If you like this blog

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

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Tired of Hate Week yet?

In George Orwell's novel 1984, the people of Oceana spent one week each year being whipped into a purple froth of fury against a government-designated enemy.

Our neocon rulers could teach Orwell's Party a few lessons. In today's USA, Hate Week has gone on for almost a decade. The enemy, of course, is Islam in general, and Muslims who dare to defend themselves and their religion in particular.

Many of the brainwashed haters seem to take a devilish delight in slandering the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him. The spiritual father of these people, I pointed out a while back, is the Flaming father of Islamophobia, Abu Lahab. Someone named Jay responded:

"I like your translation (of Sura 111) better than all others I have read. But we are uncomfortable to one degree or another with those who disagree with us. If Abu Lahab was just pointing out the obvious, that Muhammed was a narcissistic plagiarist with tendencies towards sociopathy, manifested later by mass murderer, political assassinations and paedophelia, then maybe he was right to say something. If I were Mohammed, I would not like anybody pointing out those things either! Just because Muhammed lived and Abu Lahab didn't doesn't make Muhammed right. Where is Abu Lahab's side of the story?"

Jay pretends to be looking for "the other side of the story," like a fair and balanced reporter. But behind this pose lurks the irrational fury that has led ignorant peoples to revile and sometimes kill the prophets who were sent by God to guide them, as evidenced by Jay's gross distortion of history. The sources tell us that Muhammad, saas, was known as "al-Amin," "the completely trustworthy one," a characterization that was never disputed even by his enemies. What those enemies didn't like was not his character--everyone admitted it was spotless--but rather the threat his message posed to the greedy, materialistic Meccan oligarchy and its polytheistic profiteering. In short, it was the usual case of prophet vs. profits, not unlike Jesus vs. the moneychangers. See Suras 102, 104, and 107.

When people feel threatened by a message they can't refute (9/11 truth, for example) they attack the messenger. And the message of Islam is irrefutable to anyone with an ounce of spiritual common sense. Here are some core precepts of that message, in no particular order:

God is one, not three. The Christian obsession with the crucifixion is a bloody mistake. Jesus should be valued for his message, not for being supposedly tortured to death by his alleged father. In fact, "God the father" is the wrong metaphor--instead, the first two tangible characteristics of God, compassion and mercy (ar-rahman al-rahim) are linked etymologically to the word for "womb." Moses, Jesus, and all the other countless prophets should be loved, honored and respected. God created us as spiritual equals--there is no "chosen people." God created us pure and innocent--there is no "original sin." Salvation doesn't require being drenched in the blood of a human sacrifice; instead, we just need to remember who we really are (see Wordsworth on Intimations of Immortality). We must take care of the needy and work for social justice. In the struggle for social justice and truth, we should resort to force only when other alternatives have been exhausted--but we do have the right to use force to defend ourselves. Spiritual development is for everybody, not just an elite, so everybody should pray regularly, fast for a whole month each year, give to the needy, avoid debauchery, and seek to make a pilgrimage to the house of God. Since all of us are equal, and spiritual development is for everybody, there should be no priests or rabbis or popes or ministers or any other spiritual bureaucrats. And since enjoying the beautiful things that God has given us (including sexuality) is a good thing, there should be no monks either. Charging interest on loans (usury), like other forms of selfish cheating, is completely and utterly unacceptable. A good society should be run by these and related rules, which organize the society around maximizing the possibilities for the spiritual development of all its members, rather than by the doomed attempt to channel selfishness and greed into material production (the Western capitalist paradigm which has nearly destroyed the planet).

Western Civilization, like most so-called civilizations, is run by a satanic cabal dedicated to promoting the culture of ego-desire (the nafs) and thereby impeding the spiritual growth of humankind. Our leaders are our prison wardens, telling us that there is nothing beyond the bars of our cage, nothing beyond the shadows on the cave wall, so just hurry on, nothing to see here, you're just a desiring material body condemned to death (and you'd better fear death so we can control you! So be VERY afraid of those Muslims who don't fear death! They must be some kind of death cult or something!)

Islam is the biggest remaining threat to this cabal's quest for world domination. That's the bottom-line reason for 9/11 and the rest of the Islamophobic brainwashing operation.

