|
SENDERBERL NOW POSTS A
MAJOR EXPOSITION WRITTEN NOVEMBER 19, 2003 ENTITLED:
BUSH'S MISSION:
EXPECTING THE SECOND PLATFORM OF MORAL OUTRAGE
ADOBE ACROBAT PDF FILE
|
SENDERBERL ON OCTOBER
26, 2003 REAFFIRMED ITS LONG HELD BELIEF THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL
RUN IN 2004 INASMUCH AS THE DYNAMICS ARE IDEAL FOR HER TO DO SO,
WHICH WOULD NOT BE THE CASE IN 2008.
SenderBerl:
"...if the Clintons can manipulate things where she is called upon
to save the Democratic Party from conflict and chaos, Hillary can do to
Bush 43 what Bill wound up doing to Bush 41.
THERE
ARE MAJOR FORCES OUT TO UNDERMINE HOWARD
DEAN NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ELECTABILITY IN
2004, WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE CASE IF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WERE
UNITED BEHIND HIM, BUT ALL TO DO WITH HIS BEING INDEPENDENT OF LONG
TERM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICIES WHICH BUSH 41, BILL CLINTON AND BUSH
43 HAVE ALL SUBSCRIBED AND PURSUED (SBS insert 12.23.03).
|
SENDERBERL NOW POSTS ITS CONCERN FOR OUR
COUNTRY IN:
REGIME
AND CULTURE CHANGE UNMASKED
ADOBE ACROBAT PDF FILE
THIS ARTICLE REFLECTS OUR TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN
GEOPOLITICS AND WE DOUBT YOU WILL READ IT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE SINCE IT
REQUIRES EXTENSIVE OVERSIGHT OF GEOPOLITICAL EVENTS TO CONNECT DOTS
OTHERWISE INVISIBLE.
ON DECEMBER 28, 2003 RBC
MINISTRIES NATIONALLY TELEVISED A VIDEO ENTITLED ARAB
ISRAELI CONFLICT. THIS VIDEO SUPPORTED FROM THE
CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE THE DYNAMIC SENDERBERL HAS LONG ADDRESSED: THAT THE
GATEWAY TO TRUE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS FOR ISRAEL TO CHANGE ITS
CULTURE TO COMPORT TO THE BIBLICAL MANDATE AND THEREBY THE VIDEO WAS IN
ACCORD WITH REGIME AND CULTURE CHANGE
UNMASKED. THE PROGRAM TRAILER ADVISED THAT THE VIDEO
WILL BE SENT FOR FREE TO ANYONE WRITING FOR IT TO "DAY OF
DISCOVERY, POB 178, GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501."
LISTEN TO THE MOST
IMPORTANT RADIO INTERVIEW OF THESE TIMES
RELIGIOUS LEADERS REBUKE BUSH
AND BLAIR
WHY DO THEY FAIL TO SEE THE GOOD IN ROME?
|
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1113818,00.html
Tony Blair
came under attack from two of the Church of England's most senior
figures yesterday for acting "like a white vigilante" and for
lacking humility in forging ahead with the war on Iraq.
In the
most outspoken outburst, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, accused
religious conservatives surrounding the US president, George Bush, of
espousing "a very strange distortion of Christianity" -
particularly since, through Iraq's reconstruction, many would gain
financially.
***In a separate
rebuke, the Archbishop of York, David Hope, questioned the legitimacy
of the war and said Mr Blair would have to answer to God - a
"higher authority" - for his decision to forge ahead with the
conflict.
He called
on people to pray for Mr Blair and called on him to show more humility rather
than exercising power in an authoritarian way. Referring to Iraq, he
said: "One of the qualities of a good leader is that they have to
be really attentive to the views of the people. It seemed at one stage
that that was not happening."
***"Undoubtedly,
a very wicked leader has been removed, but there are wicked leaders in
other parts of the world."
***The
coalition leaders would have to give an account to a "a higher
authority," he added, in an echo of the warning by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at the Iraq war remembrance service,
that Mr Blair would be "called to account." 12-30-03
|
IF THE FAILURE OF THE
PRESS AND MEDIA TO OFFER THESE CONCERNS PUTS INTO QUESTION WHETHER PATRIOTISM
TO OUR COUNTRY IS NOW AS IRRELEVANT AS OUR ONCE HONORED CONSTITUTION,
THEN ALL THOSE OFFERING AND GIVING THEIR LIVES TO PROTECT AND DEFEND IT
WERE LIVES LOST IN VAIN.
ALL THESE ISSUES
HIGHLIGHTED IN 2003 (REGIME CHANGE, BROKEN BORDERS, FADING DOLLAR, FADING
FAITH, EXPORTING AMERICA ETC.) WERE FIRST PUBLICLY EXPRESSED AND COVERED
BY US IN 1997.
Unsolicited testimonial about Recapturing America (click for free
access to entire novel)
"I have not read an author in years who comes close to
telling the story as you have done. Magnificent, readable, it is a
masterpiece of writing." GTS
Excerpt from Recapturing America alluding in 1997 to
Bush's plans for world domination and control
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/16/national/main588815.shtml
SENDERBERL HAS
SPOKEN ABOUT THIS POINT SINCE THE TIME THE GOVERNMENT SET UP THE WAY
THEY COUNT UNEMPLOYED. READ
CHAPTER 15 OF RECAPTURING AMERICA
TO UNDERSTAND THIS IMPORTANT STORY IN THE CONTEXT IT
SHOULD BE SEEN AND UNDERSTOOD. THE WAY WE EXPLAINED
IT TO OUR CLIENTS WAS THAT IF THE ENTIRE US WORKFORCE LOST THEIR JOBS
AND COULD NOT FIND WORK FOR SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER, ON THE FIRST DAY OF
THE SEVENTH MONTH THE WHITE HOUSE COULD CLAIM FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR THE
NATION.
Out Of Work, Out Of
Sight
WASHINGTON, Dec. 29, 2003
The Los Angeles Times
reports that while the nation's unemployment rate of 5.9 percent is relatively
low, it fails to include the 4.9 million people who want full-time
positions but are working part-time jobs. The figure also omits 1.5
million people who have stopped looking for work.
Taken together, the total number of jobless reaches 15.1 million — or
9.7 percent, up from 9.4 percent a year ago, the Times reports.
The number is unlikely to fall very fast, very soon. While forecasters
believe things are falling into place to produce the strongest economic
growth in two decades, analysts believe there will be much less
improvement in unemployment as businesses concentrate on boosting
productivity so they can expand output without hiring new workers.
|
Thank you for a wonderful book, I must say
that it ranks among the best this nation will ever see.
Thank you for teaching me, so that I can teach others.
Karl
G. Granse Citizens for a Constitutional Republic
www.senderberl.com/recapturing/america
|
Recapturing America Released
February 1997
"What
you can’t tell me is what I already know, President Bush. That it is
all part and parcel of the plan to implement this new world order. Now, that you used the words, you think you
sanitized the concept. The American people are being kept in the
dark about it."
"Without
it, we cannot guarantee Americans peace and security. With it, Noah, we
have our best chance to protect American interests."
"Like
NAFTA, Mr. President?"
"What
objection do you have to a global economy?"
"You
are selling out Americans. You are moving not only to global trade but
to a global currency and a centralized world order government. One
where the candidates are only among those allowed to even run."
"You’re
talking nonsense."
