Steven Gaal

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-or-what-is-russias-pussy-riot_082012 quack, quack walk like duck ,walk like duck

The Third WTC Building Which Collapsed on 9/11 Was Not Hit By a Plane http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-third-wtc-building-which-collapsed-on-911-was-not-hit-by-a-plane/ ======================== Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says: The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

EXPLOSION BENEATH ME (not in another building ) DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKING PEOPLE SENT THIS TO ME FOR A CERTAIN SOMEONE.

Pussy Riot uproar continues: FEMEN offers bounty for desecrating crosses http://rt.com/politi...ting-money-952/ The case has split the Russian society. Pussy Riot supporters claim the case was politically motivated, and that the punishment was far too severe. The court verdict was followed by a series of protests and acts of vandalism against religious sites across the country. Sporadic acts of desecration are continuing across Russia. This week, three residents of the central Russian city of Tver burned a wooden Orthodox cross that they had erected near a local chapel. Police apprehended the trio and are currently deciding whether they should be prosecuted, ITAR-TASS reported. ================================================================= Pussy Riot solidarity: Topless Ukrainian activist chainsaws crucifix (PHOTOS, VIDEO) http://rt.com/news/femen-cross-pussy-riot-930/ BURN CROSSES BURN SOME SAY ........

Some may think that supporting PUSSY RIOT an absurd action not in line with govenmental operations. I beg to differ because the government has a long,long history of doing absurd operations. PLEASE NOTE BELOW. ================================================================================ The CIA's Technical Services Division planned to lace Castro's cigars with a super-hallucinogen (perhaps BZ), to embarrass him publicly by causing a wild acid trip during a public appearance. The CIA also planned to embarrass Fidel by sneaking thallium salts into Castro's shoes; thallium salts are a "potent depilatory that would cause his beard, eyebrows, and pubic hair to fall out... like a follicle deprived Samson." see (( http://www.historyho...history/castro/ )) ######################################################## Top 10 Weirdest CIA Programs http://www.toptenz.n...ia-programs.php Over the years, the American Central Intelligence Agency has gained a reputation for being the most far-reaching, sophisticated, and effective government intelligence agency on the planet. At the same time, the CIA has also become known for its incredible paranoia and propensity to undertake costly, sometimes illegal, and often downright absurd projects in the name of gaining an edge on the competition. From spy cats to psychic hippies, the following are ten of the weirdest spy programs the government has proposed and funded over the years. ######################### RELATED http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19489

WTC 7 Gallery of Evidence http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php The NIST hypothesis offers NO explanation for the collapse of half the core columns. The sudden and complete destruction of World Trade Center 7 was not included in the 911 Commission Report. ===================================== http://www.ae911truth.org/ ((home page)) WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: 1.Rapid onset of collapse 2.Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction 3.Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration 4.Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint 5.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds 6.Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional 7.Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered: 1.FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples 2.Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses 3.Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire: 1.Slow onset with large visible deformations 2.Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4.High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

The notion the universe and earth are only 6000 years old is positively stupid and contradicted what is known about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, history, archeology, anthropology among other subjects of study // END COLBY. WHAT HUMPHREYS STATED NOT REFRUTED, SEEMS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND NOT REFUTED. ################################################### Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics My part of the RATE initiative, in collaboration with fellow RATE researchers Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, and Andrew Snelling, was to explain the remarkable retention of helium observed in radioactive crystals in granitic rocks. I showed that the retention is evidence that the usual radioactivity-based billion-year ages for such rocks are grossly wrong, and that the rocks are only 6000 (± 2000) years old. Even before I finished the project, critics began sniping at it. The critics are usually atheists or professing Christians with various old-earth views. They are very disturbed about the project’s strong support of the young biblical age of the earth. Table 1 lists their criticisms and my responses. In September, 2008, another such criticism appeared on a ‘progressive creation’ website, and I’ll discuss it below. The criticisms show the attackers think the research is good enough to be a threat to them. But it has been only recently that I’ve seen God’s purpose in the attacks. He apparently uses the criticisms (and creationist answers) to help believers evaluate our research, just as an assayer uses acid (and a bright light) to show there is gold in a sample. None of the critics listed below have published their denunciations in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Instead they are ‘lone-ranger’ opinions in un-reviewed venues such as Internet sites and seminars. This contrasts starkly with the RATE helium project. It was a multi-author effort, and it had more than seventeen reviewers and editors as it appeared in five technical publications, one of which is non-creationist.