status review tribunal" that has already exonerated him. That secret tribunal didn't have much impact on his life, but Graham says it is good enough.


Who knows on Padilla

The world has known many nations where soldiers could jack people off the streets and dump them into a black hole of incarceration without charges or trials. It has seen woeful places where people could be branded traitors and denied an opportunity to fight the accusation that officials need never prove. Proudly, for 226 years the United States wasn't one of those nations. Now it is.


Iran denies claims about nuclear plan

Conscious of US intelligence failures that falsely projected weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq, the Bush administration has kept the information secret but has briefed IAEA officials, including the agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as the British, French and German governments, in an effort to turn up the heat on Tehran.


The Road from Fallujah to Amman

There is a war going on and the Jordanian government is a party to this war. The masses should be forcing their government to retreat from supporting the US-led war in Iraq.


Fallujah Revisited

Nearly a year after they occurred, a few of the war crimes committed in Fallujah by members of the US military have gained the attention of some major media outlets (excluding, of course, any of the corporate media outlets in the US).


America's prisoners in paradise

Some prisoners, or “illegal combatants”, are on hunger strike: there are allegations of men being shackled and force fed with a brutality that amounts to torture.


From Information Clearing House

Justice detained at Guantanamo

People are trying to kill themselves to get out of custody, because they have no legal recourse. "They won't let us live, but they won't let us die," one of our clients explained.


From Information Clearing House

US refuses to rule out use of torture

Mr Hadley elaborated on the Bush policy, making clear the White House could see situations where the promise not to torture might not apply.


Dirty Power- $17.5 million court case


More on Dirty Power and dairy farms


Don`t take the fear-bait : france-riots--"bird-flu"-hoax & engineered "terror"


NOVEMBER 11, 2005. First of all, I see no credible evidence that the riots are being launched by "radical Islamists." It is apparent that the rioters are young, poor, without much hope, and disconnected from the mainstream of society.

This is not a song of praise for the mainstream. It's just a fact.

I have read one or two reports from French citizens on the scene who state that many of the rioters are white.

Let's look at the concept of The Squeeze Play. If you, in your neighborhood, watched night after night as destructive riots creeped toward your block, you would understandably become nervous. You would want the authorities to do something. You wouldn't be eager to sacrifice your house or apartment building to people lighting fires.

You would care less and less about who was responsible. You would want action. This would place you on the side of the police. You might or might not ordinarily be friendly toward the cops, but in this instance you would want them to do something effective.

The whole point of a Squeeze Play is getting you to side with the authorities against the troublemakers.

A Squeeze Play tries to trigger every possible prejudice lurking in the back of your mind.

A Squeeze Play tries to push you over the edge into the camp of fascists.

At a great distance from violence and destruction of property, you might have all sorts of ideas about who is working behind the scenes to foment chaos---but when that rioting comes close to where you live, your ideas tend to undergo a rapid transformation.

During the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict, I was living at the base of a hill in Hollywood. >From a window I could watch the fires move north toward me. I had no idea when those fires would stop. I could also observe the gradual tightening of my feelings and thoughts. It's an interesting experience.

And I wasn't really that close to the action.

During the threat of riots, people who go to work every day begin to experience feelings toward the disenfranchised unemployed people who are rioting. All sorts of ugliness surfaces without volition.

So...who is planning and executing the basic Squeeze Play?

Who wants you to go over to the side of the representatives of the State who are carrying guns?

Who wants you to take sides?

Who wants you to exacerbate, in your mind, the sense of polarization?

Think about being a New Yorker who just arrived at work on the morning of 9/11. Who perhaps saw the planes coming in low through the city and crashing into the WTC. Who saw people streaming out of the towers. Who saw the smoke pouring out of the towers. Who later watched the towers collapse. Who had friends and family in those towers.

Do you think there was, on 9/11 and in the days to follow, a lot of argument among such New Yorkers about the identity of the people who had attacked New York?

"Give us the name of the enemy."

"Tell us what to do."

"Tell us how we can help."

"Assure us that we will have our revenge."

"Osama? Al Qaeda? Good. Let's go."

THE WHOLE POINT OF A SQUEEZE PLAY IS THAT IT SQUEEZES PEOPLE. Not just in theory. For real. You must understand this. We're not just talking about political theory here.

Along similar lines, when the stock market crashed in 1929 and the Great Depression set in, do you think most Americans pondered about who had actually caused the catastrophe?

Americans wanted jobs, and when the new president, FDR, created those jobs, the unemployed didn't spend a lot of time on streetcorners arguing about the merits of the free market versus government inspired socialism.

When the Squeeze begins, people want to escape it. They want to return to normalcy or some reasonable facsimile.

Bill Clinton's second-term victory had something to do with the 1995 Oklahoma bombing. People wanted assurances. They wanted to feel that someone was there to protect them. Clinton (not a genius as some people insist on believing) was, in fact, able to make a few speeches in which he urged Americans to "come home to the government." It worked. It sidetracked and put a lid on a great deal of unrest in America, a great deal of anti-government sentiment.