So if you're getting bored with Hate Week, ask yourself "why this particular hatefest?" then check out Islam. The best two introductions to Islam in English are Michael Sells' Approaching the Qur'an, and Murata and Chittick's The Vision of Islam, while the best historical interpretation is Marshall Hodgson's The Vision of Islam. I don't think Sells and Chittick are even Muslim, and Hodgson was a Quaker, so don't worry, these are NOT proselytizing books.  But they are moderately demanding. If you're looking for an easier read, start with Muhammad Asad's The Road to Mecca.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Ask a former Islamic terrorist

During my recent debate with evangelical Islamophobe Walid Shoebat (listen here)  I noticed that he responds to all questions with pretty much the same set of stock answers. When asked about the Illuminati, the differences between the different monotheistic scriptures, or the definition of terrorism in general, Shoebat's answer was always the same: "Blah blah blah Islamic terrorism."

Since Shoebat and his handlers are making so much money off this schtick, they might as well start an advice column. (Apologies to the Onion.)

Ask a Former Islamic Terrorist
A new advice column I'm ghostwriting for Walid Shoebat

Dear Former Islamic Terrorist,
I recently learned that my boyfriend has been sneaking into the bathroom with my cell phone. At first I thought he was doing something sick with it. When I confronted him, he said he just feels safer in there with two cell phones, in case one of them broke down or something while he was having a heart attack. Is this normal?
Puzzled in Buffalo

Dear Puzzled in Buffalo,
Let's not kid ourselves, the real issue is Islamic terrorism. It's a major threat to this country. It's a major threat to the world. We've had since 9/11 about 14,000 terror attacks from Muslims fundamentalists coming from all over the world. In fact, suicide bombing exists in Muslim countries that virtually have no occupation. Islamic terrorism comes straight out of the Qur'an. It's time we took the bull by the tail and looked the facts in the face.
Former Islamic Terrorist

Dear Former Islamic Terrorist,
I don't have any money for health insurance, and now they're going to fine me for not having any. Since I can't afford advice from a doctor, and yours is free, I thought I'd ask you why my bowel movements are bright florescent yellow with a rubbery texture. They look sort of like giant banana slugs. Is this serious?
Need a Cheap Diagnosis Fast

Dear Need a Cheap Diagnosis Fast,
Islamic terrorism is a cult-like process that indoctrinates masses in unison, in order to convert Islamic masses to become remorseless killers and seekers of salvation through the sharing of their own blood during jihad warfare, in order to establish an Islamic hegemony in which Islam and Muslims become dominant, and non-Muslims become subservient.
Former Islamic Terrorist

Dear Former Islamic Terrorist,
The other day I accidentally dropped my husband's bowling ball on my toe. Since then I haven't been able to type more than thirty words a minute, so I lost my job. He says it's my fault because I had no business juggling with it in the first place. Do you think I should sue him?
Litigious in Lexington

Dear Litigious in Lexington,
My mother was held for 35 years in an Israeli-occupied Muslim country and they wouldn't even let her go to the bathroom! By the end of her stay, she was so full of shit that...well, let's just say I inherited her gift of gab. That's what we should really be talking about here today. But let's not fool ourselves. The real threat is Islamic terrorism.
Former Islamic Terrorist

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Showdown with Shoebat!

I debated Walid Shoebat, self-styled "ex-Muslim-terrorist" turned Evangelical Islamophobe, on the Power Hour with Joyce Riley today.  Listen  here.

Walid's schtick is beyond belief in more ways than one. Imagine what would happen if a Christian convert from Judaism went on a PR blitz with millions of dollars backing him, spreading imaginary stories about having slurped up Christian babies' blood back when he was Jewish. Would he get away with it? If not, why is Shoebat getting away with spreading blood libels against Muslims? Jonathan Swift, where are you when we need you?

Walid Shoebat's Evil Twin: We Jews Want to EAT You!

Please don't tell anybody the above article is satire, since I enjoy getting death threats from outraged morons.

Onward, Rocinante!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Kevin Barrett Unveils Campaign Reform Plan to End Legalized Bribery

In light of today's Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of multinational corporations to buy public officials, here is my campaign finance reform plan, from my 2008 Congressional campaign press releases.  Also check out my similarly bold positions on other issues.