[/url] The evidence the critics want to hide Photo by R. V. Gentry. Figure 2. Microscopic zircons used in this research. Here’s what the nay-sayers are trying to obscure. (For details, see the technical resources referenced above, or several non-technical resources.6,7) Decades ago, Robert Gentry analyzed tiny zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals recovered by drilling in hot Precambrian (over 545 million years old according to the geologic timescale) ‘basement’ rock in New Mexico.8 Figure 1 shows the drilling rig and site. Figure 2 shows some of the zircons Gentry analyzed, between 50 and 75 microns (millionths of a meter) long. Enough of the uranium in the zircons had decayed to lead to give them a radioisotope (radioactive element) age of ‘1.5 billion’ years. But Gentry found that up to 58% of the helium that the nuclear decay would produce was still in the zircons. This was surprising because helium diffuses (leaks) rapidly out of most minerals. Not knowing how fast helium leaks from zircon, I estimated what the leak rates would be when we measured them. In essence (of course the mathematics is more complicated), all I did to get the estimates was to divide the amount of helium lost from the crystal by the time (assumed by each of two models) during which it had been lost. That gives us the leak rates for each model. The ‘1.5 billion year’ model has rates over 100,000 times slower than the ‘6,000 year’ model, because the former has to retain the helium for a much longer time. Then in the year 2000, the RATE group published the estimates as numerical predictions for those two models.9 Figure 3. Model-predicted (red and magenta diamonds) and measured (blue dots) helium leak rates (‘Diffusivity’) of zircons. The data fit the 6,000-year prediction very well. Figure 3 shows the predictions as red and magenta diamond symbols. The bottom axis shows the temperature (in °C) of each sample in situ, that is, while it was in the granitic rock in the earth. The vertical axis shows ‘diffusivity’, which is a measure of how fast helium leaks from a material. The vertical axis is tremendously compressed, representing a factor of one trillion increase in leakage rates from bottom to top. The black numbers under the diamonds are the percentages of helium retained in each sample. The red and magenta vertical lines through the diamonds are the ‘two-sigma error bars’. They show the 95% confidence limits I estimated for the accuracy of the predictions.10 In 2001 we commissioned one of the world’s most respected experimenters in this field to measure the diffusivity of helium in the same-size zircons from the same borehole in the same rock formation. We used an existing mining company as an intermediary, and we asked the company to not tell the experimenter about us or our goals. The experimenter, being a uniformitarian (believer in long ages) and not having read our prediction, had no idea what results we were hoping for. It was a truly ‘blind’ experiment, and we were eagerly awaiting the data, which we received in 2003. Figure 3 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue ‘2-sigma error bars’ going vertically through them. If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time. To our great delight, the data fell right on the ‘6,000 year’ prediction! This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small. The data resoundingly reject the ‘1.5 billion year’ model. The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them. (Even after five years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.) This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data happened to fall right on our prediction, despite a low probability of doing so by accident. All the critics have avoided dealing with that issue. List of critics and my responses Here is a table summarizing all the criticisms (plus two friendly questions) of the RATE helium research I know of since 2002, along with my answers. See references for venues of criticisms and replies. No. Date Critic (or commenter) Main Criticisms Main Replies 1 10/2002 Joe Meert11 Mistook ‘–196°C’12 for ‘closure temperature’ with wrong sign. It was not closure temperature, sign was correct, and Meert totally misunderstood its significance.13 2 9/2003 Hugh Ross14 Said, ‘Helium is slippery.’ Yes … ‘slippery’ is what we want, in order to date zircons by the rate with which helium slips out of them.15 3 12/2003 *****16 Alleged that interface phenomena are significant. Analysis of interface phenomena shows they are insignificant.17 4 1/2004 Keith Wanser18 Similar to above, but from a YEC. Same as above. 5 6/2004 Hugh Ross19 Asserted that helium came into the zircons from outside them. Minerals surrounding the zircons have far less helium and uranium than the zircons, showing the helium did not come from outside the zircons.20 6 12/2004 (George Drake)21 (Friendly) concern about possible differences of pressure between biotite and zircon Analysis of pressure differences shows they are insignificant.22 7 12/2004 (Robert Brown)23 (Friendly) concern about lead diffusion from zircons Lead diffusion rates, while interesting, are irrelevant to helium diffusion rates.24 8 3/2005 Kevin Henke25 Disputed about % retention, source of helium, and minor issues Effects of all of these issues turn out to be vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.26 9 3/2005 Roger Wiens27 Alleged that accumulation over time of radiation defects in zircons is significant Effect turns out to be only a factor of two, within our error bars, and again vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.28 10 11/2005 Kevin Henke29 Alleged that in situ hydrostatic pressure effect is significant. Zircons are so hard that pressure or vacuum doesn’t affect helium diffusion significantly.30 11 3/2008 Randy Isaac31 Claimed that a detailed history of