If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Friday, August 28, 2009

Who's Crazy, the Truth-Seeking Journalist or the Shrinks Who Locked Her Up?

My Sat. 8/29 radio show: Psychology professor meets journalist committed to mental hospital for 9/11 truth-seeking

More news...

NYCcan.org is in court fighting to validate signatures and force a real 9/11 investigation:
Silencing of NYC Voters Will Not Go Unchallenged


Interview with Emmy Award Winning and Social Activist Actor Ed Asner... supporter of 911 Truth. Click here to listen.

Also, Ed Asner did read the hard-hitting 9/11 truth PSA (public service announcement) I wrote for him, as well as several others. Contact your local Pacifica stations and tell them to run these! Listen here.

Sheehan Announces First Draft of International People’s Declaration of Peace

MARTHA’S VINEYARD---Cindy Sheehan spoke before the White House press, international and main stream media, and addressed an assemblage of peace movement leaders on Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday, August 27.

Sheehan called for an amplified re-invigoration of the peace movement to join her unequivocal war opposition. She is initiating a first draft of her proposed ‘International People’s Declaration of Peace’, subnamed ‘IP-DOP’, to be read at her speaking event on the Vineyard on Saturday, August 29 at the Katharine Cornell Theater in Tisbury.

Immediately following the press conference, supporters erected the Camp Casey tent compound in a West Tisbury field across the stream from Obama’s Chilmark summer residence. Honks from pro-peace well wishers were followed by a swift succession of vehicles which contained the President and his entourage, which passed alongside the Peace Rally at the Camp Casey site.

Later Thursday, Sheehan is expected to join peace leaders for a sea excursion on the racing sloop nicknamed the ‘SS Camp Casey’ for the first meeting of IPDOP organizers.
For information on Sheehan’s schedule, please contact: Laurie Dobson at 207-604-8988 or email: lauriegdobson(at)gmail.com. (Please note: this is a new email address.) or Bruce Marshall at brmas(at)yahoo.com

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Interfaith Dialogue Requires a Level Playing Field

The 9/11 truth interfaith dialogue book I edited, 9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out, just came out in Arabic. I would love to visit the Arab world and promote it. The last time I lectured on 9/11 in an Arab country (Morocco, 2007) I found the audience extremely receptive...though the reaction I got, over and over, was "We already know 9/11 was an inside job, so please go back and inform your fellow Americans of this simple and obvious fact."

Every single person I talked to about the subject in Morocco believed or suspected that 9/11 was primarily perpetrated by the Israeli Mossad and its American Zionist helpers, perhaps in conjunction with corrupt and/or treasonous forces in the US military-industrial-intelligence complex. This is, in fact, pretty much what the majority of the world's Muslims, from expert Ph.D.s who have researched the subject in detail, to excitable cab drivers, seems to think.

Do I think that? Well, I do think the evidence for an Israeli-Zionist connection to 9/11 is overwhelming, and I also agree with Netanyahu that Israel was the biggest beneficiary of 9/11. While I strongly suspect that James Petras is right about the Zionist Power Configuration being the main force behind the 9/11 wars (and, I would add, the false-flag attack designed to launch them), there is so much evidence implicating Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers, and others in the US National Security complex itself that to view 9/11 exclusively as a Mossad/Zionist "outside job" seems...well, a little premature. It may have been more like the Liberty incident, where the treasonous LBJ and his enablers in the secret covert-ops executive committee of the National Security Council colluded with hardline forces in Israel to launch the 1967 war, then attempt to bring the U.S. into the war by attacking the U.S.S. Liberty and blaming it on Egypt (see Peter Hounem's Operation Cyanide for details). That's why when Admiral Mullen warned Israel against trying any future Liberty incidents to get the US into war with Iran, he may have been actually delivering a coded warning against another 9/11 style Zionist attack on the US homeland.

On the subject of interfaith dialogue...Brian Good, the 9/11 truth sex stalker, and his disinfo allies at truthassholes.org have accused me of "Jew-baiting" for pointing out that Bin Laden, an innocent and by all accounts a pious, truthful, deeply decent man falsely accused of a heinous crime, suggested that American Jews were responsible for 9/11. My point, of course, was that if one is allowed to say that Saudi Muslims were responsible for 9/11, why should it be taboo for anyone--least of all an innocent Muslim falsely accused of the crime--to say that American Jews were responsible? In both cases, one is blaming people of a certain nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Is it okay to blame people from certain nationalities, religions and ethnicities, but not others, regardless of the facts? If so, why is that?

We all know that when someone says "American Jews did 9/11" an emotional button is pushed, flooding us with feelings of shame and anxiety; whereas when someone says "Saudi Muslims did 9/11" we experience no such surge of negative emotions. Why is that, I wonder? (And if you experienced negative emotions upon reading my statement that Bin Laden was an innocent, pious, truthful, deeply decent man, even though you see through the big lie of 9/11, why was that?)

