THE CASE AGAINST AN INVASION OF IRAQ
December 15, 2002

THE CASE AGAINST AN INVASION OF IRAQ

1. Historical precedent suggests that there already should have been a formal investigation regarding 9-11. In fact, President Bush on 9-11, before the cameras and the world, promised an immediate aggressive investigation. There was none.
   
   
2. Highlighting the need for formal investigation, the government deliberately has stood silent to false theories for the WTC collapse, when evidence secreted under the guise of national security has shown that NYC firefighters were talking on the 78^th floor without impairment moments before the building collapsed. Therefore, the theory by FEMA of sweltering heat which melted steel is not only incorrect but must be seen as deliberate misinformation offered the public to stem timely curiosity and pursuit of relevant facts.

3. The government conveniently at will, under police state laws generated due to the single day’s events of 9-11, giving the government great powers not otherwise afforded government, hid what it pleased under the umbrella and façade of national security. The government should at least admit whether or not there was in fact an internal explosion in the south building prior to being struck by the airplane.
   

4. It is a matter of record that military jets with the very obligation to defend this country against enemy attack were intentionally kept grounded and otherwise limited from engaging the hijacked aircraft.
   
   
5. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. has offered an irrefutable argument (recited below) that the President had advance knowledge of 9-11, including the breadth and scope of the terrorism in play that day.
   
   
6. The President has shown conduct inconsistent with his responsibilities in office. When he takes the time during a state of war to give a self-serving taped interview with a reporter/author to declare that he finds the North Korean President “loathsome,” it defies the diplomatic responsibilities of his office, and recklessly has expanded the scope and breadth of conflict to several world arenas. North Korea since the statement has reactivated its nuclear reactors and programs.
   
   
7. In similar vein, in the President giving his June 24^th Rose Garden remarks, attesting to his intent on behalf of this country to mold Arab/Islamic regimes to his perceived ideal for otherwise sovereign states, to allegedly modernize them with the President’s concept of democracy, while diluting democracy at home, with his National Security Strategy inferring the US Constitution irrelevant for this day and time, deliberately has alienated us from our Middle East allies. The President’s conduct should be curtailed pending the 9-11 investigation and without question he should be restrained from any attack on Iraq, which would cause irreparable irreversible damage to the best interests of the Nation.
   
   
8. The President issued his National Security Strategy, which by itself eviscerated decades of US foreign policy and successes, by declaring to the world that this country seeks world domination and control, and will undertake affirmative regime change with pre-emptive strikes whenever any sovereign state is perceived by President Bush to be a threat to the general interests of the United States of America.
   
   
9. Iraq, since President Bush has assumed office, has not represented qualitatively or quantitatively a greater threat than it was to this country since the end of the Gulf War. In fact, by all accounts, Iraq is not a threat at all to any military professional able and willing to speak truthfully in regard thereto.
   
   
10. Thus, it compels us, on all the grounds heretofore alluded to, to consider the alternative motivations therefor and we have long pointed to the further conclusion that Bush 43, to avoid the same problem encountered by Bush 41 in making the promise of tax cuts to the nation, would require capture and control of Iraqi oil and oil reserves. Couple this need with the spendthrift spending of President Bush since assuming office, since 9-11, to marshal troops and assets for war, projecting untold sums for home defense (nothing materially accomplished to protect this country to date despite vast sums allegedly spent) and for military battle, now seemingly in untold world arenas, with a sinking and collapsed economy and weakened market, the legitimate question arises how he plans on paying for it all?
    
    
11. The world during recent months has taken due notice of the obvious, and North Korea has made the point painfully obvious to anyone willing to confront truth. It declares itself a real nuclear threat as part of the axis of evil, while the Bush administration, indifferent to world intelligence, spews forth rhetoric that it intends to pursue North Korea through diplomatic channels, while Iraq, posing no nuclear threat whatsoever, it wishes to establish a military force of 500,000 men and women for what everyone sees is an obsessive attack, indicating President Bush’s desperate and dire need to attack, further raising issue of whether all this could have been done without 9-11, a single day’s events, taking place.
    
    
12. In this very regard, one would be remiss in not keeping in mind the administration’s constant baiting for further domestic terrorism particularly by Vice President Cheney. Now, the fact that this country has been devoid of further terrorist attack, it keeps focus on the events of 9-11, which the administration now openly wishes to sabotage, contravening its first words on 9-11 for a full investigation to find those responsible therefor.
    