"No I
am not. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have your fingers in every country’s
elections."
|
SPECIAL
MESSAGE FROM SENDERBERL
Sender, Berl & Sons
Inc. devoted seven years to public service efforts and sadly notes that
all its fears have unraveled as true. Thus man after despoiling animal and
plant life, eviscerating global fish populations, his atmosphere and
environment to render him an unfettered predator species, now has reached
a level where he will seek to eviscerate what is left: his fellow man.
The first stages are in place seen in the USA when the current
administration allows a platform for a police state and policies via
executive orders that diminish if not undermine the Constitution, the
bedrock for the American republic. Thus year by year it will become more
and more evident that centralized global control returns man to slavery
of his fellow man and SenderBerl wishes to highlight in this short
special message the logic of it. SenderBerl in 1982 emphasized to
President Reagan the need to cut corporate taxes to the bone to revitalize
American business and industry. This was ultimately done and homage also
paid ironically by Bush 41 to SenderBerl's position that American
generosity was only seen as American weakness with global powers
continually conspiring to undermine America and American interests. Now,
in a complete about face, we face the opposite problem, also foreseen by
us, when those taking an aggressive global posture achieve the successes
seen in the 80s via the former Soviet Union and in mid 90s in terms of a
Japanese effort to undermine the US via an attack on the US dollar.
However, the evisceration of those opposed to us, left a shadow
government now openly in control operating through its interlocking
symbiotic relationship with corporate America. Corporations are by nature
amoral, meaning they exist to exhume profits and they do not care about
policies or paths pursued for profit UNLESS the policies and paths
undertaken jeopardize their existence. Thus government was supposed to be
out there limiting corporate excesses, but when government is under
control of the corporate world then the corporate modus operandi will
exercise a path and course to make government amoral with cronyism and
corruption its mainstay. Likewise government power without checks and
balances has resulted in government where those not in line with long
term covert agendas and policies are targeted and either undermined or
eliminated. This makes us very sorry that we complained about our own
victimization as a country to President Reagan and for his administration
to pursue a tough course against the Soviet Union, Japan and others,
because if victories achieved operate to allow those holding power to
undermine our own heritage and country, then no positive purpose was
realized. A recent movie THE LAST SAMURAI highlights the dynamics of
nationalism vs. the modus operandi of imperialistic global expansion. The
issue that Americans never were asked about or were able to vote upon or
address -- was the new world order, one world government, where this country's
nationalism and heritage were going to be destroyed, as it is being done
right now. The consequences are seen by us daily in every day events.
WE RECOMMEND TWO SOURCES TO
YOU.
RENSE.COM. WHILE WE OURSELVES
DO NOT AGREE CERTAINLY WITH EVERYTHING POSTED ON RENSE.COM JEFF RENSE
THROUGH HIS RADIO SHOW AND INTERNET POSTINGS PROVIDES THE BEST SOURCE FOR
NEWS AND EVENTS AVOIDED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
JOELSKOUSEN.COM. HIS
WEEKLY INTERNET NEWSLETTER COVERS FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE SOME OF THE MOST
DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING ISSUES FACING AMERICA AND THE WORLD TODAY.
WHILE AGAIN WE DON'T AGREE WITH EVERY POSITION HE TAKES, HE TACKLES
ISSUES THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TOTALLY DISREGARDS.
His January 2, 2004
newsletter is worthy of special mention. It covers the hypocrisy of the
FDA regarding ephedra, and reveals the course as a platform for the FDA
to ultimately secure its true goal to wit control over what it doesn't
oversee: vitamins and herbs. This serves of course the agenda of the drug
companies who carry de facto control over the FDA. This thus supports and
reflects the concerns we expressed above.
He also brings to our
attention something otherwise hard to find: a secret pipeline being built
running from Iraq into Kuwait to extract Iraqi oil. It was it seems by no
coincidence that he followed this exposition with one entitled" WHY
GEORGE BUSH SR. WAS NO WAR HERO. It seems that those serving with Bush 41
well know that it was entirely the opposite which sort of suggests to
those bowing to the Bush power that giving up US Constitutional oversight
of the current Chief Executive is a sure fire recipe for the dire and
dark future ahead for many not aligned with the elitist centrix, as
adeptly portrayed by us in early 1997, in releasing RECAPTURING AMERICA.
In today's upside down world where evil is good and good is evil, we feel
incumbent to quote from the Skousen newsletter since if it is a true fact
and allegation, it behooves one to stand on guard against a government
and administration that reflects disdain for anything out of its own pale
of reality.
WHY GEORGE BUSH
SR. WAS NO WAR HERO {JOELSKOUSEN.COM}
The establishment media regularly
crucifies anyone taking issue with the standard version of history,
calling them "historical revisionists." But, as we can see in
the following open letter from one of Bush Sr’s pilot contemporaries, the
official story of George Bush is distorted and embellished to a degree
bordering on outright falsehood. The author is John S. McDonald, a
veteran Avenger pilot who was in the same theater of operations in the
Pacific where George Bush, Sr. lost his aircraft and crew. "I am an
82 year old Navy pilot and I am outraged at television's depiction of
George Bush Sr.'s Pacific experiences. Now, I hear a book is forthcoming
- Unbelievable!! I was in the Pacific at the same time as Bush and flew
the same Avenger airplane. A small room in the rear of the Avenger was
occupied by the radioman. The gunner went through the room to get up to
his turret. Both wore a harness to which a chest type parachute could be
attached - The gunner had to come down out of the turret to put on his
chute."Bush said he was hit by anti-aircraft fire and the plane
caught fire. Bush's squadron was primarily used for patrol and saw very
little combat. Bush claimed he warned the crew, over the intercom, to get
out - got no answer and he could not yell back because of the armor plate
behind him. He decided they were dead, so he bailed out. First, he failed
to say he switched his mike from radio to intercom. Then being blocked by
the armor is a bold faced lie! There was a sizable gap on either side of
the armor. I used this space to call to my crew several times. "The
tough old Avenger simply did not catch fire!! It had self sealing gas
tanks. In six months of operations, I never saw an Avenger catch fire. If
the oil or hydraulic systems were damaged, great clouds of white smoke
would stream out of the plane. I have no idea how many times I saw planes
returning to their carriers trailing smoke but never a fire. "What
really happened? It was the pilot’s job to hold the plane level and slow
it down so the crew could get out. Most certainly, the radioman was
helping the gunner with his chute when Bush panicked and left the plane.
Then the plane rolled into a dive giving the crew no chance. This story
went through the fleet and all the Avenger pilots I knew were shocked at
what they heard. I heard speculation of a Courts-Martial. "Bush was
very young. By his own admission, he reacted under stress. It is
terrifying to have the cockpit fill with smoke. Possibly, he can be
excused for reacting to fear and accepting it as another war time tragedy
- but he has been glorified on the History channel, a book is being
published, and worst of all, an aircraft carrier is to be named for him.
This is unbelievable!! Bush performed badly and was certainly no
hero." [End of McDonald quote.]
We also want to mention
that the two other movies we highlighted over the years were the THE TITANIC
and THE EMPEROR AND ASSASSIN. The first movie was a subtle but brilliant
portrayal of the elitist centrix mindset seen as exactingly true if the
above account of Bush 41 is accurate. While young people can act afraid
and scared and do wrong and cause damage, it is incongruous to lead a
life where your war efforts are glorified when they should have been
criticized. More important, it shows the type of disdain of all life
forms other than those within the narrow boundaries of concern to those
counted among the elitist centrix, who in generations past thought only
for the welfare of THEIR horses when children who were in the way were
trampled upon.