I think it has to do with "framing" -- the way our experiences are unconsciously contextualized at an emotional, not factual, level. For example, defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) of 9/11 parrot George W. Bush's assertion that any other interpretation of 9/11 is an "outrageous conspiracy theory." Why? Because the word outrageous is an emotional word, conjuring up feelings of outrage: extreme anger at someone's going beyond the bounds of what is approved by social consensus. The OCT defender's thought process goes something like this: "Because we are told by our leaders that 19 Muslims did 9/11, all of the anger and horror we experience that day must be directed against anyone who disagrees."

In reality, of course, the idea that after decades without any successful hijackings of U.S. aircraft, nineteen sex-and-drug-crazed pseudo-Muslims with box cutters would take down three skyscrapers with two planes, and hit the Pentagon almost ninety minutes after the hijackings began with no response whatsoever from U.S. air defenses, is "outrageous" in the sense of being so wildly improbable that we may safely consider it impossible even prior to investigation. Indeed, the idea that anti-Zionist anti-imperialist Muslims would even want to conduct a spectacular attack in the U.S., when such an attack would so obviously serve the interests of Zionism and imperialism, is ridiculous. Whereas the idea that Zionist-imperialist covert operators would have the means, motive and opportunity to launch a spectacular false-flag attack on the U.S., and thus should be considered the probable authors of any such attack even prior to investigation, is simple common sense.

When we hear the ridiculous assertions blaming Saudi Muslims for 9/11, we should experience feelings of outrage -- because these assertions are so clearly false and malicious, and because they have triggered the murder of more than one million Muslims because they are Muslims worldwide. When we hear far less improbable assertions like Bin Laden's blaming American Jews, we have no actual reason to feel outraged, given the evidence, both hard and circumstantial, against such names as Silverstein, Zakheim, Perle, Wolfowitz, Netanyahu, and given the fact that Israel (so beloved of 80-90% of American Jews) was by far the biggest beneficiary of 9/11. Yet because the world we inhabit is not reality, but a matrix of emotionally-programmed frames, we are apt to react in the opposite way.

I am a strong advocate of interfaith dialogue, but only if there is a level playing field. The common (in the US) taboo against blaming Jews for anything, alongside the mandatory blaming of Muslims for everything, must be eliminated before any real dialogue can begin.

To get a genuinely level playing field, we need to change the frames that govern our emotional reactions to interfaith issues. Since those frames are largely created by the media, we need to ensure that (anti-Zionist) Muslims are represented in media decision-making positions, in proportion to their presence in the population, in equal proportion to (pro-Zionist) Jews in relation to their presence in the population. Currently, it appears that pro-Zionist Jews are wildly over-represented in media decision-making positions in the US. I think it is time for Muslims and other patriotic, justice-seeking Americans to demand that Muslims be brought into U.S. media decision-making positions, and Jews moved out, until the proportions of both are roughly equal, as their roughly equal presence in the U.S. population mandates. While it is unlikely that this demand will be met any time soon, simply putting it forward in a highly visible way would shine a light on the deep, structural reason that US Americans inhabit a matrix-world of Zionist-instigated Islamophobia.

* * *


The comment on this post by "Snug Bug" is the work of Brian Good, the 9/11 truth sex stalker, who stalks and sexually harasses prominent female activists, and cyber-stalks ME (yuck), tirelessly trolling the internet in search of anything I might post, and subjecting it to his tiresome, incoherent ad-hominem attacks. He also stalks William Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, and others. Brian, get a life! Go away before I call the cyber-police. And take off that ridiculous raincoat. Uh, on second thought, better put it back on.

Monday, August 24, 2009

David Ray Griffin: My new book can help end Afghan war

Note: We will be rebroadcasting my interview with David Ray Griffin, "the Dean of 9/11 Studies," tomorrow, Tuesday, August 25th, 9 a.m. Pacific (noon Eastern) on NoLiesRadio.

The ninth anniversary 9/11 is fast approaching, and the media will once again be revisiting the unsolved crime of the century. It's the perfect time to approach friends, family, media, and people in your community with a 9/11 truth message.

The problem is, you can't argue people into accepting the truth. It is both more pleasant and more effective to raise a few key questions, like "does this endless 'war on terror' really make any sense" or "did Bush's so-called 'war on terror' destroy our economy," or "what happened to Building 7," and then give the person a book or DVD.

My new book Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters is the first 9/11 truth book carefully designed to be given away to a target audience: namely, people who voted for Obama, who are capable of reading a book, and who aren't yet on board with the 9/11 truth movement. If you know any such people -- and there are tens of millions of them out there -- you really ought to consider giving them this book. The nonprofit publisher is offering a special "giveaway price" to activists: ten books for fifty bucks! And that includes postage!

Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters is a lively, entertaining, concise, ultra-readable demolition of the War on Terror. Pass it to your favorite Obama voter, and see if it doesn't get results! I've already pre-tested it on various guinea pigs, including family members who had been resistant to 9/11 truth, and after a couple of re-writings, it's now an extremely effective tool for bringing Obama supporters into synch with the 9/11 truth movement's goals. (It's also getting me mainstream media attention--for example, check out my KOA interview here).