site temperature is necessary to understand leak rates. We assumed lower temperatures than Los Alamos Ice Age heat flow models, thus giving uniformitarians their best possible case.32 12 9/2008 Gary Loechelt33 Claimed that during past eons, leak rates were much slower, and site was very much cooler. ‘Lower leak rate’ misunderstands experiments; ‘cooler site’ misunderstands published Los Alamos heat flow models. Table 1. Criticisms and Responses My referenced responses to items 8 and 10 cover most of the criticisms that have been made. Many people do not realize that I have answered item 10, dealing with pressure/vacuum effects. Item 12 is the most recent criticism, and I will reply to it briefly here. In September 2008, Gary Loechelt, who has a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering, posted a two-part criticism on a ‘progressive creationist’ website, along with a technical article which apparently has been neither peer-reviewed nor published (though perhaps rejected by a journal).34 His main claims were: (A) One or two percent of the helium in a zircon is not tightly bound in the crystal, but rather loosely attached in the crystal’s cracks and defects. This ‘loose’ helium can therefore diffuse out of the zircon very easily in a laboratory measurement. ( The loose helium, he claims, caused the laboratory measurements to make the zircons appear much more leaky than they actually are. Loechelt is right in claim (A), but wrong in claim (. He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did.35 Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning. If leak rates were really much lower than measured, the past temperature history of the zircons would become much more important. That’s because colder site temperatures would make Loechelt’s low leakages even lower, giving him a chance to retain the helium for billions of years. But even on temperatures, Loechelt shows a remarkable ability to misunderstand the experts. He fails to grasp the essence of the published Los Alamos heat flow models, which is that due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine, temperatures in our borehole would have been higher than today for hundreds of millennia. Instead, Loechelt insists, temperatures were always lower. But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons … in contrast to the high amounts observed. That is why, in addition to assuming a cooler site, Loechelt must deny the laboratory measurements and imagine much lower leak rates. Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models. Worse for him, it would still be far short of explaining the factor of 100,000 discrepancy between the uniformitarian model and experiments! Help for non-experts in deciding Don’t forget that there is an easy way you can understand who is correct in all the arguments. Just take another look at Figure 3. We published the ‘6,000 year’ model (red diamonds) in the year 2000. The experimenter, not knowing what answer we wanted, produced the blue data dots in the graph in 2003. The close fit of the model and the experiment is strong evidence that both are essentially correct, because the probability of an accidental fit is low. You don’t need to be an expert to understand that. Another simple point is the number of critics and the long time they’ve been criticizing. Each one was unsatisfied enough with the previous criticisms (most are familiar enough with the others to borrow their arguments occasionally) to take the time to attack the helium data on their own. As for me, the critics have increased my confidence. My feeling after working through each criticism has been, ‘Is that the best they can do? They must not have been able to find a real error of any importance.’ I hope that you also will become more confident in this strong evidence for the young world presented in Scripture, thus gaining more confidence in the Bible itself: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth … Exodus 20:11 Related articles Argon diffusion data support RATE’s 6,000-year helium age of the earth Neutrinos—the not-so-neutral particles RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs! Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray Further reading Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers References Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis?; in: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E. F., Chapter 7, pp. 333–379, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, El Cajon, CA, and St. Joseph, Missouri, 2000. Download 2.5 MB PDF of book for free from http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay; in: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E. F., Chapter 2, pp. 25–100, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, El Cajon, CA, and Chino Valley, Arizona, 2005. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S.A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay; in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, edited by Ivey, R.L.Jr., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 175–195, 2003. See http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41(1):1–16, 2004. See http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/ Helium_lo_res.pdf. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Recently measured helium diffusion rate for zircon suggests inconsistency with U-Pb age for Fenton Hill granodiorite, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84(46), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract V32C-1047, 2003. For more about the AGU presentations, see: www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_aguconference/ http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/AGUHeliumPoster_ Humphreys.pdf. Return to text. DeYoung, D., Thousands … not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005. Return to text. RATE Premiere Conference, Two-disc DVD set, 2005. Available from Institute for Creation Research at http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2663 . Return to text. Gentry, R.V., Glish, G.J. and McBay, E.H., Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129–1130, 1982a. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis?; in: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E. F., Chapter 7, pp. 333–379, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, San Diego, CA, 2000. Return to text. Humphreys, ref. 2. Return to text. Meert, J., R.A T E.: more faulty research from the Institute for Creation Research, personal website, October 10, 2002. Revised version (February 6, 2003) at http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm. Original 10/18/02 version no longer on Meert’s website, but ref. quotes the relevant part. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Nuclear decay: evidence for a young world, ICR Impact No. 352, October, 2002, at http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=302. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Humphreys’ reply to Meert, October 22, 2002. Quoted in full in, Sarfati, J., Russ Humphreys refutes Joe Meert’s false claims about helium diffusion, on the following page of the Creation Ministries International website: http://creation.com/article/2578/ . Return to text. Ross, H.N., Primetime: radiometric dating methods and the RATE study, Reasons to Believe radio broadcast, September 18, 2003. Other participants: Roger Wiens, Fazale Rana, Marge Harmon, Christa Bontrager. Audio recording available from following page of Reasons to Believe website: http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/rtbradio/ archives_creation_update/200307-12archives.shtml. Return to text. Vardiman, L. (and RATE committee), Ross criticizes RATE without doing his homework, news article on ICR website, October, 2003. No longer available on ICR website, but see Ross Criticizes RATE Without Doing His Homework for a near-final draft of the article done on October 2, 2003. Return to text. Anonymous, December, 2003, name and venue omitted to protect critic’s privacy. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1–15, June 2004. See Appendix: Responding to a critic, pp. 12–15. Return to text. Wanser, K., Seminar at Creation ‘Supercamp’ Sydney January 2004,’ Creation Ministries International, Brisbane, Australia. Dr. Wanser was not claiming CMI endorsement for his views. No guest speaker at the camp was required to submit contents beforehand. Return to text. Ross, H., Intelligent Design Conference, Highlands, NC, June 24–26, 2004, in question period on afternoon of June 26. See account of conference by Dan Reynolds at www.members.aol.com/dwr51055/ID/highlands.htm. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Same question period as above, rebutting Ross’s comment and referring to ref.2 . Other than saying he hadn’t read the article, Ross had no response. More detailed response to same issue is in item 9 of my reply to Kevin Henke, ref. 26. Return to text. Drake, G.P., Helium diffusion in zircons, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(3):256–257, December 2004. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Humphreys replies to Drake, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(3):257–258, December 2004. Return to text. Brown, R.S., Lead and helium diffusion, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(3):258–259, December 2004. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Humphreys replies to Brown, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(3):259, December 2004. Return to text. Henke, K.R., Young-earth creationist helium diffusion ‘dates’, posted March 17, 2005 at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html. Henke subsequently has revised his article many times without archiving the first version. But you can see the March 17, 2005 copy archived here. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Helium evidence for a young world remains crystal-clear, posted in the True Origin archive, April 27, 2005, see http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp#b2. Return to text. Wiens, R., Seminar at ‘Coming to Grips with Creation’ conference, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, March, 2005. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., E-mail to above conference participants and Wiens, March 22, 2005. Return to text. Henke, K. R., Young-earth creationist helium diffusion ‘dates’, posted November 24, 2005 at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html . It was an extensive revision of Henke’s 3/17/05 article, but Henke has made yet more revisions since then. The November 24, 2005 version is archived here. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., Helium evidence for a young world overcomes pressure, posted January 5, 2006 at http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp. Return to text. Isaac, R., ‘Isaac Replies’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60(1):36–38, March 2008. See http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.pdf. Return to text. Humphreys, D.R., What the ASA doesn’t want you to know, Creation Matters 13(2):1,4, March/April 2008. Archived online (for Creation Research Society members only during the year 2008, afterwards in public domain) at www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/2008.htm. Return to text. Loechelt, G., Helium diffusion in zircon: evidence supports an old earth, parts 1 and 2, posts on Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross) website. Part 1 at http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/09/10/ . Part 2 at http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/09/17/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-evidence-supports-an-old-earth-part-2-of-2/. Unpublished technical paper at http://reasons.org/resources/tnrtb/ HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf. Return to text. Loechelt, ref. 33. Return to text. Humphreys, ref. 2, pp. 44–45. Note especially in Table 2 that we ignored the first nine steps, just as the diffusion expert told us. <a href="http://creation.mobi/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics#txtRef35">Return to text.