Kevin Barrett Unveils Campaign Reform Plan to End Legalized Bribery 
For Immediate Release – September 29, 2008 – Kevin Barrett for Congress www.barrettforcongress.us

Contact: Dr. Kevin Barrett; Libertarian candidate, Third Congressional District, Wisconsin kbarrett@merr.com

Rolf Lindgren; Barrett Campaign Manager608-279-5889; rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com 

Remember the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law?  Well, we haven’t heard much about it lately even though John McCain is running for president.  The McCain-Feingold law is not talked about because it doesn’t work. 

We propose a new, simple kind of campaign finance reform that will actually work.  We propose that giving any publicly elected official more than $200 dollars in one calendar year be re-classified in the criminal codes as a legally presumed bribe.  We also propose that the legal fiction of a difference between a public official and a campaign be eliminated.  Giving money to a campaign is the same thing as giving money to a person.  Giving large amounts of money to an elected official is not a “contribution”; it’s a bribe. 

That’s it.  Now let’s take a look at some possible objections, implications, and benefits of this reform. 

Question:  Wouldn’t the Supreme Court declare this reform an infringement of free speech rights? 

Answer:  No, the Supreme Court has never considered bribery of public officials to be free speech.  Legal presumptions are common, especially in the co-called war on drugs, where a certain amount of drugs presumes you’re a drug dealer, rather than just a drug user. 

Question:  How would this affect candidates not currently holding public office? 

Answer:  You can’t bribe someone who doesn’t hold public office.  The $200 contribution limit would not apply to those not in office.  Non-public office holding challengers get an advantage under this reform to offset advantages of incumbency.  Since incumbents are limited to $200 contributions, fewer would be elected, and fewer would accumulate million dollar war-chests. 

Question:  Would this reform promote the rotation in public office envisioned by our Founding Fathers? 

Answer:  Yes.  This system would encourage a public office holder to leave office if they wanted to try for another office.  There would be more open seats and more competitive elections. 

Question:  Would this reform make elected officials less beholden to special interest money? 

Answer:  Yes.  Once in office, the flow of special interest money would be severely curtailed.  Special interests might help someone get elected, but once elected, the special interests would lose control. 

Question:  How would this reform affect issue ads? 

Answer:  Issue ads are protected free speech.  They’re already regulated and not allowed to be coordinated with political campaigns.  It’s better for someone to spend money on their political cause with an issue ad, than to bribe public officials with the same money. 

Question:  Are there any other benefits? 

Answer:  Yes.  Since incumbents are limited to $200 contributions, they will be spending less time raising money and more time doing the public’s business.  No one can campaign full time and focus on their official duties at the same time.  Good examples of that are John McCain and Barack Obama.  They should either leave the Senate or pull back on campaigning. 

Question:  Is there a practical way to get this reform enacted? 

Answer:  Yes.  The easiest first step would be for 38 state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment that applied this reform to federal elections.  The worst abuses of power seem to be occurring at the federal level.  The reform would cause more open seats in the federal congress.  State legislators might be more inclined to challenge for federal office, giving them an incentive to pass the amendment.  These simple reforms are constitutional and practical, and combined with clean Internet fundraising, will end legalized bribery of our public officials.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Steve Alten: My 9/11/2009 New York presentation "Hitler's type of propaganda"

Bestselling author works his jaws, not his brain, in a fierce, primitive attack on yours truly

My essay "The Myth of 9/11", published in a book I co-edited with theologian John Cobb and Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky, compared 9/11 to Hitler's Reichstag Fire. When an AP reporter called to ask if I was comparing Bush to Hitler, I said "No, that would be an insult to Hitler, who had 20 or 30 IQ points on Bush." The reporter audibly gasped, then asked me to repeat the line, which I did. The next day my bon mot was a national news story, eliciting roughly equal numbers of LOLs and death threats.

So maybe when novelist Steve Alten recently called my presentation at the 9/11/2009 We Demand Transparency conference  "Hitler's type of propaganda" what he really meant was that my type of propaganda was 20 or 30 points smarter than George Bush's. But somehow I don't think so.

Last September 16th, Alten spent an hour yelling at me on my own radio show (archived here). Now, in another recent radio interview with Cheri Roberts, Alten really went after me, jaws gnashing in primordial fury. (My response on the same show is posted here.)

It began when host Cheri Roberts brought up the question of divisions in the 9/11 truth movement, sensibly suggesting that the experts should debate the forensics, while other truth-seekers should unite under one umbrella.