Why is this important? Obama may have junked the phrase "War on Terror" but he's still pursuing Bush's policies of war, bloated military budgets, and Constitution-shredding. In fact, he's actually escalating the war in Afghanistan! David Ray Griffin recently suggested that my book can contribute to ending that war, and, by extension, the whole War on Terror:

"Americans have now joined the rest of the world in regarding the war in Iraq as illegitimate because based on lies. Kevin Barrett's book shows that the same is true of the war in Afghanistan. President Obama's promise to base his administration's policies on good intelligence should, therefore, lead him to bring this war to a quick end."--David Ray Griffin, author of The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False

To order Questioning the War on Terror, send $15 (includes postage) per book, or $50 (includes postage) for ten books to be given away for non-profit purposes to: Khadir Press, PO Box 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Progressive Magazine, Like U.S. Empire, Drowning in Debt & Lies

The mainstream media, like the Zio-American empire it serves, is going broke because it is drowning in lies.(1) Ironically, Matt Rothschild's "alternative" Progressive magazine is in the same predicament. The Progressive pretends to oppose corporate power, but ignores its source: the handful of trillionaire families, whose capo (like the Progressive's editor) happens to be named Rothschild, that own the Federal Reserve and other central banks, and create our currency by lending it into existence at unpayable interest, driving the entire world into exponentially-increasing indebtedness to themselves.(2) And while it pretends to oppose Bush's wars, the Progressive ignores the fact that these wars (and the 9/11 false-flag attack that launched them) are the creation of what James Petras aptly calls the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC).(3)

When I informed Progressive editor Matt Rothschild that Osama Bin Laden (prior to his death in late 2001) denied having anything to do with 9/11, deplored the attacks in the strongest possible terms, and blamed them on certain "American Jews," Rothschild was visibly horrified and disgusted, responding "What a thing to say!"(4) He obviously isn't so horrified by the official lie that blames 9/11 on Muslims, and has sparked the genocidal slaughter of more than a million people because they are Muslims. Excuse me, Mr. Rothschild: Why is it okay to mendaciously blame 9/11 on Muslims, but deeply offensive for a man falsely blamed for the crime to suggest the likely truth -- that 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, which have bankrupted our economy and morally destroyed our nation, were orchestrated primarily by and for Zionist Jews?

* * *

(1) Audiences are abandoning the lying mainstream media for truth-seeking internet news sources including WhatReallyHappened.com, LegitGov.org, GlobalResearch.ca, PrisonPlanet.com, Rense.com, and many others. Meanwhile the Zio-American empire now bases its quixotic struggle against the tide of history on the big lies of 9/11, the value of the dollar, the goodness of the empire, and so on.

(2) See books including: G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve; Ellen Brown, Web of Debt; Richard C. Cook, We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform; Geraldine Perry and Ken Fousek, The Two Faces of Money; Webster Tarpley, Surviving the Cataclysm: Your Guide through the Greeatest Financial Crisis in Human History; and videos including The Money Masters and Money as Debt. Also, please note that I am not suggesting that Matt Rothschild, editor of the Progressive, is a member of the trillionaire banking family; as I understand it, Matt comes from a Chicago family of modest means.

(3) Under Rothschild's leadership, the Progressive has censored and slandered the 9/11 truth movement. In late 2005, when I asked Rothschild why the Progressive didn't report on the obvious controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7, Rothschild responded "what's Building 7?" His ignorance and incuriosity did not stop him from penning a vapid article entitled
"Enough of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already" several months later.
Likewise, the Progressive has consistently blamed Bush, rather than hardline Zionists, for the 9/11 wars, ignoring the analysis of Petras and others that clearly shows that Zionism, rather than oil, was the casus belli. Unsurprisingly, The Progressive also ignores the takeover of American politics and media by Zionist money.

(4) My exchange with Rothschild took place at a public meeting sponsored by the Madison Area Peace Coalition in winter 2009. Bin Laden denied involvement, deplored the 9/11 attacks, and suggested American Jewish complicity here and here (see also archives here).

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Remembering Barry Jennings

9/11 whistleblower & shaheed. Murdered one year ago today by the treasonous mass murderers who blew up the World Trade Center to launch criminal wars of aggression that have killed more than a million innocent people.

Today people are contacting/picketing media outlets trying to drum up some interest in this amazing story.


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Winding down from two heated radio debates

It hasn't gotten this intense since I went at it with Sean Hannity!

This morning on "Fair and Balanced" I got into a heated debate with Dr. Joel Hirschhorn, author of "9/11 Mind Swell: Scientific evidence refutes the official story." Ken Jenkins joined the fracas during the second half-hour. At issue was Dr. Hirschhorn's provocative and at least somewhat unfair evaluation of the 9/11 truth movement, which drew an over-the-top rebuttal from Jerry Mazza on Infowars. I think anyone concerned with the future of 9/11 truth should listen to this show, archived here.

Then in the afternoon I took on hosts Jeff and Lee from right-wing Christian station KKMS in Minneapolis, right smack in the middle of drive time... and fed them straight-up 9/11 truth, Palestine truth, etc. till they almost choked! Interfaith dialogue doesn't get any gnarlier than this. Click on the August 18th show at http://www.kkms.com/blogs/JeffandLee/archives/.