The Squeeze Play.

It's a time-honored strategy.

You also have to know that the people who riot are not just fake props in a school play. They have their reasons. They have their feelings. >From a distance, you may be able to see that their reasons make no sense, will not advance their cause over the long haul. But so what? They are ripe for rebellion. They are waiting for that trigger to launch them into action. You may sit in your living room and flick from channel to channel and say, "Well, they're burning their own neighborhoods, how crazy is that?" But from their point of view, it does make sense.

There are always people who are ready to opt for destruction. And there are people who, at a great distance in their mansions of placidity, see an opportunity to advance their own cause (greater political control) by igniting a spark that will drive the desperate hundreds or thousands or millions into action. The manipulators know, in their bones, that chaos always breeds a demand for a greater clamp-down.

This is a gruesome triangle. You have the manipulators, you have the desperate without hope, and you have all those sandwiched in between who want order to be restored.

It's a perfect configuration. It has the potential, at any moment, to set in motion a series of events that will result in new laws, new declarations, new popular emergency measures, new and heavier control from Above.

Let's say you have a poor neigborhood in a large city. This neighborhood is hanging on by its fingernails. There is already crime there. There is a great deal of unemployment. The schools are a mess. Now the authorities cancel funding for a few after-school centers for kids. Food programs are cut. Prices for gasoline and heating oil go up.

Now a single incident, a single death can propel that neighborhood into a frenzy. Put that resultant frenzy on TV, and other similar neighborhoods get the same idea. And they swing into action.

Never mind that, amid this wildness, most of the people in those neighborhoods are not participating.

It's all about the impression imparted on television.

For example, do you really, on reflection, think that the burning of a few thousand cars is going to bring down the French nation?

And that gets us to another facet of the modern Squeeze Play. Delivering the overall impression through the miracle of television.

We can easily swing over to an analogy, a different kind of story I have been pursuing for some time. The bird flu. The disease that, at most, has killed 65 people around the world in the last two-plus years. I say at most because the main method of testing for the supposed germ that causes this flu is so outrageously bad and irrelevant.

And yet, day after day, we can watch the flu news stories pouring out of the TV set as if out of the mouth of some fearsome monster.

The world is ending. The sky is falling. 200 million people will die. The vaccine won't work. The virus, like a satanic masterpiece, is mutating and avoiding entrapment. On and on.

And with this propagandized media blitz, we get fear. We get the emotion of wanting the authorities to step in and solve the whole threat.

Many people will accept travel bans and quarantines and other restrictions on basic freedoms---including mandatory treatment with toxic drugs and vaccines.

The media are very good at taking a localized or vague phenomenon and blowing it up into a global situation in a matter of days.

So now we are told that these French riots will possible spread all over Europe.

And governments will have to clamp down.

The Squeeze Play.

There are a number of levels of players who want to put on the Squeeze, and they have their favorite personal reasons.

But the higher you go on the food chain of political power, the more you approach the camp of elite players who see the whole planet as their preserve. They want to rule the preserve as monarchs.

This is their eternal goal.

One of their favorite strategies is chaos (or the the appearance of chaos---it doesn't really matter). No, they don't strike the match that ignites every single outbreak of angry chaos on the planet, but they do take advantage of these moments. And they pick their spots when they do, in fact, light the match.

Their moves are so predictable you could make a board game out of it. Chaos---cops---new laws---assurances from the authorities---more control...etc., etc.

At the top of the charts sit the globalists. That's the current title. These are Rockefeller types who see the "unruly" population of the entire planet as a constant threat to their "ownership of everything."

They view humans at large as wild animals.

They view nations as crazy tribes looking for means of destroying all order.

They believe only a few well-bred people (themselves) have escaped the hard wiring that inflicts the mad billions who live on the surface of Earth.

And just to prove that thesis, they now and then light the match and watch chaos ensue.

And then they step in and "quell the fear and restore order," each time removing a slice of individual freedom from the overall equation.

This is called a PATTERN.

At the moment, I do not know who exactly incited the flames in the neighborhoods ringing Paris. But I do know how such events feed into the agenda of these "share and care" globalists.

The riots in France are providing a very nice opportunity for the EU, which is now the government of Europe. Never mind that the French voted against the EU constitution (which is an interesting point when you think about it, in terms of these riots, eh?---as in Revenge). H E L L O?

The EU, at some point, can step in and say, "Well, it's time for a new set of policing laws for all of Europe. And we are the duly designated body to pass and enforce such laws, to protect you, the law-abiding citizen. You're with us, aren't you? We're with you."

The EU, of course, is a sterling example of the triumph of the globalists, in their march to eradicate nations and institute instead what could be called planetary regionalism. See NAFTA, GATT, THE WTO, CAFTA, FTAA.