Steve Alten responded:

Well, I think the basic problem with the 9/11 truth movement is it's no longer focused on 9/11. It's focused on all sorts of things that under any other label would be considered wacky. I mean, I flew up to New York to a 9/11 truth meeting in a church in New York on 9/11 this past year, and I gave a speech, and tried to keep everybody focused on the agenda, and then one of the next guests speakers, a gentleman -- I can't remember his name right now -- the white Islam, (chuckles), the white Muslim, you know, who's got the radio show...he went on to blame the Jews. And showed the Jewish conspiracy in the media. To which I was first of all offended as a Jew, and second of all offended as a rational human being. And I stood up and challenged him right there on the floor, and I said "this is not what 9/11 is about, all you're doing is causing more hate. No light can come out of hatred, no light can come out of prejudice. And your arguments are absolutely ridiculous. You're just...you're exactly what is wrong with the 9/11 truth movement, and why we will never get any legitimate attention when you're just breeding hatred and blaming...you know, he's a converted Muslim. And I'm sitting next to my Egyptian friend who IS Muslim, who was born Muslim, and he's shaking his head and saying this guy's wacko! You know, so you can't have that kind of radical belief in a movement and expect the movement to be accepted by the mainstream. Because...first of all, it's not legitimate...but people follow this! And people were listening to him, and, like, nodding their heads, because he's got a projection screen that shows that, you know, with all the major networks listed there, and anyone with a Jewish name, you know, presented in his argument. And so people were nodding their heads, and, "yeah, boy, he's right." And it's the worst type of propaganda, directly out of Adolf Hitler's type of propaganda, and people were falling for this nonsense!"

Cheri: "Yeah, I totally agree..."

Source: http://paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=567982   - 12:00 - 15:00

Alten's statement transcribed in the above passage is false and defamatory as a whole, as well as in some of its parts.

Alten: "He went on to blame the Jews. And showed the Jewish conspiracy in the media."  My presentation did not "blame the Jews" (presumably Alten meant "blame the Jews for 9/11"). I challenge him to go over the recording of my presentation and find me saying that I "blame the Jews." He won't find it, or anything remotely like it. Nor will he find any reference to "the Jewish conspiracy in the media."  These are all Alten's words, not mine. Inventing false and defamatory words and putting them in someone else's mouth is called slander.

In reality I have been a leader in interfaith dialogue, co-editing an important book, co-founding the leading interfaith 9/11 truth group, and inviting many Jewish guests on my radio shows for cordial dialogues on many subjects, including positive aspects of Judaism (see my interview with Ken Biegeleisen from 11/7/2009 and next Tuesday's interview with Douglas Rushkoff).
Alten: "And it's the worst type of propaganda, directly out of Adolf Hitler's type of propaganda..."  There is no sense in which my lecture, which aimed to explain Muslim-majority views of 9/11 and related issues, derives from Hitler. Ironically, Alten's baseless comparison of majority Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim views to Hitler--a staple of Zionist extremist rhetoric--could itself be legitimately called "the worst type of propaganda."

"The white Islam, (chuckles), the white Muslim, you know, who's got the radio show...You know, he's a converted Muslim. And I'm sitting next to my Egyptian friend who IS Muslim, who was born Muslim, and he's shaking his head and saying this guy's wacko!"

Alten's implication that I am disqualified from being a legitimate Muslim on account of my skin color is offensive. He seems to share the common racist belief that Muslims are dark-skinned foreigners with funny names--a convenient fiction for Zionists who want to convince Americans to kill Muslims for Israel. In fact, Islam is absolutely color-blind and multi-racial, uniting Europeans, Africans, Asians, islanders, and (increasingly) Native Americans/mestizos. Islam is the only religion in the U.S. that does not have a majority race or ethnicity. As a Muslim of Irish-Scottish-Welsh-German heritage, I am no more in a minority in the US Muslim community than are Muslims whose ethnic heritage derives from Egypt, Senegal, the Phillipines, Somalia, Russia, Bangladesh, Mexico, Switzerland, Albania, Oman, Bosnia, Turkmenistan, Brazil, Lebanon, Australia, or anywhere else. Alten's attempt to equate the Islamic religion with a racial stereotype may derive from his background as a pro-Israel (i.e. pro-Zionist) American Jew, since Israel is defined as the ethnic Jewish state for all "Jews" (people born of Jewish mothers) regardless of their religious beliefs and practices, thus confusing the categories of religion and race/ethnicity.