Between the two shows, I wrote a 9/11 truth commercial for Ed Asner, which he'll supposedly be recording soon (not sure if my version will be used, altered, or what):

Hi, I'm Ed Asner. I used to play a fictional journalist named Lou Grant on TV. Today, there are hardly any real journalists left. The whole mainstream media is owned by a few billionaires. And I'm fighting mad about the way those billionaires and their lapdog journalists have lied to you about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars. The government lied to us about 9/11, the media lied to us about 9/11, and they're all still lying to us about 9/11. Our soldiers are still dying in their criminal wars. And our economy is still bleeding from their trillion-dollar so-called "war on terror." If we want peace, prosperity, and freedom, we need the truth about 9/11. Forget the official myth--we need the facts. Please visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, ae911truth.org to learn about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. And then join the family members and survivors of 9/11 pushing for a new investigation at NYCcan.org, that's NYCcan.org. Together, we can expose the truth and build a brighter future. Once again, that's Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, ae911truth.org, and the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, at NYCcan.org.

All in a day's work.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Christians, Atheists, and WhatReallyHappened.com Cover My Book

My two-hour KOA interview with Rick Barber is a tough act to follow. I do have a couple of interesting interviews coming up though.

Next Tuesday, August 18th, 5 pm Central--primo drive time--I'll be interviewed on KKMS Minneapolis, a 5000-watt Christian A.M. station. Get ready for some, er, interfaith dialogue!

Then on Wednesday, August 26th, I'll be interviewed by Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com, my favorite news-and-commentary site. Rivero is a pioneer blogosphere truth-teller with a wicked sense of humor. Should be fun.

Last but not least, my new book Questioning the War on Terror just got some excellent coverage at NAC, the Network of those Abused by Church.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Good News! 9/11 Truth Message Blankets North America

Bad news: It blanketed North America from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. Mountain Time.

KOA radio in Denver spreads its night signal over 30 states plus most of Canada and Mexico. So when Rick Barber interviewed me Wednesday, there were more than a few night owls listening.

Unlike Mike Pintek, the other mega-station interviewer I faced recently, Rick Barber asked good questions and actually listened to what I had to say. Once again, the call-ins were overwhelmingly pro-9/11-truth or leaning in that direction. Memo to Hannity: If "most people think I'm a nut," how come almost all the callers to these huge AM radio stations agree with me?

Now, thanks to the magic of Ed Rynearson's editing, you can hear the whole interview, minus commercials, at any time of the day or night that suits you!


Ed has also archived my interview with Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team, whose research casts severe doubt on the government's story of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Craig, Aldo and CIT have been targeted by the same wrecking crew of cyber-stalkers who (individually and/or collectively) have tormented me, William Rodriguez, Rob Balsamo, Carol Brouillet, Webster Tarpley, Sofia, Dr. Steven Jones, Ellen Mariani, and other competent and accomplished voices of 9/11 truth. Stay tuned to this blog for a detailed discussion of cyber-stalking, the bane of the 9/11 truth movement. (I will be naming names...at least when the culprits have real names, rather than absurd pseudonyms like "Arabesque" and "Col. Sparks"!) Now the same cyber-stalkers are harassing Peter Dale Scott and myself, and presumably also David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage, because we have publicly endorsed the hard investigative work, if not necessarily all of the conclusions, of CIT.

Through extremely hard work and exacting research, CIT has made a strong case that the large aircraft that witnesses assumed struck the Pentagon on 9/11 flew over the building rather than hitting it. By establishing a flight path on the north side of the Citgo station, CIT has shown that evidence supporting the official story's flight path to the south of the Citgo station--including downed lightpoles and the ridiculous C-ring hole--was probably manufactured. There would have been no need to manufacture this evidence if a large plane actually hit the building.

The wreckers are so desperate to support the government's version of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon that they have been sending insulting emails to Peter Dale Scott! Peter's response:

This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.

I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, "And we are all mortal." I would add, "And we are all fallible." For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.


Peter Dale Scott

Hear, hear! And lest it be said that I am not being fair and balanced, I commend recent radio guest Frank Legge's excellent article on the topic of what may or may not have hit the Pentagon. I do think there are some problems with the article, but overall it is an excellent contribution to the discussion. Frank Legge's article, and his subsequent email dialogue with key people who took issue with parts of it, is a model of the kind of reasoned discussion we need.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Mega-Station 9/11 Truth Interview Tonight - Broadcast in 30 States


I can do 9/11 truth interviews in my sleep--and just proved it the hard way! Family Net Radio called at 6 a.m. -- I had gotten the time zones mixed up so I was still half asleep -- probably not my best interview, though my wife said it sounded okay to her...you may be able to find an archive at http://www.familynet.com/site/c.ouLXJ7MLKpH/b.4506589/k.DC50/Mornings.htm. Also, Roberto Alvarez-Galloso just published his interview with me at http://forasteroohioohiostranger.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/an-interview-with-dr-kevin-barrett/ . Meanwhile, a pathetic hack named Robert Mentzer recently spewed up this article, to which I unwittingly contributed: http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090802/WDH06/908020324 . Finally, my best recent interview, by far, was last week's with Jim Fetzer: http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/Jim%20Fetzer%20the%20Real%20Deal-guest%20Kevin%20Barrett.mp3