    
13. When there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on the part of a sitting administration, the Congress and Country including the Courts must do everything and anything possible to curtail poisonous fruits of what history may record as a horrific crime against the people and interests of the United States of America. In this regard, any further wars and conflicts should be estopped pending the investigation or at least preliminary findings as to whether there is probable cause that the administration was knowledgeable about the events of 9-11 and/or was complicit therein.

Whereas, since this administration has unified the world in fear and dread against the new policies of the United States of America, compelling them to align and combine to offset a publicly announced agenda to undermine regimes and to affirmatively and pre-emptively attack openly or by covert action sovereign states and countries, and

Whereas, this administration has declared a state of war with a projected time frame of a decade or two, thereby institutionalizing police state laws and powers into the fabric of our nation, and, otherwise, has condoned behavior and statements showing disregard and disrespect for the Constitution of this country, and the laws and protections afforded to its citizens, and

Whereas, this administration has shown a willingness to put this country at severe risk with only the façade of offering it protections, despite massive spending, with no realistic results or benefits, while affirmatively exposing this country and its military to biotoxin and other terrorism attack, putting its citizens domestically and internationally at risk, while eviscerating the good will this country has taken decades to foster and earn,

IT IS HEREBY DEMANDED THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION BE RESTRAINED IN ALL INTERNATIONAL MILITARY ACTIONS UNTIL AN IMMEDIATE PRELIMINARY HEARING IS SCHEDULED TO CONCLUDE IN THE FASTEST TIME POSSIBLE WHETHER OR NOT THERE EXISTS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ANY FINDING OF MATERIAL WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THIS ADMINISTRATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE EVENTS OF 9-11, TO PROPERLY, IF IN FACT THE CASE, ESTOP EXECUTIVE ACTIONS AS THE POSIONOUS FRUITS THEREOF IN SEEKING TO PURSUE WAR(S) TO FURTHER A LEGALLY TAINTED AGENDA WHERE THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION INITIATED AND COMMITTED THIS COUNTRY TO A DECLARED TEN TO TWENTY YEAR WAR BASED ON A SINGLE DAY’S EVENTS, UNDER FACTS ATTESTING IT WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT AND THEREBY COMPLICIT IN FAILING TO PROPERLY PRECLUDE THE TERRRORISM OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

 Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. believes the following establishes probable cause that the President and those within his administration had knowledge of the scope and breath of the events of 9-11 and did not act to preclude the seen terrorism of that tragic day.

First, a competent prosecutor could readily show a high standard malfeasance on the part of the President in not delaying if not canceling his publicity appearance at an elementary school.

Before he walked into that classroom, there were a number of planes not only hijacked but one had already struck the north World Trade Center tower.

Only the President of the United States could authorize military jets to shoot down a commercial aircraft.

Moreover, the situation could have arisen where a military aircraft was in position to impede the hijacked aircraft in a manner putting the commercial aircraft at serious risk.

All these options required executive decisions.

His job and duty was not only to be available but at the safest and most able place and point to render timely decisions.

The President's decision was to sit with elementary school children making him dynamically inaccessible while the country was at risk and in jeopardy.

Second, a competent prosecutor would show the material breaches of established protocol in situations where the country is under attack.

Andrew Card told the President that "America is under attack," and the President's decision was to compound the already seen malfeasance by continuing to sit with children.

There was no inquiry by the President from Card as to damage, whether any nuclear or biotoxin device was deployed, or whether he was needed (he was needed on Air Force One before he even sat down with the school children).

However, the government's complicity in 9-11 is evidenced by the failure under an America under attack scenario to protect the President.

The mission of the Secret Service is to protect the President regardless of his political desires otherwise. Consequently, claims that he didn't want to frighten the children do not wash, when it is not only proven that the Secret Service did not act to protect the President under an America is under attack scenario but that the President remained in a high risk area giving remarks broadcast nationally about the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings, knowing there were still hijacked jets in the skies and further not knowing the full breadth and scope of the terrorist plan. His location was a matter of public knowledge as to both time and place.

The only explanation for such conduct is that the government knew of the nature and scope of the terrorism in play that day.

The evidence leads as President Bush himself suggests to himself.

Without question, putting himself in front of a bunch of elementary school children when executive decisions were needed not only jeopardized this country but also from the proof above platformed that it was an executive decision to let the planes reach their New York City targets. Moreover, while not up to the same standard, it would be remiss to fail to note that the buildings were taken down because of explosives planted internally at the World Trade Center buildings.