THE
EMPEROR AND THE ASSASSIN was
China's exposition upon the concerns of unipolar world government, as a
prelude the issues highlighted now by THE LAST SAMURAI. China was
announcing the historical concern of those who seek to unify in the name
of the general global good, where the historical reality is that only a
platform for greed, corruption, lewdness, avarice and malice are put into
operational control: one diametrically opposite to righteousness,
freedom, opportunity and any and all precepts of democracy. In short the
nobility have overcome the historical distortion to their path seen via
the French and American revolutions. All lives lost in furthering those
revolutions and the democracies arising therefrom are or soon are to be
rendered in vain. If anyone is wondering what happened to the nobility of
times past, they're right in front of your noses, extracting the wealth
from a country that they always felt belonged to them, not to you (and
they also seemingly correctly believed that they could take it back: the
American people being stupid, could be postured and massaged to let it
happen in front of their own noses).
THE EVENTS OF TWA FLIGHT
800, THE DEATH OF PRINCESS DIANA, THE INVASION AGAINST IRAQ ALL TAKING
PLACE UNDER DOMESTIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMBEDDED BY BUSH 41 SINCE THE TIME
BUSH 41 ASSUMED THE VICE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS BRILLIANTLY
SUCCEEDED WITH THOSE TAKEN IN AS WITTING AND UNWITTING PAWNS BENEFITING
IMMENSELY BUT ALL OF WHOM WILL MEAN NOTHING TO THOSE WHO CARVED OUT THIS
COURSE WHERE AMERICA IS BEING RELEGATED TO FUTURE THIRD WORLD STATUS TO
EVISCERATE ITS INDEPENDENCE AND TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT WILL
SUBMIT AS WILL ENGLAND ULTIMATELY TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER DICTATORSHIP
UNDER WHOM BUSH 41 AND BUSH 43 ARE ONLY OPERATIONAL PAWNS THEMSELVES.
SENDERBERL HAS COVERED WITH
YOU THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THE DEEPER DIMENSIONS OF THIS UNFOLDING SAD
REALITY. HOWEVER, WITH THE USA AND ISRAEL ON THE COURSE THEY ARE UPON,
THERE IS LITTLE TO BE SAID BUT THAT EVERYONE WILL FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
OF ALLOWING EVIL TO PREVAIL AS EVERYONE SAT PASSIVE AND BLIND DURING THE
CLINTON TENURE, PROVING TO THOSE THE TRUE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM, JUSTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY THAT WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH
AMERICANS ONLY ABLE TO MUSTER PROTESTS, TOTALLY SPAT UPON BY THE SITTING
PRESIDENT, AS FINAL EXPRESSIONS BY THOSE WHOM HAVE BEEN DEFEATED AND CONQUERED.
THUS EVIL HAS BECOME GOOD AND GOOD EVIL, FURTHER INVOKING AND ATTESTING
TO THIS TIME OF BIBLICAL FOREBODING.
IRONY OF LIFE? IS
JESSICA LYNCH THE FOOL FOR DENYING HERSELF THE GOVERNMENT'S WILLINGNESS
TO MAKE HER A NATIONAL HERO, WHEN THE OTHER CHOOSING SEEMINGLY MORE
WISELY BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FATHER TO THE SITTING
PRESIDENT? HISTORY IS FRAUGHT WITH WAR,
DEATH, LOSS OF FREEDOM, OPPRESSION, INJUSTICE, ABUSE, AND SLAVERY. SHOULD
ONE OR MORE OF THOSE CONDITIONS RETURN, THEN PEOPLE WILL SEE THAT A
FUTURE FOR GOOD CONNECTS WITH THE ONE WILLING TO DENY A STATUS
UNDESERVED. THAT MAKES JESSICA LYNCH A TRUE AMERICAN HERO AND THE TYPE OF
AMERICAN RESPECTED GLOBALLY. JESSICA
LYNCH IS NOT A FOOL BUT A PERSON THAT HAS PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTER AND IS
UNWILLING TO LIVE A LIFE OF LIES AND DECEPTIONS REGARDLESS OF THE
BENEFITS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE ARISEN TO HER BENEFIT. IS SHE
JUST SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO HAVE MADE THE "WISE" DECISION? WE
THINK NOT. WHAT SEEMINGLY STUNNED JESSICA
LYNCH IS THAT HER COUNTRY COULD ENGAGE IN CONDUCT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE
TO EVERYTHING THIS NATION REPRESENTED TO ITS CITIZENS AND IN
CONTRADICTION NO DOUBT TO HER SCHOOLING AND HOME VALUES AS TAUGHT AND
INSTILLED IN HER
Former
prisoner of war Jessica Lynch said the U.S. military was wrong to
manipulate the story of her capture and dramatic rescue and should not
have filmed it in the first place. The 20-year-old private said in an
interview to air Tuesday that she was bothered by the military's
portrayal of her ordeal. "They used me as a way to symbolize all
this stuff," she said in an excerpt from the interview. "It
hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth
about," she said. She also said there was no reason for her rescue
from an Iraqi hospital to be filmed. "It's wrong," she said in
the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer. November
7, 2003.
IT IS MIND BOGGLING FROM THE HIGHER
DIMENSION. TWO POLAR REACTIONS ONE BY A SIMPLE SMALL TOWN YOUNG WOMAN AND
ANOTHER BY THE SON OF UNITED STATES SENATOR WHO WENT ON TO BECOME
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ARE ISSUES LIKE THIS ONE TO BE SWEPT
UNDER THE RUG OR CONFRONTED BY LEADERSHIPS ACROSS THE FULL SPECTRUM OF
SOCIETY SO WE MAY KNOW WHAT TYPE OF PEOPLE AND SOCIETY WE TRULY ARE
TODAY. ARE TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND RELATIVE WEALTH THE ONLY
MEASURING RODS? HERE AGAIN IS WHERE WE CURRENTLY FAIL TO HEED THE LESSONS
OF ROME AND HISTORY. FAILING TO DO SO ATTESTS THAT WE WILL NOT CORRECTLY
CONFRONT TOMORROW'S PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY, LEADING
TO THE TYPE OF PRESSURES THAT BEFELL ROME AND OTHER SOCIETIES RIDDEN WITH
CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM. IN FACT, HISTORY MAY ATTEST THAT WE ARE THE
PROBLEM. IF EVOLUTION WAS SUPPOSED TO SUGGEST THAT THE PUZZLE STILL
TRANSLATES INTO THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, THEN WE WOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT
AS ANIMALS AND NOT GIVEN THE FACULTIES TO ELEVATE OURSELVES AS JUST
CARETAKERS OF PLANET EARTH AND ALL FORMS OF LIFE EXISTANT THEREON.
SENDERBERL VALUES THE PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS
THAT HAVE BEEN WITH THIS COUNTRY SINCE ITS FOUNDING, HOLDING TRUE AND
VALID FOR EVERY GENERATION EXCEPT THIS ONE. ISN'T IT WORTH SPEAKING OUT
AND DOING WHATEVER YOU CAN TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THIS GREAT
COUNTRY? OR ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE FOLLY OF THE OATH OF OFFICE, OUR
CONSTITUTION, OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE TO SWALLOW THE ARGUMENT THAT CHANGES
ARE NEEDED TO ADAPT TO THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE.? POPPYCOCK.