After getting 100% support from callers and emailers during my recent interview on Pittsburgh mega-station KDKA, I'm trying my luck with another mega-station, KOA-AM in Denver. Catch my interview with Rick Barber at 1 a.m. Mountain Time (2 a.m. Central) tonight, Tuesday night (technically Wednesday morning). They say they count their listeners by the millions-- the signal can be picked up in 30 states and most of Mexico and Canada. Tune in at http://www.850koa.com/pages/listen.html

Then next Tuesday, August 18th, I'm on during drive time, 5 pm Central, on the huge Christian station KKMS-AM, Minneapolis: http://www.kkms.com/ Get ready for a little, er, interfaith dialogue! Also I just got booked on a major national network radio show September 9th...stay tuned for details.

You can help the media blitz by writing and calling your local media outlets asking them to interview me or review my book: www.QuestioningTheWaronTerror.com You can also buy the book from the nonprofit publisher at ten books for fifty bucks, then give it away to Obama voters and reviewers at local media outlets.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Space for Peace and September 11 by Jonathan Mark

Jonathan Mark is one of our best 9/11 truth activists. Below is his latest essay describing his perspective as a peace-in-space activist turned 9/11 truth-seeker. Jonathan will be my guest on Fair and Balanced this Tuesday, August 11th, noon-1 pm Eastern on NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived shortly thereafter here.

Many 9/11 truth-seekers aren't aware of the evidence that one of the primary motives of 9/11 may have been to accelerate the militarization of space--evidence explored in the section entitled "Missile Defense and a Space Pearl Harbor" of David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor (p.96-101). Top space-war hawks Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, and Gen. Ralph Eberhart are all near the top of the list of 9/11 suspects, and the Rumsfeld Commission had earlier called for a "Space Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the nation into supporting the militarization of space.

-Kevin Barrett

Space for Peace and September 11
A flyby perspective
By Jonathan Mark

One of the stranger events that happened near the end of the 20th Century was when NASA conducted two “flybys” around Venus on a journey towards Saturn. A flyby is a maneuver in frictionless space using gravity from a planet for a slingshot-acceleration effect. The strange part regarding “Cassini” was that it had 72.3 pounds of radioactive plutonium on board, and was scheduled for an Earth-flyby on August 17/18, 1999, while traveling at around 10 miles per second. (1) Fortunately there was no inadvertent collision with Earth’s atmosphere, but why would NASA risk life on Earth while exploring the solar system?

Karl Grossman, author of “The Wrong Stuff: The US Space Program’s Nuclear Threat To Our Planet,” answered my question. He pointed to the U.S. Air Force report, "New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for The 2lst Century," where it stated "In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills." However, the report notes, "power limitations impose restrictions" on such weapons systems, making them "relatively unfeasible. A natural technology to enable high power is nuclear power in space." (2)

In response to the insanity of a NASA-plutonium Earth-flyby, I asked Professor Grossman if he could help me find an activist-webmaster. Jo McIntire who had helped those protesting Cassini’s launch at Cape Canaveral was the perfect partner. By December 1997 we launched the Action Site to Stop Cassini Earth Flyby (NoFlyby). We had more than a year and a half to accomplish our mission, to stop and/or expose the dangerous Earth-flyby.

Following the flyby in 1999, Michael Muller graciously helped me set up FlybyNews.com where I could operate it independently for “news in the post Cassini flyby era.” (3) In the last ten years FN has covered US election fraud, global warming, uranium munitions, low frequency active sonar (harming whales and dolphins), new energy technologies in development (and being delayed), Middle East information and peace initiatives, human rights violations such as in the case of Leonard Peltier, Lori Berenson, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and others. However the initial crucial campaign was to maintain the authority of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to stop the arms race from entering outer space.

September 11, 2001 suddenly put everything into jeopardy. The patriotic fervor, the fear, the anger, a neurosis fueled by media betrayal, enabled George W. Bush to override sensibilities in Congress. The Anthrax letters sent to Democrat Party leaders and to major media networks obviously contained a threatening message. Yet, when it became known that the Anthrax originated from a US military base, publicity died down. Within months after 9/11 crimes, with Congress in his palm, Bush terminated the ABM Treaty.

The Neoconservative think-tank group, “The Project for a New American Century,” (4) planned for such an event like 9/11. In its document, “Rebuilding America's Defenses,” it stated that "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

On November 11, 2001 at the United Nations, George Bush, Jr. said almost threateningly, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty." Could George Orwell have said it better, “War Is Peace?” One lie led to another, and WMDs became the big one to justify an attack on Iraq.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower might have warned us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, but he couldn’t have imagined the scope of betrayal and deceit following the crimes of September 11, 2001. In 1953 when being encouraged to engage in a preventive war against the Soviet Union, President Eisenhower flatly denounced it, saying, "All of us have heard this term `preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler." He added, "I don't believe there is such a thing, and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." Yet 9/11 was used for two ‘preemptive’ undeclared wars while covering up the truth of what really happened. The dark forces seemed content in increasing global destabilization, crimes against humanity, environmental destruction, and financial fraudulent policies. The path for a Neocon global dominant military agenda, and loss of citizen civil rights proceeded on all fronts, including US terrorism-torture policies.