Islam, unlike Judaism, is a non-racial religion. It does not claim that some people are better than others, "God's chosen" or what have you, on account of their racial ancestry. In Islam, people are judged by their piety and actions; the Qur'an tells us that God created us in different sects and tribes "to compete in goodness" (5:48). In particular, Islam rejects the Jewish myth that Jews are the descendants of the superior Isaac, while Arabs/Muslims descend from that inferior "wild ass," Ishmael. By identifying with Ishmael, and viewing him and not Isaac as the son reprieved from Abraham's sacrifice, the Qur'an emphasizes that Islam was revealed, in part, to bust the myth of the "chosen people" and reveal the truth of human equality.

Alongside his offensive racial characterization of Muslims, Alten lies about Muslim-majority opinion by suggesting that his Egyptian friend, who supposedly thought my presentation was "wacko," represents the Muslim mainstream. At issue were my claims that the majority of Muslims believes (1) the struggle over Palestine is the main cause of conflict in the Middle East, (2) Jewish Zionist power in the US dictates US Middle East policy, and (3) that 9/11 was probably, in whole or in part, a Zionist operation (i.e. US Middle East policy by other means).

Naturally not all Muslims agree with these views, and if they do, not all are courageous and/or impolite enough to voice them in mixed company. These  positions are, however, Muslim-majority ones. If Alten has any evidence that the majority of Muslims thinks these positions are "wacko," other than one anecdote about one Egyptian friend, I would like to see it. I have been a Muslim since 1993, speak Arabic and follow Arabic media, have a Ph.D. with an Islamic Studies focus, spent a year conferring with colleagues and ordinary folks on a Fulbright fellowship in Morocco, and have gathered impressions about Muslim-majority opinion from many sources. Based on that experience I can tell you flat out that it is Alten's belief about Muslim-majority opinion that is "wacko," not mine.

But even if my characterization of Muslim-majority opinion were wrong, which it isn't, why kill the messenger? Why would Alten abuse me personally for my characterization of Muslim-majority opinion? Couldn't he at least show some evidence against my take on Muslim-majority opinion? Or, if no such evidence can be found, why not argue that Muslim-majority opinion, if it is in fact what Barrett claims, is wrong? These would be reasonable arguments. But Alten apparently is not interested in reason.

Alten's argument is discombobulated, hysterical, and barren of supporting evidence, because it emerges from strong emotion bereft of reason. And what pushed Alten's emotional buttons hardest was my discussion of whether the Muslim majority is right about Jewish Zionist power dictating US Middle East policy. In my presentation, I cited evidence for the Muslim-majority position, beginning with the work of scholar James Petras, who exhaustively documents what he calls the Zionist Power Configuration in control of post-9/11 policy. My presentation included a chart of top mainstream media decision-makers showing a great many allegedly Jewish people, along with a column by Philip Weiss entitled "Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What if We Do?" In that column, Weiss explains that in his many decades of mainstream media work, the majority of the owners, bosses and co-workers he worked for and with were Jewish, suggesting that based on this experience and other evidence, the question "Do Jews dominate in American media?" could be answered "yes."

In response to the second question of his essay title, "So What?", Weiss explains that the result of this apparent Jewish domination in American media is that "Americans are not getting the full story re Israel/Palestine." Why not? Weiss explains: "Even if you’re a secular Jewish professional who prides himself on his objectivity, there is a ton of cultural pressure on you to support Israel or at least not to betray Israel."  Weiss cites former CNN reporter Linda Scherzer: "We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias …We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism." In other words, media Jews conflate support for Israel with Americanism -- just as Muslims, were they to dominate the US media, would conflate support for Hamas with Americanism. (Hamas is an Islamic movement, just as Zionism is a Jewish movement, and there would seem to be no inherent reason why non-Jewish, non-Muslim Americans should prefer one over the other.)

Steve Alten, who apparently sees the 9/11 truth movement through his own prism, does not dispute any of this. His implicit position is that it just should not be talked about. In Alten's world, anyone who cites evidence that Zionist (i.e. pro-Israeli) Jews dominate in American media, and that this conditions American perceptions of the Middle East conflict, must be silenced through insults.