IF YOU WANT TO FACE THE
DEEPER REALITY WE COVERED IN OUR PUBLIC SERVICE EFFORTS...
Click on this link to see why the American
people carry growing criticism against the Attorney General and the Bush
administration
Click on this link to read a rense.com
article that should stir you to speak up and we also provide a link to the filed legal
complaint
Amend PATRIOT Act Urges National League of
Cities
press release
Washington, DC, December 30, 2003 -------
Portions of the USA PATRIOT Act compromise the U.S. Constitution and Bill
of Rights and should be amended, says a resolution recently passed by the
National League of Cities at its annual meeting. The National League of
Cities called for amendments to restore protections of the fundamental
civil liberties of Americans.
The resolution says that while the National
League of Cities believes that efforts to prevent and respond to acts of
terrorism require extensive coordination among the federal, state, and
local governments, such efforts “should not disproportionately infringe
on the essential civil rights and liberties of the people of the United
States.” The PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress and signed into law in
October, 2001, after the September 11 attacks.
The National League of Cities believes that a
number of provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act threaten fundamental rights
and civil liberties, including those that:
- Permit law enforcement to perform searches with
no one present and to delay notification of the search of a citizen’s
home (Section 213);
- Permit the FBI Director to seek records from
bookstores and libraries including books of patrons based on minimal
evidence of wrongdoing and prohibits librarians and bookstore employees
from disclosing the fact that they have been ordered to produce such
documents (Section 215); br>
- Amend the “probable cause” requirement before
conducting secret searches or surveillance to obtain evidence of a crime
(Section 218);
- Permit law enforcement authorities to have
broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, financial,
and educational records despite the existence of previously adopted state
and federal laws which were intended to strengthen the protection of
these types of records (Sections 215, 218, 358, and 508);
- Give the Secretary of State broad powers to
designate domestic groups as “terrorist organizations” and the Attorney
General power to subject immigrants to indefinite detention or
deportation even if no crime has been committed (Sections 411 and 412);
and
- Impose an unfunded mandate on state and local
public universities that must collect information on students who may be
of interest to the Attorney General (Sections 507 and 508).
As recent National League of Cities research has
shown, municipal budgets across the nation are already strained and added
homeland security duties constitute unfunded mandates on local police,
libraries, universities, and other budgets that cities and towns cannot
financially absorb.
The resolution urges the President and executive
branch members to “review, revise and rescind executive orders and
policies adopted since the terrorist attacks that limit or compromise the
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” and
urges Congress to amend the PATRIOT Act in order “to restore and protect
our nation’s fundamental and inalienable rights and liberties.” NLC also
supports the sunset of key provisions of the PATRIOT Act and increased
Congressional oversight over agencies responsible for enforcing the law.
The resolution also supports the "Freedom to
Read Protection Act of 2003,” which would reinstate legal standards for
libraries and bookstores, and the Protecting the Rights of Individuals
Act, which would require a court order before conducting electronic surveillance.
Feb 11 04: The Administration is going after antiwar protestors in
Iowa to silence all opponents to the Iraq War.
John Greeley
When President Bush was asked what the election in November will be
about, he replied, "Who can properly use American power in a way to
make the world a better place."
Just how George Bush intends to make the world a better place can be seen
in, of all places, Des Moines, Iowa, home of Drake University.
"In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades,"
writes Ryan J. Foley of the Associated Press, "...a federal judge
has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of
anti-war activists."
"In addition to the subpoena of Drake University," Foley
continues, "subpoenas were served this past week on four of the
activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to
appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said. Federal
prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas."
It is now time for Americans to pay for trading their individual rights
for a false sense of governmental security. The bill for allowing our
fears to supercede our constitutional freedoms is now due and the first
installment will be paid by antiwar protesters.
SenderBerl's
Rendition of the Elitist Centrix Perception
SenderBerl Explained the Mindset of those behind 9-11
SenderBerl
explained why the US should not be the target of Islamic terrorism
(aside from the fact that it would create the sought after second
platform of moral outrage)
Mr Bush
has direct descents from William the Conqueror, Henry II and Charles II,
according to Burke's Peerage.
He also
scores better than his father, who lost the office of president to Bill
Clinton, because of his mother's well-to-do ancestors. Barbara Pierce
Bush's royal connections include French Bourbon and several Scandinavian
monarchs, as well as members of the Russian, Spanish and German
monarchies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,393341,00.htm
LISTEN TO
THE MOST IMPORTANT RADIO INTERVIEW OF THESE TIMES
Return to Lead Page
|
|
Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., listens as he is
introduced for his speech to the Center for American Progress in Washington
Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2004. Kennedy assailed the Bush administration by
saying "this administration is indeed leading this country to a
perilous place. It has broken faith with the American people, aided and
abetted by a congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any
price, even the price of distorting the truth." (AP Photo/Gerald
Herbert)
|
Senator Kennedy speaks out harshly below against
President Bush and his administration. No doubt he speaks for other
Senators, who like he, from where we sit, will not tolerate or endure any
longer an administration that thwarts investigation of 9-11, indicating
from facts, such as those we present at www.senderberl.com/ps/ps2, complicity in 9-11.
No doubt Senator Kennedy further offered this speech for
the reasons indicated in Regime and Culture Change Unmasked. When General Tommy Franks a
surrogate for the President dares to suggest a willing platform to rescind
the U.S. Constitution; calls democracy a grand experiment, and
foreshadows martial law and government, all as part and parcel of a
personal political agenda of the President and his cohorts, one which
diminishes us as a nation, then there is a war in play, and it is at
home, here in the USA. With corruption and cronyism rampant, President
Bush and cohorts believe that they may get away with it. We hope you
don't allow them to do what they have counted on from the beginning:
having the American people stand stupid, blind and passive to what is
before them (with the collaboration of media moguls carrying only
secondary loyalty to the country and paramount loyalty to one world
government).
Senator Kennedy no doubt will increase his criticism to a
deeper level as we move toward November 2004. For his justified reasons
in doing so, aside from the above references, see also, if you haven't
already, our exposition: Bush's Mission: Expecting the Second Platform of Moral
Outrage.
January
14, 2004
"AMERICA, IRAQ, AND
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP"
Speech Delivered by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
To the Center for American Progress
At The Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Thank you General Nash for that generous introduction.
General Nash had an impressive career in the U.S. Army. His experience
and expertise in conflict prevention and post-war reconstruction from his
leadership in the Balkans has greatly assisted the debate on post-war
Iraq.
I'm grateful to him for his impressive public service, and for joining
us today.
I'd also like to thank Brian and Alma Hart and Sergeant Peter Damon
for coming today. The Hart's son, John, was killed in Iraq this fall on
patrol in an unarmored Humvee. Sergeant Damon lost both his arms serving
in Iraq. We honor their service and their sacrifice.
The enduring accomplishments of our nation's leaders are those that
are grounded in the fundamental values that gave birth to this great
country. As our Founders so eloquently stated in the preamble to our
Constitution, this nation was founded by "We the People... in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Over the course of two centuries, these ideals inspired and enabled
thirteen tiny quarreling colonies to transform themselves-not just into
the most powerful nation on earth, but also into the "last, best
hope of earth." These ideals have been uniquely honored by history
and advanced by each new generation of Americans, often through great
sacrifice.
In these uncertain times, it is imperative that our leaders hold true
to those founding ideals and protect the fundamental trust between the
government and the people. Nowhere is this trust more important than
between the people and the President of the United States. As the leader
of our country and the voice of America to the world, our President has
the obligation to lead and speak with truth and integrity if this nation
is to continue to reap the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our
posterity.