The EU was, in part, the brainchild of the Bilderberger Group, an elite organization created in 1954, in the Netherlands. The BG helped lead Europe through a series of incarnations, starting with the so-called Common Market, into the present happy bureaucratic nightmare of the EU.

These days, the EU is looking for opportunities to prove its value. The French and the Dutch voted against the EU constitution. These turn-downs were really no threat to the EU, but still, it would be nice to present a shining image to the fearful millions who are watching all those car burnings on TV.

"Out of chaos, order."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

To produce a success in this vein, you need....a series of Squeeze Plays.

When WW2 ended in Europe, the continent was in a shambles. Talk about Squeeze Play. The people of Europe were pining for a grand solution, one which would not only guarantee jobs and a rising economy, but also a protection against future wars in Europe.

Out of this desire came the Common Market, an idea so obvious and benign that only a madman would oppose it. Knock down protective tariffs between nations, open the floodgates to trade. Inject money into Europe.

This was the first small step toward a United Europe.

It would take time, but as always, the globalists had time.

Intelligent people were put to work drafting bright reports that assured one and all that a coagulated Europe was a good thing.

"Together, we can rise from the ashes. We can make a future."

We can be safe.

As the globalist/Bilderberger plan took shape, there was an aspect of the plan that was also creeping in at the edges without much notice. It was a very long-term aspect designed to make Europe LESS secure, and therefore MORE in need of an overarching program that could be fulfilled, in the long run, by a European Union, by a government over all of Europe, a government that could step into the scene and stage a rescue, so to speak.

What was this other aspect? It had to do with opening another kind of floodgate.

Unfettered immigration of the poor and the disenfranchised. From many lands.

But not just an inpouring. An inpouring that would guarantee the INABILITY OF NATIONS OF EUROPE to handle it.

An inpouring of such dimensions that governments of Europe---who were really in charge of nearly all aspects of economic life---could not deal with it. Social services would fail. There could never really be an integration of all those immigrants.

Governments running those countries, in typical fashion, would try to ignore the problem or simply throw money at it. It wouldn't work.

No matter how generous the sentiments expressed, the deal would not work.

You could say you wanted it to work and it should work and it had to work---but it wouldn't.

You didn't need to be a genius to know that.

But if you spoke out against UNLIMITED AND FOREVER immigration, you could be called all sorts of bad names. You could be labeled this or that...by people who were, in fact, taking their cues from pundits WHO HAD BEEN PUT ON VARIOUS PAYROLLS TO MAKE IT POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST UNLIMITED AND FOREVER IMMIGRATION.

Yes, this was also part of the op.

To cement in the idea and practice of the inpouring of immigrants into Europe, a program was laid on to make it very uncomfortable for any politician to say, for any reason, "This isn't going to work."

And of course, you've had some crazies running around Europe for a long time saying that letting ANYONE into a nation in Europe who doesn't have pale blue eyes and white-blond hair and ivory skin is a crime against the Norse gods or whoever. It's been a piece of cake to lump in a politician who is against massive immigration with these Nazi types.

Understand: the program of massive immigration into European countries was brought into effect in order to make the political and economic infrastructure of Europe tremble. To make it untenable.

"We build you up here and we tear you down there. And in the end, you will have to come to us for the solution."

This was the unspoken agenda of the globalists in Europe, and it still is.

The riots in France are an illustration of this agenda.

Squeeze play.

Massive immigration is a program designed to create a permanent underclass. When we in America look at our own history, we can claim that the inpouring of people from Europe early in the 20th century was a great success, and we can talk about melting pot and free markets and all that. But when you have nations that, more and more, are run from the top of massive corporations in collusion with ever-growing government control, you have a structure that can't fold in millions of poor people coming in. That's just the way it is. It isn't a matter of morality. It is a matter of fact.

You may want to see a paradise on Earth, where everything is shared and nothing is denied, but as long as governments and corporations run on the principle of scarcity---which they do---you can't win.

It will take a revolution on the order of the one described by Bucky Fuller to change all this---and governments and corporations are fully opposed to such a revolution. Yes, we DO have the means to guarantee every person on the planet the essentials of life and survival, as he pointed out in great detail, but that's not the system we live in.

The system shaped by the globalists is different. It runs on two tracks. The first track is, let everyone in. The second track is, there will never be enough for everyone.

Those two simultaneous tracks are designed to bring about moments and events of great friction---the Squeeze Plays.

The objective is: make the people come to the globalists, when these two tracks collide, and the globalists will give the people what the people want AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME: protection, repressive laws, and an iron fist.

A little more iron each time.

(Thanks to Alex Jones and Paul Watson for their recent articles on the French riots. They reminded me of ideas I [and they] have expressed in other contexts.)



Fish Numbers Plummet in Warming Pacific

A catastrophic collapse in sea and bird life numbers along America's Northwest Pacific seaboard is raising fears that global warming is beginning to irreparably damage the health of the oceans. Scientists say a dramatic rise in the ocean temperature led to unprecedented deaths of birds and fish this summer all along the coast from central California to British Columbia in Canada.