With so many dire issues, uniting a justice and peace movement is no easy task. The mind-control impact of 9/11 is more than many peace activists can handle. The consequences of such a cover-up is simply frightening for most anyone. Yet, integrity, freedom, truth, science, and civilization hang in the balance.

The most hopeful campaign for exposing truth to awaken the critical mass public is with the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN.org). Fifty-two thousand petitions have been delivered to the NY City Council to place a referendum question on the NYC ballot on November 3, 2009. A majority YES vote would authorize a subpoena-powered real investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

Of course in an election as significant as this we expect foul play, but is resistance futile or fertile? I rather think the latter. NYC CAN proves the Emperor has no clothes on. No one stands above truth, and its relationship with science, and the responsibility to investigate unanswered questions. As Online Journal contributing writer, Kevin Quirk, entitled one of his articles, “More than a movement - the search for 9/11 truth is an awakening.” (5)

Such an awakening can have dire consequences, which is why FN supports a truth and reconciliation pathway toward a nonviolent future. But the truth should disclose more than just about recent years. Citizens need to know about the truth of assassinations, the falsehood of corporate human rights, the dissolution of the US national banking system for an international crooked one, and other policies of betrayal to the US Constitution. Truth and Reconciliation was successful in South Africa for its political transformation. Of course there is potential for violence from the truth coming out, but also for reclaiming a lost USA Republic, and for a commitment to peace and honor that could lead our world to abolishing all weapons of mass destruction. Where others have failed to crack the nut, the citizens of NYC CAN - vote for peace!

(1) Action Site to Stop Cassini Earth Flyby http://www.flybynews.com/archives/
(2) "New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for The 2lst Century"
(3) Flyby News – www. FlybyNews.com
(4) “The Project for a New American Century,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
(5) “More than a movement - the search for 9/11 truth is an awakening” http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3519.shtml

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Aggression = THE Supreme War Crime: Fact, Not Opinion

"To initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
-Nuremburg tribunal

"You are basically saying that breaking and entering is a worse crime than rape and homicide because rape and homicide often occur after breaking and entering."
-Rob Kall, Op-Ed News

For a few years now, I have been one of the targets of a psychopathic stalker named Brian Good. When Mr. Good recently slandered me on Op-Ed News, and an Op-Ed editor seemingly approved the slander, I complained to Rob Kall. Rob, unfortunately, doesn't get it. Rob apparently is in denial about the fact that aggression is the supreme war crime. He falsely asserts that by re-stating the established position of international law, I was offering a personal opinion, which I was not. The fact that murder is a felony, while petty theft is a misdemeanor, is a matter of established law, not personal opinion. The same is true for the fact that aggression is the supreme war crime, and all other war crimes, no matter how awful, are therefore lesser crimes.

I just responded to Rob Kall as follows.

Dear Rob Kall...

... You write:

" It is our opinion that you are basically saying that breaking and entering is a worse crime than rape and homicide because rape and homicide often occur after breaking and entering."

That is itself a very careless, and perhaps slanderous, distortion of my position, which offered no personal opinion whatsoever, but instead quoted/summarized the status of these respective crimes under international law since the Nuremburg tribunals. It is an established fact, not an opinion, that under international law, aggression is the supreme war crime, and all other war crimes are lesser crimes. This has been the established consensus position of the entire profession of international law since the Nuremburg tribunals. Some of the world's top international law professors have been guests on my radio show and stated this clearly and without any equivocation whatsoever, including Princeton professor and U.N. official Richard Falk, and University of Illinois professor Francis Boyle.

If Brian Good, or you, or anyone else disagrees with the established consensus position of the profession of international law, that is their right. Since international law is entirely man-made, disagreeing with it is at least slightly more sensible than disagreeing with the established consensus of the profession of physics about the existence of the law of gravity. But attacking ME because I merely CITE the consensus position of international law is slanderous for two reasons. First, it lies about my statement by falsely claiming that the position of international law is my personal opinion, which it is not, any more than the consensus position of physicists about gravity is my personal opinion. Second, it lies by distorting the consensus position of international law in a pejorative way. The undisputed fact that aggression is the supreme war crime does not excuse or lessen any other crimes, and no one, least of all me, has claimed that it does.

I request a more careful consideration of this issue, beginning with a quick check with the above international law professors to confirm the undisputed FACT, not opinion, that aggression is the supreme crime under international law, and has been so since the Nuremburg tribunals.


Dr. Kevin Barrett

Friday, August 7, 2009

Tarpley Explains "Why SAUDI Hijackers?"

Webster Tarpley will be on my show tomorrow to discuss the economic crisis, and the U.S.-Saudi crisis that's developing behind the scenes. (If Saudi Arabia drops out of the U.S.-Anglo orbit, kiss the empire goodbye.)