Third, a competent prosecutor could establish guilt without the need for a signed confession from President Bush.

If you asked the President would he have gone into the classroom if the first plane were laden with a nuclear device, the answer can only be "No."

The reason it would be "No" is because it would be evident that the first strike was a terrorist strike with deep ramifications. If he went into the classroom, made himself scarce, and otherwise acted as though he was immune from what was happening, people could only conclude that he didn't care and knew that he was risk free and indifferent to consequences. He surely was not acting to preclude a second similar strike. The only conclusion is that the President was allowing it to happen.

Now, in what did take place, the same formal level of terrorism as above was reached automatically when a second plane, known to be off transponder and hijacked by the FAA by 9:00 AM, strikes the second tower.

We have terrorism and as Andrew Card stated: "America is under attack."

The only difference then between the nuclear scenario above and the current one is that the first and second planes did not carry any nuclear payload.

However, there is no reason to assume that the third and fourth planes in issue that day, still not resolved, do not carry a suitcase nuclear bomb or biotoxins on board.

Thus, the fact that no nuclear device was discharged at that point of time does not alter the dynamics in the behavior of the President. He cannot discount, unless he has advance knowledge, that the terrorism that day may yet involve a. a nuclear device and/or b. that he personally would be a target of the terrorists' plans.

If his behavior reflects sheer stupidity, he is unfit for office. He is the only person assigned serious responsibilities for nuclear response when America is under attack.

If his behavior does not reflect sheer stupidity, then he had knowledge that there was no reason for concern on this dimension and otherwise he was secreting himself away in a public domain to avoid having to face requests to launch and shoot down commercial aircraft.

In so doing, and the Air Force strangely failing to intercede against the first two planes, the administration achieved public moral outrage to initiate its already approved agenda.

A competent prosecutor would show a jury that the administration's agenda, already in hand, could only be pursued and effectuated as it has been on the platform of moral outrage created by the successful attacks on the World Trade Center buildings. President Bush's executive decisions since 9-11 in effect helps make the case against him.

Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.’s November 29, 2002, letter to House & Senate Intelligence Committee Members

Dear House and Senate Intelligence Committee Members,

On October 10, 2001, over one year ago, and within 30 days of 9-11, we wrote to you detailing that the Bush administration was seemingly in pursuit of a plan to capture and control Islamic oil and nuclear (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). We said that such efforts would be adverse to US interests "…unless the U.S. intends to then invade and occupy these two countries…."

Undoubtedly the statement was precocious in making you aware of the Presidential design. In fact, recently the President took the position that Congressional approval was irrelevant and unnecessary in terms of his having discretion to launch an attack on Iraq. The President thereafter decided to seek the approval of Congress in such limited regard, and he also enlisted, although deeming it irrelevant and unnecessary as well, the approval of the United Nations.

At this juncture, the Congress and your committees should be made aware that it is now our opinion that the President seeks to implement the design perceived on October 10th in first writing to you with regard to it. His real target is Saudi oil (as well as Iraqi oil and oil reserves), and on August 6, 2002 the Washington Post confirmed it by interviewing Richard Perle who announced the position that Saudi Arabia could legitimately be perceived as a primary target of US intercession in the Middle East. Further, the pursuit of North Korea by diplomatic channels rather than military threat is revealing when one focuses on the reality that it has no oil or oil reserves. The world justly asks would President Bush be center stage with Saddam if Iraq were without oil and oil reserves?

This brings us to the point of our writing at this time. We believe that the Congress should take note that no further military action by this administration should be allowed until the 9-11 investigation is completed. Not only will this give the administration incentive to move it ahead quickly but the outstanding issues from our perspective strongly speak against the President's clear intent to invade Iraq, if not other Arab/Islamic nations in the region.

The reason for this enlisted restraint is due to the fact that the President himself just the other day noted that the evidence should be pursued to wherever it leads. Unfortunately, there is sufficient evidence before the world to show that it points to advance knowledge at minimum by this administration of the 9-11 attacks. This can be succinctly expressed by the simple statement that when Andrew Card told the President at the Booker elementary school that "America is under attack," after the second plane struck the WTC South Tower, basic Secret Service protocol demanded that the President be removed from a place subject to terrorist attack against him.