The citizens of our democracy have a fundamental right to debate and
even doubt the wisdom of a president's policies. And the citizens of our democracy have a sacred
obligation to sound the alarm and shed light on the policies of an
Administration that is leading this country to a perilous place.
I believe that this Administration
is indeed leading this country to a perilous place. It has broken faith
with the American people, aided and abetted by a Congressional majority
willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the
truth. On issue after issue, they have moved brazenly to impose their
agenda on America and on the world. They have pursued their goals at the
expense of urgent national and human needs and at the expense of the
truth. America deserves better.
The Administration and the
majority in Congress have put the state of our union at risk, and they do
not deserve another term in the White House or in control of Congress.
I do not make these statements
lightly. I make them as an American deeply concerned about the future of
the Republic if the extremist policies of this Administration continue.
By far the most extreme and most dire example of this Administration's
reckless pursuit of its single-minded ideology is in foreign policy. In
its arrogant disrespect for the United Nations and for other peoples in
other lands, this Administration and this Congress have squandered the
immense goodwill that other nations extended to our country after the
terrorist attacks of September 11th. And in the process, they
made America a lesser and a less respected land.
Nowhere is the danger to our country and to our founding ideals more
evident than in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Former Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill has now revealed what many of us have long
suspected. Despite protestations to the contrary, the President and his
senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the
Administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11.
The examination of the public record and of the statements of
President Bush and his aides reveals that the debate about overthrowing
Saddam began long before the beginning of this Administration. Its roots
began thirteen years ago, during the first Gulf War, when the first
President Bush decided not to push on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.
President Bush and his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft
explained the reason for that decision in their 1997 book, A World
Transformed. They wrote the following: "Trying to eliminate Saddam,
extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated
our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream. . .and would
have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . .We would have
been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition
would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other
allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no
viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. .
. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Those words are
eerily descriptive of our current situation in Iraq.
During the first Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz was a top advisor to then
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and he disagreed strongly with the
decision by the first President Bush to stop the war after driving Saddam
out of Kuwait.
After that war ended, Wolfowitz convened a Pentagon working group to
make the case that regime change in Iraq could easily be achieved by
military force. The Wolfowitz group concluded that "U.S. forces
could win unilaterally or with the aid of a small group of a coalition of
forces within 54 days of mid to very high intensity combat."
Saddam's attempted assassination of President Bush during a visit to
Kuwait in 1993 added fuel to the debate.
After his tenure at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz became Dean of the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and continued to
criticize the decision not to end the reign of Saddam. In 1994 he wrote:
"With hindsight, it does seem like a mistake to have announced, even
before the war was over, that we would not go to Baghdad. . ."
Wolfowitz's resolve to oust Saddam was unwavering. In 1997, he wrote,
"We will have to confront him sooner or later-and sooner would be
better. . . Unfortunately, at this point, only the substantial use of
military force could prove that the U.S. is serious and reverse the slow
collapse of the international coalition."
The following year, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and 16 others-10 of
whom are now serving in or officially advising the current Bush
Administration-wrote President Clinton, urging him to use military force
to remove Saddam. They said, "The only acceptable strategy is one
that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a
willingness to undertake military action, as diplomacy is clearly
failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his
regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign
policy."
That was 1998. President Clinton was in office, and regime change in
Iraq did become the policy of the Clinton Administration-but not by war.
As soon as the current President Bush took office in 2001, he brought
a group of conservatives with him, including Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and
others, who had been outspoken advocates for most of the previous decade
for the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein.
At first, President Bush was publicly silent on the issue. But as Paul
O'Neill has told us, the debate was alive and well.
I happen to know Paul O'Neill, and I have great respect for him. I
worked with him on key issues of job safety and health care when he was
at ALCOA in the 1990's. He's a person of great integrity, intelligence,
and vision, and he had impressive ideas for improving the quality of
health care in the Pittsburgh area. It is easy to understand why he was
so concerned by what he heard about Iraq in the Bush Administration.
In his "60 Minutes" interview last Sunday, O'Neill said that
overthrowing Saddam was on the agenda from Day 1 of the new
Administration. O'Neill said, "From the very beginning there was a
conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to
go...It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it.
The President was saying, "Go find me a way to do this."
The agenda was clear: find a rationale to end Saddam's regime.
But there was resistance to military intervention by those who felt
that the existing sanctions on Iraq should be strengthened. Saddam had
been contained and his military capabilities had been degraded by the
Gulf War and years of U.N. sanctions and inspections. At a press
conference a month after the inauguration, Secretary of State Colin
Powell said: "We have kept him contained, kept him in his box."
The next day, Secretary Powell very clearly stated that Saddam "has
not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
destruction..."
Then, on September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked us and everything
changed. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld immediately began to link Saddam
Hussein to Al Qaeda and the attacks. According to notes taken by an aide
to Rumsfeld on September 11th, the very day of the attacks, the Secretary
ordered the military to prepare a response to the attacks. The notes
quote Rumsfeld as saying that he wanted the best information fast, to
judge whether the information was good enough to hit Saddam and not just
Osama bin Laden. "Go massive," the notes quote him as saying.
"Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
The advocates of war in Iraq desperately sought to make the case that
Saddam was linked to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and that he was on the verge of
acquiring a nuclear capability. They created an Office of Special
Projects in the Pentagon to analyze the intelligence for war. They
bypassed the traditional screening process and put pressure on
intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis.
As the world now knows, Saddam's connection to 9/11 was false. Saddam
was an evil dictator. But he was never close to having a nuclear
capability. The Administration has found no arsenals of chemical or
biological weapons. It has found no persuasive connection to Al Qaeda.
All this should have been clear. The Administration should not have
looked at the facts with ideological blinders and with a mindless
dedication to the results they wanted.
A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment concluded that Administration
officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons programs. They also concluded that the
intelligence community was unduly influenced by the policymakers' views
and intimidating actions, such as Vice President Cheney's repeated visits
to CIA headquarters and demands by officials for access to the raw
intelligence from which the analysts were working. The report also noted
the unusual speed with which the National Intelligence Estimate was
written and the high number of dissents in what is designed to be a
consensus document.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, President Bush himself made clear
that his highest priority was finding Osama bin Laden. At a press
conference on September 17th, 2001, he said that he wanted bin Laden
"dead or alive." Three days later, in an address to a Joint
Session of Congress, President Bush demanded of the Taliban:
"Deliver to the United States authorities all the leaders of Al
Qaeda who hide in your land." And Congress cheered. On November 8th,
the President told the country, "I have called our military into
action to hunt down the members of the Al Qaeda organization who murdered
innocent Americans." In doing that, he had the full support of Congress
and the nation-and rightly so.
Soon after the war began in Afghanistan, however, the President
started laying the groundwork in public to shift attention to Iraq. In
the Rose Garden on November 26th, he said: "Afghanistan is still
just the beginning."
Three days later, even before Hamid Karzai had been approved as
interim Afghan President, Vice President Cheney publicly began to send
signals about attacking Iraq. On November 29th, he said "I
don't think it takes a genius to figure out that this guy [Saddam Hussein]
is clearly ... a significant potential problem for the region, for the
United States, for everybody with interests in the area."