Who Taught Us to Torture?

How did American interrogation tactics after 9/11 come to include abuse rising to the level of torture? M. Gregg Bloche and Jonthan H. Marks write that much has been said about the illegality of these tactics, but the strategic error that led to their adoption has been overlooked. The Pentagon effectively signed off on a strategy that mimics Red Army methods. But those tactics were not only inhumane, they were ineffective. For Communist interrogators, truth was beside the point: their aim was to force compliance to the point of false confession.


UN figures on the 'state of the world's forests' are misleading, inaccurate and understate the real extent of deforestation and damage to forests globally



14th November 2005: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


The Rainforest Foundation today claimed that new figures released today by the United Nations on the 'state of the world's forests' are misleading, inaccurate and understate the real extent of deforestation and damage to forests globally. [1]

The new UN figures purport to show that the rate of "net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests". [2]

However, analysis by the Rainforest Foundation indicates that there are major methodological flaws in the UN's report, especially that:

* the UN figure for 'net' deforestation is grossly misleading, as it conceals the fact that most deforestation is taking place in the world's tropical rainforests, whereas most of the reforestation and natural re-growth of forests is taking place in the northern hemisphere, and much of this consists of plantations rather than forests.

* the UN figure is based on a definition of forest as being an area with as little as 10% actual tree cover, which would therefore include areas that are actually savannah-like ecosystems and badly damaged forests;

* areas of land that presently have no trees on them at all, but that are 'expected' to regenerate, are also counted as forests;

* the UN includes in its data for existing areas of forest those that are covered by industrial tree plantations, which are actually lacking some of the key functions of true forests;

These flaws are analysed in detail in a new Rainforest Foundation report, entitled 'Irrational Numbers: Why the FAO's Forest Assessments are M isleading", which is published today to coincide with the release of the new UN figures [3]. Simon Counsell, of the Rainforest Foundation, said: "It is a global disgrace that, after decades of concern about the world's declining forests, the United Nations still can't even produce an accurate assessment of how much forest is actually left. The new Forest Resources Assessment repeats the bad science of previous assessments, which have been widely criticised, and obscures the real extent of deforestation. The United Nations should scrap this latest report, should make a firm commitment to revising the methods by which it assesses and reports on the state of the world's forests, and should then set out an urgent plan as to how global deforestation can be halted."


For further information:

Simon Counsell, Rainforest Foundation T (office): +44 (0) 207 251 6345 T (Cell): +44 (0)7941 899 579 simonc@rainforestuk.com

Notes to editors:

[1] The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation - the agency which has lead responsibility for forests within the UN system - today launched its 'Global Forest Resource Assessment' for 2005. Similar reports have been produced since 1948.

[2] The press release issued by the FAO today claims that "The annual net loss of forest area between 2000 and 2005 was 7.3 million hectares/year... down from an estimated 8.9 million hectares/year between 1990 and 2000" (http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=101&sitetreeId=1191&langId=1&geoId=0)

[3] A copy of 'Irrational Numbers' is available for download free from:

Deforestation continues at an alarming rate

14 November 2005, Rome – Each year about 13 million hectares of the world’s forests are lost due to deforestation, but the rate of net forest loss is slowing down, thanks to new planting and natural expansion of existing forests, FAO announced today.

Twenty percent of the world's mangroves lost over the last 25 years: Rate of deforestation slowing, but still a cause for alarm

9 November 2005, Rome - Around 20 percent of the world's mangrove forests have disappeared during the past 25 years as a result of over-exploitation and conversion to other uses, according to a new FAO study.



Put an End to Torture


US Army Pacific Command prepares for flu pandemic

Pacific Command hastens preparation for possible flu pandemic

By Audrey McAvoy
Associated Press

CAMP H.M. SMITH, Hawaii — U.S. military leaders in the Pacific have accelerated efforts to prepare for a possible human flu pandemic by stockpiling anti-viral drugs and warning troops to be vigilant about cooking poultry and washing their hands. This week, officials at the Hawaii-based Pacific Command plan a workshop to test how ready they are to cope with a pandemic that could put them on the front lines of a global outbreak.

They hope the drill will expose deficiencies so they can remedy them before any real-life crisis hits.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff has ordered all the military's nine combat commands to devise anti-flu strategies. But the Pacific Command, with some 300,000 troops around the Pacific rim, could face a flu challenge more urgently than others.

The H5N1 strain of avian flu has killed at least 63 people in Southeast Asia since 2003. The virus hasn't been known to easily jump from person to person, but experts fear it may mutate and start doing so, possibly triggering a global influenza pandemic. There were three such outbreaks in the last century.

Rear Adm. Robert D. Hufstader, chief medical officer at Pacific Command's Camp Smith headquarters, said he wants to educate people so they can prepare themselves.

Like many health officials, civilian or military, Hufstader wants to avoid inciting panic.