The time and place of his visit and presence at the Booker school was a matter of public knowledge. The fact that he stayed seated after being so advised by Andrew Card, and the fact that he gave an impromptu announcement to the nation about the attacks from the school at 9:30 AM, when the second plane struck at 9:03 AM, operates to establish advance knowledge if not complicity by the administration. This is a serious matter that legally taints the fruits of any subsequent governmental intrusion particularly any act of war.

While we pointed out to you the covert presidential design on October 10, 2001, we pointed out on September 13, 2001, that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers was pursuant to implosion from planted explosives within the buildings to coincide with the plane crashing into the WTC towers. We further noted this to you by posting some photographs that were quite explicit in showing that there was an internal explosion in the South Tower a fraction of a second prior to the plane crashing into the building (http://members.aol.com/senderberl/private/internal.htm) See also: www.senderberl.com/china/demolition.htm. Now, we were apprised that CNN has posted videos showing that in fact there was an internal explosion in the building prior to the plane making contact with the building (http://asia.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.exclude.html). This major explosion was one no doubt instrumental in the collapse of the building.

The point here is that while proven accurate in this interpretation as well, the other facet of the interpretation was that there were only two countries who could have interceded in acts of terrorism pursued by Osama bin-Laden operatives to escalate the terrorism to the historical dimension realized: the United States and China. Since we removed the United States from consideration at that time, it left us with China, who we knew, separate and apart from 9-11, was destined to be America's future enemy for the reasons it articulated in metaphor fashion in the 1999 movie, post the Belgrade Embassy bombing, The Emperor and the Assassin.

Now, with regret, we feel compelled to relay to you that discounting this government's involvement may have been premature. At minimum, this must be removed from consideration, which highlights the need for the formal 9-11 investigation, assuring that Kissinger who everyone recognizes will whitewash it, pursues the open issues. Without doing so, this government will undermine confidence in the American people and the world in this country. Whereas, we believe internationally President Bush and his National Security Strategy are seen for what it may turn out to be, Americans still continue to carry confidence that its government is in service to the people. This will not continue to be the case without resolution of the President's behavior attendant to 9-11. In this very regard, we include some material prepared for clients to advise of the nature of questions we perceive should be properly put to the President as the person to whom all reporting and investigative agencies share their findings.

This is written with sadness and disappointment and we can only add that when the government tells the American people that this war against terrorism will last ten to twenty years, it suggests that the emergency powers and laws will extend as well, institutionalizing these emergency powers into our society and culture. This is also a tainted fruit of the administration, should it be shown to have had direct or indirect advance knowledge of 9-11.

Without question, the moral outrage generated by 9-11 was a necessary not convenient predicate for subsequent actions that have now defined this administration. No doubt, our analysis and interpretation of this government's decisions, actions and behavior since then have also caused us to write about our concern that Israel may also turn out to be a predicate for moral outrage to justify a severe military incursion by the Bush administration against all relevant Arab/Islamic countries.

Wherefore, it seems incumbent that this administration at this point of time be cleared from all putative claims, whether thoughts or anything more tangible, concerning advance knowledge of 9-11, if not arguments of some degree of complicity to platform moral outrage to justify and support a plan, which became operative days after the 9-11 events, which has compromised past US policies and foreign interests including basic and fundamental constitutional precepts.

Only upon doing so, can the people of this country and our friends and allies throughout the world carry confidence that all the actions derived from 9-11 do not carry an illegal if not immoral taint.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
November 29, 2002

Powerful further evidence

1.        Brian McWilliams, Newsbytes News Network (a division of The Washington Post Company), September 27, 2001:"Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks."  

2.        The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, R. Myers, claimed that he was sitting with Senator Max Cleland between 8:40 and 9:40 AM that morning, and did not learn about the second plane striking the World Trade Center until he left the Senator's office. This is so revealing of the complicity in 9-11 that it speaks for itself. Further when the first plane struck, news reports show that everyone with and surrounding the President had their beepers and cell phones go off. Without doubt the President knew about not only the first plane but that several others that were hijacked.