I have a question for Steve Alten. Imagine that tomorrow, wealthy anti-Zionist Muslims buy up the same percentage of the media that pro-Zionist Jews currently own. Imagine that these new Muslim owners, with their Muslim names, exercise their right to hire and fire personnel, and that the result is that a new majority of key US media people suddenly consists of anti-Zionist Muslims. Should this event, if and when it occurs, be off limits for discussion? Should the fact that a majority of US media decision-makers now has Muslim names be passed over in silence? Should anyone who even mentions that the new CEO of NBC is Abdul-Malik Hassan, a strong supporter of Hamas, and that the rest of the mainstream media is now dominated by people with similar names and ideologies, be attacked as a bigot and silenced? If not -- if you agree that this development would be noteworthy and a legitimate topic of discussion -- then why must today's actual Jewish Zionist domination of the media be kept secret? How do you justify the double-standard?

Those who suppress critical thinking, by promoting incoherent emotion-based obfuscation, are usually trying to protect some privileged belief, which they hold to a different standard than alternative beliefs. According to some such people, it is unthinkable to "blame Jews" for 9/11, but perfectly okay to "blame Muslims"--ignoring the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was a false-flag op by the enemies of Muslims, designed to implicate Muslims and legitimize their mass murder, meaning that Muslims are the victims and thus the last who should be blamed! (Who cares about evidence, it's the privileged belief that must be protected at all costs.) Likewise it would be unthinkable to single out Jews for ethnic profiling or arbitrary detention, but thinkable to single out Muslims. And it's unremarkable -- in fact it MUST be unremarked-on or you'll never work in this town again  -- that Zionist Jews dominate in the American media...but if Muslim supporters of Hamas dominated in the American media, that would be a different story!

The 9/11 truth movement uses critical reason to deconstruct double-standards enforced by emotional conditioning. (The 9/11 psy-op was the ultimate conditioning operation, enforcing a double-standard of "us vs. them" on Americans and including Zionists in the "us," while condemning Zionism's Muslim foes to "them" status.) Those of us who seek the truth must challenge this and all double-standards, and the unreasonable arguments, chiefly insults, that uphold them. Steve Alten's irrational, evidence-free diatribe against me, like similar diatribes I have suffered from Hannity and O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and so many others, exemplifies the kind of emotional conditioning used by demagogues (like Hitler, Steve!) to prop-up double-standards, and pummel critical reason into submission.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

David Ray Griffin, Rowland Morgan rebut 9/11 cell phone misinfo

Some folks in the 9/11 truth movement (example) have been very slow to realize that there is no evidence than any actual hijackings took place on 9/11, and abundant evidence that no such hijackings occurred. (I'm talking about hijackings by human beings not acting as part of a drill--there may well have been remote-control "hijackings" or bogus hijackings by people acting in a drill.) Likewise there is no evidence against any of the 19 patsies, and abundant evidence of their innocence.

David Ray Griffin's new article Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview helps set the record straight on this issue, as does a free e-book by British journalist Rowland Morgan entitled Voices: The 9/11 Phone Call Evidence. Anyone who still thinks suicide hijackers flew the planes into their targets--and anyone interested in getting at the full truth of 9/11--needs to read these.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Crotch-bomber skeptic Jerry Mazza, freeway blogger Mark Graham on Truth Jihad Radio today!

Truth Jihad Radio today, Sat. 1/9/10, 5-7 pm Central, http://www.americanfreedomradio.com (to be archived here.)

First hour: Davis, CA 9/11 truth activist and freeway blogger Mark Graham -- watch these guys confront the California Highway Patrol! http://www.freewayblogging.com.

(I'll be speaking in Sacramento and hopefully Davis late March/early April -- one event is scheduled for 7 pm, Friday April 2nd, Colonial Heights Library Community Room, 4799 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95820. Anybody in the Bay Area who wants to set up a talk, please email me at kbarrettATmerrDOTcom and stay tuned to Sacramento Valley 9/11 Truth!)

Second hour: Jerry Mazza, poet & journalist, crotch-bomber skeptic; author, "Scanning the Abdulmutallab Story for More Lies"

Call-in number 512-879-3805.

Thanks for listening, and remember: never accept naked body scans from strangers...and don't forget to change your underwear before it catches on fire!

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Who's the Terrorist? Al-Balawi's attack on CIA terrorists is NOT terrorism, it's counter-terrorism

The great Palestinian hip-hop group DAM (I met them in person last year during their stop in Madison) are famous for asking min irhabi -- Who's the Terrorist? Let's apply that question to Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, who recently carried out a successful martyrdom operation against a group of CIA agents in Afghanistan.