He said the H5N1 strain of avian flu may never mutate into one easily transmittable between humans. Or if it does, it may do so over time and become less virulent.

Still, Hufstader said, the military wants to be ready for an infectious disease outbreak that could kill millions.

Coping with a flu pandemic would be more difficult than responding to last December's Indian Ocean tsunami which killed or left missing some 230,000 people across 11 nations, he said.

"The tsunami came and happened and no one could stop it — and then we all tried to pick up the pieces and deal with the aftermath," Hufstader said in an interview. A flu pandemic would be "an evolving thing that we'll try to identify as quickly as possible and work very hard to mitigate," he added.

Hufstader said the military's infectious disease research labs in Jakarta and Bangkok were part of an international network with the World Health Organization that was trying to quickly spot any H5N1 virus mutations.

It is unclear whether the military would put its hardware to use to help civilians if a pandemic breaks out. Its helicopters and ships, and its ability to move them quickly, give it capabilities not held by health organizations and other government agencies.

After the tsunami, a Navy aircraft carrier reached Indonesia within days of the disaster to deliver food and aid to thousands of victims. The United States later sent one of its hospital ships to provide badly needed medical care.

Hufstader said the military is still discussing whether Pacific Command would have any role in quarantining patients or cordoning off areas where there have been outbreaks.

In the meantime, Pacific Command has been building up its stockpile of Tamiflu pills, the medication viewed as the best available defense against a possible pandemic. Pacific Command expects its supply to reach six million doses by February, or about one-fourth of the U.S. government's stockpile of 23 million.

Hufstader said leaders have not determined how they will use the drugs. In the event of a human pandemic, however, Hufstader said nurses and doctors treating flu patients would likely be prescribed doses to protect them against contagion.

Experts say the military may also be given higher-priority access to any vaccine that scientists develop to battle a human mutation of H5N1.

Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, a professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health, said the military's job to defend the nation created legitimate reasons for this and for ensuring the armed forces had enough Tamiflu.

He said military personnel would have a higher chance of contracting and transmitting the disease because troops live in close quarters in the field. He said many World War I soldiers caught the Spanish flu in the trenches during the 1918-19 pandemic.

The military could help other countries by dispatching a hospital ship to help overwhelmed local medical personnel, Kim-Farley said. Or it could help transport vaccines to remote areas.

Domestically, Hawaii is the only state inside the Pacific Command's area of responsibility, which extends from the U.S. West Coast to the east coast of Africa. So the command's role on the home front would be limited.

In general, any assistance the armed forces may give to state and local governments would also be limited by the law, in particular the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that prohibits the military from acting as law enforcement.

Although President George W. Bush said after hurricanes Katrina and Rita that he was exploring ways to expand the Pentagon's role in major disasters, there is no consensus in Congress and among governors on how that should be done.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, among the harshest critics of the idea, accused military leaders of being on the path for an "end run coup."

A flu pandemic, rapidly spread by international travel, may override such concerns, however. Experts say that the flu could even take out local police officers, hurting the ability of communities to respond.

"It's conceivable that the scope and scale of this catastrophe, of this disaster, would be one in which traditional lines of involvement of authority might have to be flexible because so many lives could be at stake," said Leonard Marcus, the co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative at Harvard University. He said, though, that the first thing the military would have to do in a pandemic is take care of its own.


Informant: beefree

Bush Admin Will Restrict Liberties After Next Terror Attack

Ex-intel Official: Bush Admin Will Restrict Liberties After Next Terror Attack

North Jersey Media/RICHARD COWEN | November 13 2005

MAPLEWOOD - The man who leaked thousands of pages of top secret documents to the media in 1971 to expose the U.S. government's handling of the Vietnam War warned Saturday that another terrorist attack could permanently damage civil liberties.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former U.S. intelligence official responsible for leaking the so-called Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and 18 other newspapers, told an audience of about 400 that the Bush administration most likely would respond to any terror attack on U.S. soil by severely restricting freedom of the press and the individual's right to speak out.

"In a time of fear, I believe that the majority of the American people will cling to authority," Ellsberg told the gathering at Columbia High School for New Jersey Peace Action's annual luncheon.

"And if there is another terror attack," Ellsberg added sarcastically, "I believe the president will get what he wants. And what he wants is a new Patriot Act, one that will make the current Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights."

The Patriot Act, originally passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is up for renewal.

To combat terrorism, it gave law enforcement leeway into probing the private lives of Americans - allowing for easier wiretaps, incarceration without charges, monitoring of computer use and even checking on books borrowed from libraries. Some members of Congress expressed alarm recently that the FBI had initiated 30,000 investigations of private e-mail accounts last year.

Now the Patriot Act is up for renewal, and the Bush administration is seeking even tougher measures. Ellsberg, 74, said he worries that with the Iraq war at a stalemate, a terrorist attack on American soil was "not just possible, but highly likely." Were that to happen, Ellsberg predicted that Bush would respond by escalating the war on terror - possibly to include military action against Syria or Iran - while pushing for harsher restrictions against dissent at home.