On December 12th, the Vice President elaborated further: "If I
were Saddam Hussein, I'd be thinking very carefully about the future, and
I'd be looking very closely to see what happened to the Taliban in
Afghanistan."
Prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, President
Bush's approval rating was only 50%. But with his necessary and swift
action in Afghanistan against the Taliban for harboring bin Laden and Al
Qaeda, his approval soared to 86%.
Soon, Karl Rove joined the public debate, and war with Iraq
became all but certain. At a meeting of the Republican National
Committee in Los Angeles on January 19th, 2002, Rove made clear that the
war on terrorism could be used politically, and that Republicans, as he
put it, could "go to the country on this issue."
Ten days later, the deal was all but sealed. In his State of the Union
Address, President Bush broadened his policy on Afghanistan to other
terrorist regimes. He unveiled the "Axis of Evil"-Iraq, Iran,
and North Korea. Those three words forged the lock-step linkage between
the Bush Administration's top political advisers and the Big Three of
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. We lost our previous clear focus on the
most imminent threat to our national security-Osama bin Laden and the Al
Qaeda terrorist network.
What did President Bush say about bin Laden in the State of the Union
Address that day? Nothing.
What did the President say about Al Qaeda? One fleeting mention.
What did he say about the Taliban? Nothing.
Nothing about bin Laden. One fleeting mention of Al Qaeda. Nothing
about the Taliban in that State of the Union Address.
Barely four months had passed since the worst terrorist atrocity in
American history. Five bin Laden videotapes had been broadcast since
September 11th, including one that was aired after bin Laden escaped at
the battle of Tora Bora. President Bush devoted 12 paragraphs in his
State of the Union Address to Afghanistan, and 29 paragraphs to the
global war on terrorism. But he had nothing to say about Bin Laden and
only one single fleeting mention of Al Qaeda.
Why not more? Because of an extraordinary policy coup. Cheney,
Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz-the Axis of War-had prevailed. The President was
changing the subject to Iraq.
In the months that followed, Administration officials began to draw up
the war plan and develop a plausible rationale for the war. Richard
Haass, Director of Policy Planning at the Department State during this
period, said recently that "the agenda was not whether Iraq, but
how." Haass said the actual decision to go to war had been
made in July 2002. He had questioned the wisdom of war with Iraq at that
time, but National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice told him,
"Essentially...that decision's been made. Don't waste your
breath."
It was Vice President Cheney who outlined to the country the case
against Iraq that he had undoubtedly been making to President Bush all
along. On August 26, 2002, in an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the Vice President argued against UN inspections in Iraq and announced
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, meaning chemical and
biological weapons. He also said: "We now know that Saddam has
resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources,
we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors, including
Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's
direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear
weapons fairly soon." Those were Cheney's words.
It is now plain what was happening: The drumbeat for war was sounding,
and it drowned out those who believed that Iraq posed no imminent threat.
On August 29th, just two days after Cheney's speech, President Bush
signed off on the war plan.
On September 12th, the President addressed the United Nations and
said: "Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other
chemical agents and has made several attempts to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." He told
the United Nations that Iraq would be able to build a nuclear weapon
"within a year," if Saddam acquired nuclear material.
President Bush was focusing on Iraq and Saddam, even though one year
after the attack on our country, bin Laden was still nowhere to be found.
A sixth bin Laden tape had been aired, and news reports of the time
revealed new military threats in Afghanistan. U.S. and Afghan military
and intelligence officials were quoted as saying that Al Qaeda had
established two main bases inside Pakistan. An Afghan military
intelligence chief said: "Al Qaeda has regrouped, together with the
Taliban, Kashmiri militants, and other radical Islamic parties, and they
are just waiting for the command to start operations."
Despite the obvious Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan, the White House
had now made Iraq our highest national security priority. The steamroller
of war was moving into high gear. The politics of the timing is obvious.
September 2002. The hotly contested 2002 election campaigns were entering
the home stretch. Control of Congress was clearly at stake. Republicans
were still furious over the conversion of Senator Jim Jeffords that had
cost them control of the Senate in 2001. Election politics prevailed, but
they should not have prevailed over foreign policy and national security.
The decision on Iraq could have been announced earlier. Why time it
for September? As White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card explained on
September 7th, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce
new products in August."
That was the bottom line. War in
Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. It was a product they
were methodically rolling out. There was no imminent threat, no immediate
national security imperative, and no compelling reason for war.
In public, the Administration continued to deny that the
President had made the decision to actually go to war. But the election
timetable was clearly driving the marketing of the product. The
Administration insisted that Congress vote to authorize the war before it
adjourned for the November elections. Why? Because the debate in Congress
would distract attention from the troubled economy and the troubled
effort to capture bin Laden. The strategy was to focus on Iraq, and do so
in a way that would divide the Congress. And it worked.
To keep the pressure on, President
Bush spoke in Cincinnati on Iraq's nuclear weapons program, just three
days before the Congressional vote. He emphasized the ties between Iraq
and Al Qaeda. He emphasized Saddam's access to weapons of mass
destruction, especially nuclear weapons. He said, "If the Iraqi
regime is able to produce or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a
little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in
less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would
be crossed...Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear
technology to terrorists."
The scare tactics worked. Congress voted to authorize the use of force
in October 2002. Republicans voted almost unanimously for war, and kept
control of the House in the election in November. Democrats were deeply
divided and lost their majority in the Senate. The Iraq card had been played successfully. The
White House now had control of both houses of Congress as well.
As 2003 began, many in the military and foreign policy communities
urged against a rush to war. United Nations weapons inspectors were in
Iraq, searching for weapons of mass destruction. Saddam appeared to be
contained. There was no evidence that Iraq had been involved in the
attacks on September 11th. Many insisted that bin Laden and Al Qaeda and
North Korea were greater threats, but their concerns were dismissed out
of hand.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz insisted that Iraq was the
issue and that war against Iraq was the only option, with or without
international support. They convinced the President that the war would be
brief, that American forces would be welcomed as liberators, not
occupiers, and that ample intelligence was available to justify going to
war.
The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the
President's State of Union address last January, when he spoke the now
infamous 16 words-"The British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." The President did not say that U.S. intelligence agencies
agreed with this assessment. He simply and deviously said, "the
British government has learned."
As we all now know, that
allegation was false. It had already been debunked a year earlier by the
U.S. intelligence community. Yet it was included in the President's State
of the Union Address. Has any other State of the Union Address ever been
so disgraced by such blatant falsehood?
In March 2003, on the basis, of a grossly exaggerated threat and
grossly inadequate post-war planning, and with little international
support, the United States invaded Iraq when we clearly should not have
done so.
Major combat operations ended five weeks later. Dressed in a
flight suit, the President flew out to an aircraft carrier and proclaimed
"Mission Accomplished." It was a nice image for the 2004
campaign, until the facts intruded. The mission was far from accomplished.
As the war dragged on and casualties mounted, the image on the aircraft
carrier was ridiculed. The Administration replaced it with a new
image-the President in Baghdad with cheering troops on Thanksgiving Day.
Again, the image-makers stumbled. This time, the image was of the
President holding his policy on Iraq-a turkey.
On a recent visit to Iraq, the
writer, Lucian Truscott, a 1969 graduate of West Point, spoke with an
Army colonel in Baghdad. In an op-ed article in the New York Times last
month, he wrote that Army officers spoke of feeling that "every
order they receive is delivered with next November's election in mind, so
there is little doubt at and near the top about who is really being used
for what over here."