Time Magazine reports: "So why did al-Balawi, a seemingly trusted agent, switch sides? The Jordanian intelligence sources who spoke to TIME speculate that al-Balawi had become enraged at the Americans for killing a high number of civilians in their hunt for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. And al-Balawi, who felt partly responsible for these deaths because of his role in pointing out the targeted villages in which al-Qaeda militants had been hiding, may have been consumed by guilt. 'It's very possible that he decided to take revenge for the death of these Muslim civilians,' says a senior Jordanian official."

Tuesday, January 5, 2010


[I'll be discussing this topic tomorrow, Wednesday 1/6/10, on two radio shows: The Power Hour with Joyce Riley, 8 - 9 a.m. Central, archived here (go to January 6th, hour 2);  and Rabble Rousing with Chamba Lane, noon - 1 pm Pacific (2-3 pm Central), KVMR radio, Nevada City, California...hope to visit Chamba on my upcoming Northern California speaking tour...stay tuned for details.]


By Webster G. Tarpley, tarpley.net

Washington DC , January 5, 2010 -- Obama's speech this afternoon was an incongruous performance.  On the one hand, he angrily detailed a catastrophic breakdown in US intelligence procedures leading to the near-massacre of hundreds of airline passengers in the skies over Detroit on Christmas Day.  On the other hand, there was no purge of the corrupt, complicit, and incompetent officials who had made this incident possible.  No firings were announced.  No heads rolled.  The rogue network or invisible government of treasonous and subversive moles inside the US government which is behind the Detroit incident, and so many other incidents, remained untouched once again.


The expectation that Obama might actually do something to combat the rogue network across US government institutions which inflicts terrorism on the American people and the world had been raised the night before in an interview by Washington journalist Richard Wolffe on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC Countdown program. Wolffe, citing high-level White House officials, had reported that there was an investigation into whether the security lapses leading to the Detroit Christmas incident had been intentional and deliberate, and thus the products of conscious sabotage. Wolffe had stated: “It seems that the president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda….The question there is again, cock up or conspiracy. Was there a reason these agencies were at war with each other that prevented that intelligence from being shared?” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34694889) The goal, summarized Olbermann, was either a “turf war” or else the desire “to make somebody [Obama] look bad.” In reality, the goals involve a domestic police state and foreign geopolitical adventures.

Wolffe’s report had suggested that at least some firings were in the offing for officials responsible for the failure to stop Umar Farouk Mutallab from boarding his flight from Amsterdam to Detroit , despite the cascade of red flags associated with this particular patsy.  But in his speech, Obama did not lay a glove on the invisible government forces which stage false flag terror incidents to manipulate public opinion and politics in the direction of increased totalitarianism at home and aggression abroad. Obama talked about what he would not tolerate, and about accountability in the abstract, but did not provide any concrete retribution to make moles think twice about future actions.  Even David Gergen, the former White House official who faithfully represents the oligarchical point of view, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he considered it virtually inconceivable for Obama to make such a speech without firing some failed officials.


Obama’s situation offers certain parallels to the experience of John F. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961.  Upon entering office, Kennedy had been convinced by Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell of the CIA to support an invasion of Cuba , which the CIA promised would lead immediately to an insurrection throughout the island and thus to the overthrow of Fidel Castro.  Instead, the invasion was a catastrophic failure and humiliation for the United States and for Kennedy personally. When Kennedy came into office, he had been inclined to work closely with operatives like Allen Dulles and Bissell, who personified the rogue network in its then-current form.  Helped along -- according to some accounts -- by General Douglas MacArthur, Kennedy realized that the geopolitical forces behind and above the presidency which were seeking to use him for their own ends were also more than willing to ruin him politically and to cast him aside as an expendable puppet at the first opportunity.  Over time, this led to Kennedy's deep and abiding mistrust of the rogue elements dominating the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, and other elements of the US government -- a mistrust which allowed Kennedy to resist the lunatic proposals for general war advanced by the rogue elements during the Cuban missile crisis. In the short run, Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs experience impelled him to fire Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and CIA deputy director Charles Cabell within less than a year after the failed invasion. Obama needs to imitate Kennedy’s response, on the fast track.