Documentation problems on the critics side. In the same book so admired by Keegan is a gross error made by Rudiger Overmanns, who does not even know the number of prisoners taken by the Americans. This was not 3.8 million as he says, but over 6 million, according to US Army records in Suitland, Maryland. Of course, this error, conveniently for Ambrose and Keegan, apparently diminishes the number of lives for which the Americans were responsible. Underlying the Ambrose-Bischof book is a series on German prisoners edited by Erich Maschke. Underlying that series is no important documentation from the US Army archives in Washington. The author of the book on the American camps casually omits all the significant records that survived the paper purges of the late 1940s. However, for an expert judgment on the condition of American camps Mr Keegan may rely on the words of an American Lieutenant-Colonel who was in charge of the camps in France in 1945. In a report preserved at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry W. Allard wrote that "the standards of PW camps in the Com Z in Europe compare as only slightly better or even with the living conditions of the Japanese PW camps our men tell us about, and unfavourably with those of the Germans". Let us remember that after the war, the Americans executed Japanese for precisely the crimes referred to by Allard+++++++++++++++++ why exactly would they (Russians) hold detailed records of prisoners held by the French and Americans? //END COLBY I dont believe thats what he said. SGaal

see http://www.trueorigin.org/ (good site) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Institute for Creation Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp Recently an anti-creationist geochemist, a part-time instructor at the University of Kentucky named Kevin Henke[1], posted on the Internet a 25,000-word rejection[2] of scientific evidence that the world is only about 6,000 years old, the helium-leak age of zircons (radioactive crystals) from deep underground. In politics, his procedure would be called “mud-slinging,” which in this case tries to bury truth under a mountain of minutiae. I normally don’t reply to Internet posts from skeptics because I want them to try to publish their criticisms in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the proper place to carry out scientific debates. However, in this case I want to take the opportunity to share updated information about our research which will appear later this year in the RATE[3] “results” book[4] and in the accompanying book for laymen.[5] I also plan to submit technical details of this reply to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). If Henke chooses to sling yet more mud, let him try to do so in a scientific journal. The RATE helium research has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific venues. Critics like Henke must gird up their loins and undergo the same kind of scientific discipline—if they want people to take them seriously. If they refuse to do that, I plan not to reply to them further. First I’ll point out what it is that the skeptics are trying to obscure. Then I will go through Henke’s summary of his criticisms point-by-point. Amazingly, in his entire fifty pages he specifies only two real errors of mine: (a) I misspelled a name in one of my references, and ( I was not precise enough in my geological description of a rock formation. The only other possibly significant items are (1) a quibble about how much helium should have been deposited in the zircons, and (2) a minor mistake I made (which Henke failed to discover) in summarizing our results. Last I’ll analyze Henke’s tactics and try to plumb his motives. The Evidence Henke Wants to Hide Figure 1. Microscopic zircons. Photo by R. V. Gentry. I’ll try to keep this simple, so for the scientific details, please consult the two most relevant publications, which are also archived on the Internet. I’ll call them ICC 2003[6] and CRSQ 2004.[7] Decades ago, Robert Gentry analyzed tiny zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals recovered from hot Precambrian (over 545 million years old according to the geologic timescale) “basement” rock in New Mexico.[8] Figure 1 shows some of the zircons he analyzed, between 50 and 75 microns (millionths of a meter) long. Enough of the uranium in the zircons had decayed to lead to give them a radioisotope (radioactive element) age of “1.5 billion” years. But Gentry found that up to 58% of the helium that the nuclear decay would deposit in the zircons was still in them. This was surprising, because helium diffuses (leaks) rapidly out of most minerals. Not knowing how fast helium leaks from zircon, I estimated what the leak rates would be when we measured them. In essence (of course the math is more complicated), all I did to get the estimates was to divide the amount of helium lost from the crystal by the time (assumed by each model) during which it had been lost. That gives us the leak rates for each of the two models. The “1.5 billion year” model has rates over 100,000 times slower than the “6,000 year” model, because the former has to retain the helium for a much longer time. Then in the year 2000, the RATE group published the estimates as numerical predictions for those two models.