Ellsberg said that as part of Patriot Act revisions, Bush most likely would push for an Official Secrets Act - one that would make it a crime for whistle-blowers to reveal government secrets to the public. And he added, such a ban probably would apply to journalists as well.

Ellsberg worked as an analyst for the RAND Corp. in the 1960s, which conducted a huge study of U.S. policy in Vietnam. That study, which was top secret and eventually numbered 7,000 pages, is the story of what went wrong in Vietnam. Once leaked to The Times, the document became known as the Pentagon Papers, and it told of the official lies by the Johnson and Nixon administrations that the war in Vietnam was winnable.

The Nixon administration tried to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers, but the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the public's right to know. Ellsberg eventually stood trial for leaking official secrets, but the government eventually dropped the case.

Ellsberg said Saturday that he had grave doubts he would enjoy the same freedom today.

"I don't think the current Supreme Court would see it that way," he told the audience. He added that should an Official Secrets Act be adopted, "leaks would be a thing of the past."

Informant: Milo

Alito’s Devotion to Ultra-Conservative Causes


Controversial Firing of Popular Columnist Robert Scheer


Rep. Henry A. Waxman: Details of FDA Decision on Plan B Revealed


Evolution, Ecology and `Malignant Design'


Losing Habeas Corpus: A More Dangerous Engine of Arbitrary Government


Policymakers on Torture Take Note: Remember Pinochet


CIA Accused of Using Airport in Mallorca


Edwards Repudiates His Pro-War Vote, May Encourage Other Dems


Qui a peur de la démocratie?

par Hervé Kempf
Le Monde


'I treated people who had their skin melted'


Informant: Steven L. Robinson

From ufpj-news

The New Amerikan Gulag

Kathy wrote:

From: Ken Wiggins
Date: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:51 am
Subject: Jack-booted thugs

The New Amerikan Gulag
By Kenneth C. Wiggins

I've been fairly sure for some time now that our country is in deep trouble. Today, I am profoundly convinced, beyond any doubt whatsoever that we are in for dire times ahead, where life "as we know it" will never be the same. Whether that comes within months or years yet to come, I have no doubts that it must and will come.

I just spent three weeks incarcerated in the new Amerikan Gulag. My crime was that I couldn't make enough money to satisfy our government's petulant expectations.

Never mind that the government "imputed" my income at four times my actual ability to earn based on my ex-wife's statements that my mother "had money." There is no question, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was a direct "shakedown", using me to extort money from my mother. You will find the same acts in any major city, only there they call it "the mob." In the new Amerikan Gulag, it is called "Family Court", but in fact is no more respectable or responsible than any other "organized crime" syndicate. Its just "legal" by this new false process they call law.

Never mind that the government has openly refused to give me a hearing, to bring their supposed "evidence" into a court. I have filed more than forty documents in this so-called "family court", another dozen in the state appellate court and about half a dozen in the state supreme court. The one consistent factor is that they accept my documents, enter them into the record, and then openly ignore them. The appellate court offers profound excuses, which within their own rules are fraudulent, and when confronted with those facts, they use more rules to conveniently "administratively dismiss" without fact or law. I call it "law by ignorance". Its just "legal" by this new false process they call law.

Never mind that the court clerk for the state supreme court refuses to even file my documents, claiming they are "not appropriate" for that high court or some other such equally lame claim. Apparently, court clerks are now the "high authority" on adjudication in these courts. It is quite clear that the court is using its clerk to avoid hearing cases it doesn't like. Its just "legal" by this new false process they call law.

Never mind that numerous people, including several lawyers, have told me that even a felony complaint for failure to pay child support is still a "civil matter", not criminal. Thus they cannot have authority to kick in your door, your castle inviolate. Tell that to my dog, whom they Maced, and my girlfriend who had jack-booted thugs pointing guns at her. Never mind that the actual "search warrant" they executed states as its sloe "probable cause" that a cop was window peaking at our home at 9:30 at night to "observe the probable suspect" through curtained windows. No reason is given as to why he was window peeking at this house, so we might assume he was peeking in windows all over town before he got here. Apparently, window peeking is now an important job skill in the new Amerikan Gulag. Its just "legal" by this new false process they call law.

Never mind that the judge, at my arraignment, waving my six inch thick file and slamming in on his desk, made it clear that the only thing he would hear was evidence that I had paid their extortion – any thing else was a waste of my time. Then he doubled my bail to an amount more than my current "arrearage", and more than any amount yet due. There is no small irony that five years ago, he was the "family court" judge, and it was his fraud at law that put me in this boat, but of course he is now the District Court judge, and of course, he sees no conflict of interest in that. Its just "legal" by this new false process they call law.