Today, the breakdown crisis of the Anglo-American world system is far more acute than anything Kennedy had to face. Obama needs to muster something more than mere impotent rage about what is happening to himself.  If Obama wants to avoid the disastrous outcomes for himself and the country which are now clearly delineated, he will need to mount an ambitious purge of subversive and treasonous moles inside the federal bureaucracy, along with the incompetents, time servers, and bunglers who are happy to play along with the rogues.


Almost any of the twenty-odd officials who attended Obama’s special meeting in the White House today could be candidates for ouster for reasons of incompetence or worse. One obvious choice would be Michael E. Leiter, the head of the National Counter-Terrorism Center , which has the responsibility of integrating all the information from 16 agencies which was so obviously not integrated in the Mutallab case. Another might be Leiter’s boss Dennis C. Blair, the Director of National Intelligence or intelligence czar created after 9/11. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is widely discredited, and has lost the confidence of the American people through her interviews if nothing else. Napolitano is also the keeper of the no-fly list, on which Mutallab needed to be listed, but was not. Hillary Clinton’s State Department failed to revoke Mutallab’s US entry visa after the Nigerian’s father warned the US Embassy in Nigeria about his son’s visit to Yemen  -- an outrageous lapse, or a deliberate sabotage. Leon Panetta’s CIA also had that information, and failed to make sure it was acted on. Gen. James Jones, the head of the National Security Council, is responsible for the overall coordination of the government, which in this case was substandard. FBI Director Robert Muller’s agents are up to their usual tricks of suppressing evidence in regard to the “well-dressed Indian” and the “man in orange” on the Detroit flight reported by an eyewitness, the Detroit attorney Kurt Haskell. (Seehttp://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html) Firing any of these failed or complicit officials would be a good start.

If Obama continues to punt on real accountability, the rogue network will conclude that he is indeed the weakling and pushover which French President Sarkozy and others have suspected him to be. In that case, the handwriting will be on the wall for new world catastrophes.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Commercial Pilots Leak Secret TSA Christmas Memo Ordering Pilots to Torture Passengers

Certain commercial pilots who wish to remain anonymous (and employed) have leaked an airline memo, apparently dictated by TSA, ordering aircraft operators to mistreat their passengers in response to the CIA/Mossad Christmas crotch-bombing extravaganza. One of the pilots writes:

So I got my liquids searched at the airport this morning. Pretty remarkable considering I was FLYING THE AIRPLANE! This is a message that my company sent me this morning that I thought you would enjoy. Please don't send this to anybody without asking me first. The airlines overreact to this stuff as I'm sure you're aware of. 

I checked with another couple of pilots who confirmed the memo's authenticity. Then I asked pilot #1  if I could post it. He responded:

It's technically "Sensitive Security Information" which I can get imprisoned, sent to Guantanamo, tortured, or all of the above for leaking. Especially for leaking it to un-American, un-Patriotic, terrorist suspects/sympathizers like yourself! Anyways... If you use it, let me know.

So I'm using it and letting him know. Here is the security-sensitive memo:

On December 25, 2009, a terrorist attack was attempted against a flight traveling to the United States. TSA has identified security measures to be implemented by airports, aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers to mitigate potential threats to flights. These are among a series of activities within the security environment.

The in-flight portion of this Security Directive as described below applies to all scheduled and/or public charter flight operations departing from any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and possessions); IMMEDIATE implementation all measures in this SD is required for flights meeting the criteria noted above.

Among other measures being taken in the gate area including additional screening, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed during flight:
1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. While over U.S. airspace, the flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
4. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on their lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.

Follow the appropriate Threat Level procedures for non-compliance.

To ensure the passengers are aware of the new directives, flight attendants on international departing flights should make the following announcements:

After the GET SETTLED briefing - “Due to new security requirements for international departing flights, you have encountered additional screening at the gate area as well some new procedures that will take place during flight. We apologize for the inconvenience but these new requirements are government mandated.”

Approximately one hour and fifteen minutes prior to arrival - “In about fifteen minutes, the seat belt sign will be illuminated for the remainder of the flight. At that that, all passengers must remain seated with no access to carry-on baggage and with all pillows, blankets and personal belongings stowed. If you need to use the facilities, put away items or stretch your legs, please do so now.”

If you have any questions, please contact a member of Inflight management, Flight Operations management, the on-call Inflight Supervisor of the on-call Chief Pilot.