[9] Figure 2. Model-predicted (red and magenta diamonds) and measured (blue dots) helium leak rates of zircons. The data fit the 6,000-year prediction very well. Figure 2 shows the predictions as red and magenta diamond symbols. The bottom axis shows the temperature (in °C) of each sample in situ, that is, while it was in the granitic rock unit. (I have reversed the direction of temperature from what is traditional in such “Arrhenius” plots.) The vertical axis shows “diffusivity”, which is a measure of how fast helium leaks from a material. The vertical axis is tremendously compressed, representing a factor of one trillion increase in leakage rates from bottom to top. The black numbers under the diamonds are the percentages of helium retained in each sample. The red and magenta vertical lines through the diamonds are the “two-sigma error bars”. These statistical error bounds were implicit in our reports, but we had not shown them explicitly in our graphs before now. The bars essentially show the 95% confidence limits I estimate for the accuracy of the predictions. The forthcoming RATE “results” book gives details on how I estimated the error bounds. In 2001 we commissioned one of the world’s most respected experimenters in this field to measure the diffusivity of helium in the same-size zircons from the same borehole in the same rock formation. We used an existing mining company as an intermediary, and we asked it to not tell the experimenter about us or our goals. The experimenter, being a uniformitarian (believer in long ages) and not having read our prediction, had no idea what results we were hoping for. It was a truly “blind” experiment, and we (the RATE team) were eagerly awaiting the data. Figure 2 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue “2-sigma error bars” going vertically through them. If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time. Again, the RATE “results” book (which has now passed through extensive peer review and is being proofread) will have the details on the error estimates. To our great delight, the data fell right on the “6,000 year” prediction! This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small. The data resoundingly reject the “1.5 billion year” model. The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them. (Even after several years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.) This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model. Rebutting Henke’s Charges In his abstract, Henke summarized his fifteen principal charges. I’ll number them and quote them, in bold maroon text. I’ll answer each charge with no more detail than necessary to dispose of it. 1. “invoking groundless miracles to explain away U/Pb dates on zircons” This means he does not find RATE’s “accelerated nuclear decay” hypothesis to his taste. But, as the ancient Romans said, “There’s no disputing about taste.” In other words, Henke’s personal preference in theories means exactly nothing to the rest of us. Moreover, it is beside the point. The main subject of my articles is the experimental data, and I offered only a few paragraphs about our hypothesis simply to explain what we think really happened. If Henke doesn’t like our explanation, let him offer his own. I’d be very interested to hear (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) how he thinks the zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses! 2. “misidentifying samples as originating from the Jemez Granodiorite” Henke means that I didn’t specify that the top 1000 meters or so of the Precambrian granitic rock unit in question might contain gneiss or schist instead of granodiorite. What he doesn’t realize is that “Jemez Granodiorite” is a name I invented (since the literature had not previously named it) to apply to the whole unit from about 700 meters depth down to below 4,310 meters. Our co-author John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, saw large portions of the GT-2 core at Los Alamos and picked our samples from it. He says: Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority of the core. In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins. In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins. So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss. The important point is that, regardless of the name we put on the rock unit, the zircons throughout it have been measured to contain essentially the same amounts and ratios of lead isotopes,[10] and therefore have undergone the same amount of nuclear decay. The uranium, helium, and lead levels in our samples are perfectly consistent with the corresponding levels Gentry reported for his. The effect of variation from sample to sample is probably smaller than the 2-sigma error bars around our prediction. So here Henke is making a distinction without a difference. 