This isn't about the woes of "my" case. Nor is it about the woes of Beatty Chadwick, incarcerated for ten years on "civil contempt", without any hearing or fact, solely because he cannot prove "what is not". Never mind that "they" have made no effort to prove "what is." Nor is it about the young men I met in jail. One such, in his twenties, was convicted of some petty crime, for which he could have gotten a maximum of ninety days in jail. Instead he did thirty days, plus six months probation. For the past three years they have "violated" his probation six times, and he has spent nearly nine months in jail, with two more to go, and still faces another two years of their "probation." Its all about what is now "just legal" by this new false process they call law.

We face a serious epidemic of this "justice", of "law by ignorance", of a false process they euphemistically call "law." Once they enter your name in their system, they own you. No longer does law serve the people, it is the people that serve their monied system, which they serve up to you by this new false process they call law.

It is no longer about the "denial of due process", that sacrosanct constitutional right that we used to own. It is about being processed by government agents that make up their own law as they go and define their process by their own convenience. It is no longer about the deprivation of our civil rights, our inalienable inheritance. It is about the destitution of a government gone awry on its own power trip.

The Constitution of the United States is gone. It no longer exists, of the people, by the people and for the people. In its place is "government", for which these peoples now exist to serve.

It was not my "rights" that were violated, but the very foundations of our free society, of "civility", … that night, when the jack-booted thugs kicked in my door and pointed their guns at my chest.

Wiley - Webmaster for:

Informant: Gomez

Eat, Sleep, Work, Consume, Die

By Tony Long

02:00 AM Nov. 10, 2005 PT

Say you live in Greenwich, Connecticut, during, oh, the early 1850s. Your older brother left home a few years back to try his luck in the California gold fields. Like the vast majority of those who risked everything to go west, he came up empty. Now he's stranded, working in some dive on the San Francisco waterfront, pulling steam beer for the other would-be millionaires nursing their dashed dreams.

You take quill to parchment (OK, you have paper, but it's pitted with wood pulp) and write him a letter.

The Pony Express doesn't yet exist (the first rider won't set off from St. Joseph, Missouri, until April 1860), and telegraph won't be functional until late 1861, so your letter will go the usual way: by sailing ship around the Horn. Assuming it doesn't run into heavy seas or founder off Tierra del Fuego, the vessel should arrive in San Francisco Bay about three months after weighing anchor at Mystic. It's the cutting-edge technology of its day.

Today, sitting at home in Greenwich, you can dispatch an e-mail to your bartender brother out west that he'll be able to read within minutes of mixing the day's last cosmopolitan. Or you can call him and leave a message. Heck, if you guys use text messaging, you'll be chatting almost instantaneously.

On balance, any of those are probably a better alternative to the clipper ship. Hey, if I miss my brother it's kind of nice to be able to get hold of him -- now.

But that's the point. My expectations have been raised to this ridiculous level by technology running amok through my heretofore-bucolic existence. I used to be a laid-back guy. Now I'm impatient. I chafe. I get irritable when my gratification isn't instantaneous. And it isn't just me. The whole world is bitchier these days.

I'm old enough to remember when waiting a few days for a letter to arrive was standard operating procedure, even in the bare-knuckles business world. I recall a time without answering machines, when you just had to keep calling back on your rotary phone until someone picked up. (Which had the unintended benefit of allowing you to reconsider whether the original call was even worth making in the first place.) The world moved at a more leisurely pace and, humanistically speaking, we were all the better for it.

Just because technology makes it possible for us to work 10 times faster than we used to doesn't mean we should do it. The body may be able to withstand the strain -- for a while -- but the spirit isn't meant to flail away uselessly on the commercial gerbil wheel. The boys in corporate don't want you to hear this because the more they can suck out of you, the lower their costs and the higher their profit margin. And profit is god, after all. (Genuflect here, if you must.)

But what's good for them isn't necessarily good for you, no matter how much filthy lucre they throw your way.

Civilization took a definite nose dive when the merchant princes grew ascendant at the expense of the artists and thinkers; when the notion of liberté, égalité, fraternité gave way to "I've got mine; screw you" (an attitude that existed in Voltaire's day, too, you might recall, with unfortunate results for the blue bloods). In the Big Picture, the dead white guys -- Rousseau, Thoreau, Mill -- cared a lot more about your well-being than the live ones like Gates or Jobs or Ellison ever will.

But stock-market capitalism is today's coin of the realm, consumerism its handmaiden, and technology is the great enabler. You think technology benefits you because it gives you an easier row to hoe? Bollocks. The ease it provides is illusory. It has trapped you, made you a slave to things you don't even need but suddenly can't live without. So you rot in a cubicle trying to get the money to get the stuff, when you should be out walking in a meadow or wooing a lover or writing a song.

Utopian claptrap, you sneer. So you put nose to grindstone, your life ebbing as you accumulate ... what?