One of the common objections to 9/11 truth is, "why SAUDI hijackers, if the plan was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?" Back in 2005, Tarpley suggested an answer. His latest offering on the disappearance of key Saudi figure "Bandar Bush" recalls that answer.


From Webster Tarpley:

Behind the Bandar disppearance - was Bandar trying to use Russia to balance US domination, escaping from the US protectorate with the help of an opening to Russia?

Here is my discussion of the situation with Alex Jones on Infowars radio today.


As I wrote in 9/11 Synthetic Terror (2005):

Most significant of all were the signs that even Saudi Arabia , long considered a client state or even a ward of the United States , was considering breaking away from the US system. Here the falling dollar, Bush’s slavish support of Sharon , and preparations for new US attacks on Arab states were doubtless playing a role. According to the Wall Street Journal, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah sent a letter to Bush at the end of August 2001 – before the events of September 11 – and warned him, in reference to the US-Saudi relationship, that “a time comes when peoples and nations part.” The letter went on to say that “it is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests. Those governments that don’t feel the pulse of the people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.” Prince Abdullah read from this letter at a meeting of 150 prominent Saudis in October 2001, in an effort to convince them that the Saudi government is defending Arab and Muslim interests. During a phone call with Bush around the same time, Abdullah again called for the U.S. to restrain Israel . Diplomats said that there was considerable debate within the Saudi royal family over the U.S. war in Afghanistan and the cost of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. One Western diplomat said that the failure to resolve the Middle East conflict was going to make it harder for Saudi Arabia to continue its relationship with the U.S. in the same manner. (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 29, 2001 ) Saudi Arabia was a pillar of the US empire; without it, the empire would collapse. For the imperialists, action was imperative to prevent this critical defection.

The dubious Michael Moore and others parroted the Mossad line that Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11. It is more likely that the unproven allegations about Saudi hijackers were cooked up as a means of blackmailing the Saudis, who were evidently ready to distance themselves from Washington

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 5 Issue: 137
July 18, 2008 12:00 AM Age: 1 yrs
Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Middle East
By: John C. K. Daly, Jamestown Foundation

A simple, one-sentence Russian language news item published by Russia's Interfax on July 14 seemingly signals yet another tectonic shift in the Middle East's volatile mixture of oil, religion and weaponry. The item read, "An agreement about military-technical collaboration (VTS) between Russia and Saudi Arabia was signed Monday evening, reports an Interfaks [sic] correspondent; the agreement was signed in the presence of RF Prime Minister Vladimir Putin by Federal agency on VTS head Mikhail Dmitriev and National Security Council of Saudi Arabia Secretary General Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz" (Interfax, July 14).

The next day the Saudi Press Agency provided more details, differing from the Interfax bulletin by noting that it was actually Bandar and Putin who signed the agreement, adding that "Bandar reiterated the keenness of the Custodian of the two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz on further cementing Saudi-Russian relations in the political, military, security, cultural and technological domains" (Saudi Press Agency, July 15).

While no text of the agreement was published, the news apparently represents a major potential realignment of the Middle East's geopolitical realities, made all the more extraordinary by the fact that, beginning 29 years ago and continuing through the entire Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia matched, dollar for dollar, the United States' covert assistance to the Mujahideen.

Saudi Ambassador to Russia Ali bin Hassan Jaafar commented that the event reflected the two nations' "sincere" desire to develop not only military-technical cooperation, but also broader joint endeavors in other fields, adding, "It will be one more bridge linking our countries" (Vedomosti, July 16).

Russian sources remarked that the Saudi military was particularly interested in Mi-17 transport and Mi-35 (NATO designation--"Hind-E") attack/transport helicopters. Ironically, an earlier variant of the Mi-35, the Mi-24, was used extensively during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to strafe Mujahideen, operating with complete air superiority until July 1985, when the United States began to supply the Mujahideen with hundreds of FIM-92A Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Riyadh's shopping list apparently is not limited to transporters and helicopters, as the source also stated that Saudi Arabia also was interested in purchasing Russia's most advanced aircraft and air defense systems, as well as T-90S main battle tanks, and was considering purchasing and integrating Russian-built S-300 and S-400 air defense systems with their U.S. Patriot systems (Vremya Novostei, July 16).

Discussions between Riyadh and Moscow have been underway since then President Putin visited Saudi Arabia in February 2007, when he met not only with King Abdullah but also with Sultan, former ambassador to the United States, who was appointed NSC head in October 2005, and Sultan's father, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, half-brother of King Abdallah and currently Saudi Arabia's minister of defense and aviation (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, February 16, 2007).

Obviously impressing his host, Abdullah awarded Putin the Order of King Abdul Aziz, Saudi Arabia's highest governmental award. Extending his trip to call on other U.S. regional allies, Putin also visited Qatar and Jordan.

Following up on Putin's 2007sojourn, Defense Minister Sultan subsequently visited Moscow in November, while last February Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal visited Moscow for discussions with then President Putin (Kommersant, February 15).

Putin said of the agreement, "Our relations are developing well; trade turnover is growing, though in absolute terms it still looks modest, but considering our good ties, we have good prospects and a good basis" (Interfax, July 14).