Myers takes the first class wimp route thinking that the public is as dumb as some of troops he must have in mind: because he has a beeper, a cell phone, a staff, and so does Senator Cleland. He wants you to accept that if there was a nuclear bomb explosion in California at 8:46 that day that he would not have known about it until after 9:30 AM. Hogwash. Poppycock. What was the purpose of his hiding? The same as Bush's. Look at the following time line and facts we discovered:

8:13:31: American Airlines Flight 11 (AA11) last transmission with Boston Air Traffic Control (ATC).8:13:32 to 8:20: AA11 goes off course and is hijacked.8:20: AA 11 transponder signal stops. 8:36: NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder, confirmed that the FAA notified NORAD of AA 11 hijacking.8:38: Boston ATC notifies NORAD that AA11 has been hijacked.8:39: AA11 flies directly over our # 1 terrorist target, Indian Point nuclear stations. 8:40: FAA notifies NORAD that AA11 has been hijacked.8:43: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 175 (UA175) has been hijacked.8:46:26: AA11 impacts the North Tower of the WTC between the 94th and 98th floors. 8:46: NORAD finally orders Otis to scramble two F-15's. NORAD has held on to this vital information for at least 6, 8 or 10 minutes, and probably up to 26 or 32 minutes.8:52: Two F-15's from Otis are airborne.9:02:54: UA175 impacts the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th floors.

NORAD says the F-15's from Otis are still 71 miles away. This means their average flight speed was only 23.9% of their top speed in trying to intercept UA 175. Otis is 153 miles from WTC - F-15's have a top speed of 1875 MPH. Minus 71 miles from 153 miles = 82 miles covered in 11 minutes from 8:52 to 9:03 -60 minutes divided by 11 minutes = 5.45 x 82 miles = 447.3 MPH divided by 1875 MPH = 23.9%.9:30: Three F-16's from Langley are airborne.    

Here it is again: The two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighters ordered from Otis to intercept United Airlines Flight 175 were flying at only 23.9% of their top speed from the 8:52 take-off to 9:03 when United Airlines Flight 175 impacts the South Tower of the WTC. At 9:02:54 United Airlines Flight 175 impacts the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th floors. NORAD says the F-15's from Otis are still 71 miles away. This means their average flight speed was only 23.9% of their top speed in trying to intercept United Airlines Flight 175. Otis is 153 miles from WTC - F-15's have a top speed of 1875 MPH. Minus 71 miles from 153 miles = 82 miles covered in the 11 minutes from 8:52 to 9:03. Sixty minutes divided by 11 minutes = 5.45 x 82 miles = 447.3 MPH divided by 1875 MPH = 23.9% of their top speed.

To cover the distance from when these fighters took off from Otis at 8:52 till the time they reached the WTC at 9:11 they were flying at only 25.8% of their top speed. The two F-15's covered the 153 miles in 19 minutes from the 8:52 take-off to the time they reached the WTC at 9:11. Sixty minutes divided by 19 minutes = 3.16 x 153 miles = 483.2 MPH divided by 1875 MPH = 25.8% of their top speed.

This elementary mathematical information is from the NORAD press release of September 18, 2001
NORAD Press Release: http://www.norad.mil/presrelNORADTimelines.htm
AP Article On NORAD PR: http://www.AttackOnAmerica.net/8MinutesAway.htm

Posted on the Internet by Mark Elsis on September 16, 2002. http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/NORAD911StandDownMath.htm

3.        THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

And in the meantime, this teacher was going on about the curriculum, and I was thinking about what it meant for America to be under attack. It was an amazing thought. But I made up my mind that if America was under attack, we'd get them. (Applause.) I wasn't interested in lawyers, I wasn't interested in a bunch of debate. I was interested in finding out who did it and bringing them to justice. I also knew that they would try to hide, and anybody who provided haven, help, food, would be held accountable by the United States of America. (Applause.)

Anyway, it was an interesting day.

4.        "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --President-Elect George W. Bush, CNN News, Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

5.        Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes  ….  George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday.

In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998.

….The memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993.

http://www.observer.co.uk/bush/story/0,8224,718311,00.html

6.        David Ruppe, ABCNews.com, September 11, 2001 "Most recently, on Friday, Sept. 7, the State Department issued a worldwide alert warning 'American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to [Osama bin Laden's] al Qaeda organization.'"

7.        "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

[ U.S. President George W. Bush's statement to United Nations, 10 November 2001 ]

8.        N E W  Y O R K, May 1 - In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

SenderBerl: See www.senderberl.com/operation.pdf

       http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

Conclusion: No doubt many of those involved in the complicity can argue they aimed on serving the best interests of the nation, but we tell you what we have been saying for a decade: the new world order leadership has only one agenda: the capture and consolidation of global power and control for the indefinite future.

They use the mask of noble causes, but when you strip away the entire facade, all you are left with is pure greed. Only those connected to pure greed could muster an agenda that willingly accepts the deaths of innocents including children.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
December 1, 2002

END