There is little doubt as well that
the Administration's plan to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people by
this summer-and the pressure to hold elections in Afghanistan at that
time-are intended to build momentum for the November elections in this
country as well.
Our troubles in foreign policy today are as clear as they are
self-made. America cannot force its vision of democracy on the Iraqi
people on our terms and on our election timetable.
We cannot simply walk away from the wreckage of a war we never should
have fought, so that President Bush can wage a political campaign based
on dubious boasts of success. Our overarching interest now is in the
creation of a new Iraqi government that has legitimacy in the eyes of its
own citizens, so that in the years ahead, the process of constructing
democratic institutions and creating a stable peace can be completed. The
date of Iraq's transition must not be determined by the date of U.S.
elections.
We all agree that the Iraqi people are safer with Saddam behind bars.
They no longer fear that he will ever return to power. But the war in
Iraq itself has not made America safer.
Saddam's evil regime was not an
adequate justification for war, and the Administration did not seriously
try to make it one until long after the war began and all the other
plausible justifications had proven false. The threat he posed was not
imminent. The war has made America more hated in the world, especially in
the Islamic world. And it has made our people more vulnerable to attacks
both here and overseas.
By far the most serious consequence of the unjustified and unnecessary
war in Iraq is that it made the war on terrorism harder to win. We
knocked Al Qaeda down in the war in Afghanistan, but we let it regroup by
going to war in Iraq.
For nearly three weeks, our nation was recently on higher terrorist
alert again. And certain places will continue to be on high alert for the
foreseeable future. As Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said so
ominously in announcing the recent alert: "Al Qaeda's continued desire
to carry out attacks against our homeland are perhaps greater now than at
any point since September 11th."
Eleven times in the two years since 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked Americans
in other parts of the world and other innocent civilians. War with Iraq
has given Al Qaeda a new recruiting program for terrorists. For each new
group of terrorist recruits, the pool is growing of others ready to
support them and encourage them.
As another dangerous consequence of
the war, our Army is over-stretched, over-stressed, and over-extended.
Nearly 3,500 of our servicemen and women have been killed or wounded. By
the end of 2004, eight of our ten active Army divisions will have been
deployed for at least a year in the Middle East in support of Afghanistan
or Iraq. The Army is offering re-enlistment bonuses of $10,000 to
soldiers in Iraq, but many are turning the money down and turning a new
tour of duty down. Members of the National Guard and Reserve are being
kept on active duty and away from their families, jobs, and communities
for over a year.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighters who support them are stepping up
their terrorist campaign in Afghanistan, launching more and more attacks
against military personnel and civilians alike. The warlords are
jeopardizing the stability of the country. They make their money from the
drug trade, which is now booming again. International humanitarian
assistance workers, once considered immune from violence, are now targets
of a new Afghan insurgency.
In all these ways, we are reaping the
poison fruit of our misguided and arrogant foreign policy. The
Administration capitalized on the fear created by 9/11 and put a spin on
the intelligence and a spin on the truth to justify a war that could well
become one of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American
foreign policy. We did not have to go to war. Alternatives were working.
War must be a last resort. And this war never should have happened.
We all care deeply about national security. We all care deeply
about national defense. We take immense pride in the ability and
dedication of the men and women in our armed forces and in the Reserves
and the National Guard. The President should never have sent them in
harm's way in Iraq for ideological reasons and on a timetable based on
the marketing of a political product.
We know the high price we have also had to pay-in our credibility with
the international community-in the loss of life-in the individual
tragedies of loved ones left behind in communities here at home-in the
billions of dollars that should have been spent on jobs and housing and
health care and education and civil rights and the environment and a
dozen other clear priorities, and should not have been spent on a
misguided war in Iraq.
The Administration is breathtakingly
arrogant. Its leaders are convinced they know what is in
America's interest, but they refuse to debate it honestly. After
repeatedly linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in his
justification for war, the President now admits there was no such link.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted in an interview that the Administration settled
for "bureaucratic reasons" on weapons of mass destruction
because it was "the one reason everyone could agree on."
The Administration is vindictive
and mean-spirited. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly challenged the
Administration for wrongly claiming that Iraq had purchased uranium from
Niger for its nuclear weapons program, the Administration retaliated
against his wife, potentially endangering her life and her career.
President Bush and his advisers should
have presented their case honestly, so that Congress and the American
people could have engaged in the debate our democracy is owed, above all,
on the issue of war and peace.
That is what democracy means, and it
is the great strength of the checks and balances under the Constitution
that has served us so well for so long.
President Bush said it all when a
television reporter asked him whether Saddam actually had weapons of mass
destruction, or whether there was only the possibility that he might
acquire them. President Bush answered, "So what's the
difference?" The difference, Mr. President, is whether you go to war
or not.
No President of the United States
should employ misguided ideology and distortion of the truth to take the
nation to war. In doing so, the President broke the basic bond of trust
between government and the people. If Congress and the American people
knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war.
To remain silent when we feel so strongly
would be irresponsible. It would betray the fundamental ideals for which
our troops are sacrificing their lives on battlefields half a world away.
No President who does that to this land we love deserves to be
re-elected.
At our best, America is a great and generous country, ever looking
forward, ever seeking a better nation for our people and a better world
for peoples everywhere. I'm optimistic that these high ideals will be
respected and reaffirmed by the American people in November. The election
cannot come too soon.
Thank you very much.
Questions Asked:
Questions Answered
JAN
16 04
Q. Could you expand
on the need to see Dean denied the Democratic presidential nomination?
How far will the new world order leadership go in seeing him denied the
nomination?
Answer: Dean represents the
only possible avenue to a return to nationalism, all other serious
contenders, especially Gephardt, representing ultimate loss of US
sovereignty etc. under the new world order agenda. How far will those
committed to the current course go? Our perception is that it is up to Al
Gore who derives from a mainline new world order family and who is there
on one dimension, the public one, to support Dean, while on the other
dimension, having an important new world order agent close to the
potential problem. Clinton, with Gore tagging behind as VP, was a true
independent, but after a failed first 100 days in office (how many even
remember that he made the cover of Time Magazine as a failed President)
he became one of the strongest proponents for the new world order,
allowing them to completely take control of US domestic infrastructure
via TWA Flight 800 and the Princess Diana incident (see our special
public service page, which you can link to down below). Thus, should Dean
not be eliminated by more onerous means, which this group is capable of
pursuing, depending on Gore's report, he too will get nowhere if elected
President and thus will, like Clinton, succumb to them or else more
draconian remedies will be pursued. However, it would be better for them
to see him dissipated as a candidate so that he doesn't even wind up
running for office. The point is that we became involved in public
service to preclude us from having to address such questions and issues
for such dynamics do not belong in our country, founded upon principles
and precepts attuned to our Judeo-Christian heritage.
By the way, nationalism means
standing for the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and truly free and
open elections with candidates of truly opposing points of view. When we
heard Tommy Franks slip to confirm that the new world order might totally
remove not only our Constitution but also the realm of having
presidential elections and/or an operative government under our beloved
Constitution, then we knew that we and the world must do more to stop
them. A strong new current of world opposition is starting to brew, one
that should have your voice and active support. Do not be fooled. Unless
you are truly among the elitist centrix, as described in Recapturing
America, you and your children and those after them are destined to be
victims not beneficiaries. Moreover, you defame the honor and memory of
all those who fought to hand you the freedoms and liberties we cherish as
a country and to squander these Constitutional rights and protections is
beyond the pale.