Look around. Our collective humanity is dying a little more every day. Technology is killing life on the street -- the public commons, if you please. Chat rooms, text messaging, IM are all, technically, forms of communication. But when they replace yakking over the back fence, or sitting huggermugger at the bar or simply walking with a friend -- as they have for an increasing number of people in "advanced" societies -- then meaningful human contact is lost. Ease of use is small compensation.

The street suffers in other ways, too. Where you used to buy books from your local bookseller, you now give your money (by credit card, with usurious interest rates) to Amazon.com. Where you used to have a garage sale, you now flog your detritus on craigslist. Almost anything you used to buy from a butcher or druggist or florist you can now get online. Handy as hell, to be sure, and nothing touched by human hands. But little shops lose business and close, to be replaced, if at all, by cookie-cutter chain stores selling One Size Fits All. The corporations have got you right where they want you.

Is this the world you want to inhabit? Really? I live near San Francisco Bay. When I think about all this, I miss the canvas sail and the wind whistling through the shrouds.

Tony Long is copy chief of Wired News. He is, by his own admission, a hopeless romantic.

Informant: Anna Webb

Bush Job Approval at All-Time Low

...Bush's job approval rating is nine points higher than former President Richard M. Nixon's approval mark at the same point in his second term. But, Pew notes, "it is largely GOP loyalty that separates Bush from Nixon at comparable points in their presidencies. Bush's 29 percent approval rating among independents is only four points higher than Nixon's standing among independents in early November 1973. And Bush's 12 percent approval rating among Democrats is nearly identical to Nixon's."...

An Important Indictment

By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; 4:18 PM

The flailing Bush presidency continues to spin off new compelling story lines almost daily; yesterday it was torture, today it's Bush as electoral albatross. It's almost inevitable that the media will let some fall by the wayside.

But according to a new Pew Research Center poll, the recent indictment of senior White House aide Scooter Libby is a really big deal: Even more important to the country, for instance, than the 1998 charges that President Bill Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky. Those, of course, led to Clinton's impeachment.


November 14th, 2005 6:49 pm
Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low

(CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.

Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.

Bush's 37 percent overall approval rating was two percentage points below his ranking in an October survey. Both polls had a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.


Informant: John Calvert






This isn't the real America




The Emperor's New Deficit


The Stateless Society Fights Back


Too Little Too Late


Government Science: An Oxymoron?


My Fair Neocon





Petition for Kent State Student


To: Kent State University Administration To the administration of Kent State University:

We, the undersigned, oppose disciplinary and criminal sanctions against Dave Airhart (a Kent State Student and Iraq war veteran) by Kent city police and Kent State University for demonstrating his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Not only because we believe that students should have the right to express their opposition to the war in Iraq and because we believe that the war is unjust, but also because we believe that the administration is using the charge of “disorderly conduct” to punish Dave Airhart for his ideas, we call on the city of Kent, OH and the administration of Kent State University to suspend all proceedings against Dave Airhart. Sincerely,

David Airhart is facing a disciplinary hearing that could lead to expulsion on Wednesday, November 16 at 2:15 PM at Kent State. Cindy Sheehan, Camilo Mejia, Howard Zinn and many others have written public statements of support for him. See all public statements and get more information on the situation at
http://www.traprockpeace.org/ kent_state_students/

Follow the latest Campus Antiwar Network counter-recruitment efforts at http://www.campusantiwar.net

825 people have signed the petition. Let's make it a thousand. Please go online and give your support.

Thank you.

Charles Jenks
Chair of Advisory Board and Web Manager
Traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-7427 fax 413-773-7507 http://www.traprockpeace.org

From ufpj-news


User Status

Du bist nicht angemeldet.




November 2005

Aktuelle Beiträge

Wenn das Telefon krank...
http://groups.google.com/g roup/mobilfunk_newsletter/ t/6f73cb93cafc5207   htt p://omega.twoday.net/searc h?q=elektromagnetische+Str ahlen http://omega.twoday. net/search?q=Strahlenschut z https://omega.twoday.net/ search?q=elektrosensibel h ttp://omega.twoday.net/sea rch?q=Funkloch https://omeg a.twoday.net/search?q=Alzh eimer http://freepage.twod ay.net/search?q=Alzheimer https://omega.twoday.net/se arch?q=Joachim+Mutter
Starmail - 8. Apr, 08:39
Familie Lange aus Bonn...
http://twitter.com/WILABon n/status/97313783480574361 6
Starmail - 15. Mär, 14:10
Dänische Studie findet...
https://omega.twoday.net/st ories/3035537/ -------- HLV...
Starmail - 12. Mär, 22:48
Schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen ...
Bitte schenken Sie uns Beachtung: Interessengemeinschaft...
Starmail - 12. Mär, 22:01
Effects of cellular phone...
http://www.buergerwelle.de /pdf/effects_of_cellular_p hone_emissions_on_sperm_mo tility_in_rats.htm [...
Starmail - 27. Nov, 11:08


Online seit 7440 Tagen
Zuletzt aktualisiert: 8. Apr, 08:39