Speculation immediately flared in the Russian press that Riyadh was using the agreement and dangling large potential weapons contracts in front of Russia in an effort to woo Moscow away from Iran (Kommersant, July 15). Dmitry Peskov, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's spokesman, was forced to deny the reports, saying, "Any allegations to the effect that Russia's relations with Saudi Arabia with regard to military technological cooperation may in any way be linked to the Russian-Iranian dialogue are out of place and untrue" (Interfax, July 15). If the allegations are true, they provide yet another hidden aspect to the West's efforts to cajole and pressure Tehran into abandoning its uranium enrichment program.

The news is unpleasant for the U.S., as from 1999 to 2006, Saudi Arabia received $6.5 billion under arms transfer agreements with the United States, an annual average of $815 million in inflation-adjusted fiscal year 2006 dollars; and in July 2007 Washington announced the sale of $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council. For Russia, to enter such a lucrative arms market, which for years was the exclusive purview of the EU and the U.S., is potentially worth billions of dollars. While Saudi Arabia has yet to express an interest in such top-end (and expensive) items as fighters, Riyadh's potential shopping list reportedly includes not only the items mentioned earlier, but also 150 advanced T-90S tanks, over 100 helicopters including the Mi-35, Mi-17 and Mi-28NE variants, the Buk-M2E medium range air defense systems and several hundred BMP-3 armored personnel carriers; and the wish list could grow, according to a Russian defense industry source (Interfax-AVN, July 15).

For Washington, perhaps the most surprising aspect of the agreement is the deep involvement of Bandar, who appears to be the driving agent behind Saudi Arabia's growing military cooperation with Russia. During his time in Washington, Bandar by dint of seniority became the unofficial dean of the diplomatic corps and was so close to the Bush family that he earned the sobriquet, "Bandar Bush." Obviously Bandar's loyalties may be more malleable than Washington previously thought.

More concrete details of the agreement will doubtless become known in the coming days; but for Washington the final slap must be Bandar bin Sultan's comment, "Both Russia and Saudi Arabia agree upon and understand each other in virtually every energy-related issue" (Interfax, July 14). Saudi Arabia and Russia are the world's number one and two oil exporters, controlling nearly a quarter of the world's oil production between them. If the two "understand each other," then the potential anguish over the growing Russian-Saudi rapprochement could extend far beyond the Western military-industrial complex to include motorists and those seeking to heat their homes next winter. The only potential silver lining in the newfound friendship between the two is that Saudi Arabia is a member of OPEC while Russia is not, which may cause their interests to diverge. An energy hungry world can only hope so.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Ex-"Debunker" Idol Coming to 9/11 Truth Radio!

Tuesday, August 4th, on Fair and Balanced, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon - 1 pm Eastern), http://www.noliesradio.org: Dr. Frank Greening, former darling of the JREF anti-9/11 truth "debunkers."

To be archived a few hours after broadcast time at http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/shows/fair-balanced

During my recent hostile interview with Mike Pintek on Pittsburgh mega-station KDKA http://www.kdkaradio.com/pages/3624256.php I was asked a question I hear all the time: Why, if the WTC "collapses" were such obvious demolitions, are there so many scientists who disagree?

My answer is that there aren't. Like Diogenes with his lamp, searching the world for an honest man, I have spent several years searching for an honest, independent scientist willing to defend the Bush Administration's account of what happened to the World Trade Center. The only person I have found who even remotely fits the description is Dr. Frank Greening. A few years ago I lampooned Dr. Greening's heroic yet doomed attempts to support the government version: http://www.mujca.com/jarry.htm We had some correspondence, and I found him to be a decent, thoughtful, ultra-meticulous kind of guy who just doesn't want to leap to any conclusions -- like official complicity in 9/11 -- unless every other possibility has been thoroughly explored and exhausted.

After exploring and exhausting many possibilities, Dr. Greening has grown increasingly skeptical toward the government's position. Once the ultimate authority for the JREF anti-9/11-truth debunkers, by April 2007 Dr. Greening was expressing his disgust with their tedious nonsense: http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512 Then almost exactly one year ago, Frank Greening blasted the ridiculous NIST report on World Trade Center Building 7: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html
He is now collaborating with Dr. David Ray Griffin on Dr. Griffin's forthcoming book about WTC-7, due out September 1st:


Get to know the world's only honest, independent scientist who has tried to defend the government's version of what happened to the World Trade Center (heck, this should earn him a footnote in the history books!) tomorrow, Tuesday August 4th, 2009, 9-10 a.m. Pacific, at http://www.noliesradio.org To be archived shortly after broadcast time at http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/shows/fair-balanced

Kevin Barrett

* * *

Dr. Frank Greening's biography:
I have a Ph. D. in chemistry , but my official title for over 20 years was Senior Research Scientist at what used to be called Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation. I was in charge of radioanalytical chemistry research and discovered all sorts of problems with OPG's CANDU reactors... [Google Frank Greening's name and you’ll find him described as a “nuclear whistle-blower”]. I have published scientific articles in the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, Canadian Journal of Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Nuclear Materials, etc. I even worked with the great Nobel prize winning spectroscopist, Gerhard Herzberg, for 2 years back in the 1970s.