Moreover, it must be understood why the new
world order needs to see Israel fail as a nation. The Judeo-Christian
precepts, principles and heritage which platformed our own Constitution
and Bill of Rights represent the threat to those who continually
throughout history seek to enslave their fellow man, deny them freedom,
justice, due process and fair and equal standing and opportunity. The
entire process in play today is to put controlling world assets into
dominant hands where they will perpetually stay. If they can show the
disregard for those they were supposed to serve today, just imagine what
type of oppression will be before you every day when they control,
without the window dressing of democratic government. Israel is
connective to G-d and can engage His intervention for us, and thus, to
those who are truly against Him, albeit they invoke His name, Israel
represents hope and the historical platform for the campaigns for freedom
and justice throughout history. Thus, what you must understand is that
the American and French revolutions will go out the window in their
meaning and implications for history should the new world order agenda
succeed, and thus you will have handed back victory and control to all
this country was created to detest and oppose.
There are a number of ways to
destroy Israel, the current apparent one is the one where the new world
order has succeeded; where it exactly wants to proceed against the
Arab/Islamic nations: removing their nexus to G-d and thus future hope.
However, in the case of Israel, Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. has
concluded, for the many reasons detailed, that the best solution for the
new world order elitist centrix is to see that there remains no culture
or nation which can later incubate a seed for future contention against
it, the Jewish nation by decree and nature one to ultimately correct
injustice, especially when conditions arise that would bring such course
to bear. In this manner, they don't have to worry about it.
The evil of the current
course and those behind it are adeptly displayed, should you commit
yourself personally to a resolve to confront it, by our special public
service page at www.senderberl.com/ps/ps2 (a page unfortunately designed to
require inspection by those having high speed connections, supplementing
our other public service page at www.senderberl.com/ps ). The excerpts below from a citizen
of Japan attests to the global recognition of the danger of the current
administration's policies and give us a little hope that you will take it
upon yourself to oppose an enemy that is a serious danger to the future
of your children and those that follow.
Q: Are you against
regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Syria?
No. However, when done under
a policy of pre-emptive intervention which has all the hallmarks of
imperialism and under a leadership that has equivocation with the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the sovereign best interests of the
United States of America, one that not only is part of a group that
affirmatively dilutes G-d in the United States, as it has done already in
Israel, but now wants to implement the same agenda for the Arab/Islamic
nations, then giving them reign and power as a consequence thereof is
serving and supporting evil not good and the result is worse than the
cancer removed. That is what our public service pages prove and until we
have a country again that tackles 9-11 and the other injustices
unraveling before us today, then we deem that those aligned with forces
of evil not good prevail and thereby it is no surprise that such forces
seek to negate our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and even soon plan
to eliminate our election process via finding a suitable avenue to impose
military government and control. Thus, read carefully, www.senderberl.com/UI.PDF and www.senderberl.com/BMI.PDF as a critical clarification to what
we covered and now highlight on our posted public service pages.
Q. Are you done with
public service?
We wonder who might be
interested in the answer to this question posited to us. Yes, we are
finished. Seven years completes a cycle. Now, new people, groups and
institutions have to take up the battle. Our posted exposition and Op-Ed
piece are our final formal expressions, our public service pages
highlighting some of many points we are honored to have had the
opportunity to post and know have been read by people visiting us from
over eighty countries. We warned you since Recapturing America of the
course and future for America; we warned you that the elitist centrix would
take advantage of the control of the media and the weakness of man when
showered with gifts, allowing them to weaken the underpinnings to the
nation and obtain control of infrastructure as so successfully done in
Israel, allowing the assassination of Rabin to go untouched and
unpunished. Now, how far of a reach is it to sadly recognize that despite
the neon sign saying that our own government was complicit in 9-11, that
the American people might continue to sit silent and blind to their own
dire and dark future ahead for them, for sitting so complacent as forces
of evil take control of their country. You must understand that if the
government is complicit in 9-11 and nothing is done and Bush spits upon
you when he laughs off whatever investigation takes place as he spat upon
those many Americans who protested in the cold the manner war was being
initiated against Iraq, then you are to blame. In the meantime, the Iraqi
people know the difference between an intervention for good and for evil,
as Bush freed all the criminals so that they could topple Saddam's
statute for propaganda purposes, allowing them without opposition to loot
and commit crimes, and to probably sign them up to be part and parcel of
tomorrow's cooperative Iraqi police force. We don't know how well you did
in school with history, but you surely are playing a major part in
allowing what history defines as evil to rear its head again.
As we said, you can take the
noble aspirations those behind this agenda deploy and throw them in the
toilet, because if you took away from them the mind boggling permanent
wealth, power and control they will reap from this course, they would be
here sitting beside us funding our work. To answer a final thought, if we
were beneficiaries of what they are gaining via the new world order
agenda, would we be part of it ourselves? No. We would not. We can only
add that we have sacrificed mightily our own economic and other interests
to bring to you as early on as we have the course we are upon that now
requires you to take action for your own family: for if you don't, we
tell you right here and now that all will be lost and a future will open
and unravel that you will surely woe.
http://rense.com/1.mpicons/jaon.htm
Greeting from Tokyo Mr
Rense,
We are watching NHK-TV
at the moment here in Tokyo. We see now 3 white very big new buses going
to the airport with soldiers going to Iraq.
On the buses government
write: SPECIAL GUARD OF HONOR but they write it in ENGLISH, and most
Japanese will not understand it. The size of every letter on the bus is
about half meter.
We think that our
government write this sentence just for propaganda to show on American
TV.
This is no honor. THIS
IS SHAME ON JAPAN! What kind of honor is to guard the oil pipe of the
Americans? Why should our soldiers die to protect the oil that Bush
steal? Why American are still in Iraq if they not find BIG BAD WEAPONS?
Why other countries are in Iraq if we already find Saddam? Many Japanese are
now say that your military destroyed the two big buildings in New York,
why you do not investigate it? Americans are now making new fascism in
the world. We do not like Americans anymore.
We just saw for the
first time since WW2 that our soldiers are marching to get on the buses
and go to kill people in other countries. SHAME! We do not like our
government is forced to send our soldier to die in Iraq. We do not like
Rumsfeld, he forced our prime minister. Mister Rumsfeld is a very bad
man.
Sinserely,
Yoshio Hayakawa
Setagaya-Ku Tokyo, Japan
Pinpoint
Accuracy
Discussion
|
WTC Surveillance Tapes Feared Missing
Key Evidence to World Trade Center Investigation Feared Destroyed,
Missing
The Associated Press
N E W Y O R K, Dec. 9 — Surveillance tapes and maintenance
logs are among the missing evidence as investigators try to figure out
why the World Trade Center collapsed, federal officials said Monday.
Many documents destroyed in the disaster "are pretty key in carrying
out the work," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said.
The 110-story towers collapsed after two hijacked jetliners plowed into
the buildings in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly 2,800 people
were killed.
Two hypotheses on the cause of the collapse have emerged since the
National Institute of Standards and Technology began its $23 million
probe three months ago.
Both theories agree the jetliners damaged floor joints and columns
inside and outside the buildings. But they vary on whether the fire-weakened
columns failed and alone brought down the buildings or whether floor
trusses sagged in the intense heat, pulling the columns inward to
collapse.
The lost records probably contain vital information that could help
answer questions, Sunder said. Investigators are trying to locate
copies of many destroyed documents from the building's owners and city
agencies.
| | 