3. “performing helium analyses on impure biotite separations” That, of course, is a gratuitous slap at the quality of the ICR geological lab, which did that particular separation. In the lab’s defense, I would point out that their separation of biotite from another rock unit, the Beartooth Gneiss, was excellent. I’m judging that by the helium data from that unit in Appendix B of ICC 2003, which our experimenter called “remarkably linear”. Henke’s allegation is also unproven. Different localities, having different minerals, offer different degrees of difficulty with separation. The only way to gauge quality in this case would be to have another lab work on the same rocks and try to get a yet higher purity. I challenge Henke to procure his own samples of the same core from Los Alamos and to try to do a better separation himself! However, haggling about the exact diffusivity of biotite is irrelevant, because as we pointed out in numerous parts of our articles, it is clear that that zircon has a diffusivity an order of magnitude lower than that of biotite in the low-temperature range of interest to us. That makes the diffusivity of zircon much more important to know accurately. Henke’s attack here is a good example of what I meant by “mud-slinging”—nasty, irrelevant, and intended to distract the readers from the important issues. 4. “dubiously revising helium measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a)” On p. 16 of CRSQ 2004, in my notes in the reference “Gentry et al. 1982a”, I spelled out exactly why and how I, in consultation with Gentry, made two corrections in his tables (the main one being in the units he specified for his absolute amounts of helium). There is nothing dubious about it. Moreover, as I implied in that note, the corrections would not affect the main result of the paper, which depends on the percentage of helium retained, not the absolute amounts. Finally, as I pointed out on p. 9 of the same article, “the 6.3 ncc/µg yield of these zircons [our sample 2003] is quite consistent with Gentry’s data [as revised]”. Figure 7 on the same page shows how well the resulting 42% retention point interpolates between Gentry’s points 1 and 2. Without the revision, no interpolation at all would have been possible. That is very strong evidence that the correction was justified. 5. “relying on questionable Q/Q0 (helium retention) values from Gentry et al. (1982a)” We checked Gentry’s values for retention with our own data on the zircons, as I wrote in CRSQ 2004. However I did not spell out the details of that calculation, so I plan to do that in the paper I intend to submit to CRSQ soon. Henke’s problem is with the value of Q0, as I will explain below. 6. “failing to recognize that the Q0 values (maximum possible amount of radiogenic helium in a mineral) for their samples were probably much larger than 15 ncc STP/µg” In his Appendix A Henke derives his value for Q0, 41 ncc/µg (1 ncc = 1 “nano-cc” = 10-9 cm3 at standard pressure and temperature, STP). He is in the right ball park, but he is probably using too small a value for the percentage of alpha particles (helium nuclei emitted by the nuclear decay) escaping the zircons. The percentage came from Gentry’s paper, but Gentry may have misstated what he meant by the number. From our own measurements of lead in zircons and my own very rough estimate of alpha particle losses, I got a Q0 considerably less than 25 ncc/µg. Gentry’s original calculations are no longer available. But after discussing the matter with him, I’m inclined to think that even if he had an error in Q0, the error canceled out when he calculated the ratio Q/Q0, which is the crucial quantity in this analysis. In support of that is the remarkable alignment of the diffusion measurements with the predictions in Figure 2. The paper I plan to submit to CRSQ will discuss this issue more fully. However, even if Henke’s number were correct, it would reduce the percentage retentions by only a factor of two or so. That is not anywhere near the factor of about 100,000 reduction that Henke needs. Put another way, Henke’s values for retentions would not move the predictions outside the error bars Figure 2 shows. This is a molehill, not a mountain. 7. “inconsistently interpreting already questionable helium concentrations from samples 5 and 6 to make them comply with the demands of their ‘models’” I have already discussed this matter fully in sections 2 and 6 of ICC 2003. Sample 5 is the right-hand diamond of the predictions in Figure 2, the one at nearly 300°C with 0.1% retention. The fact that it fits the data so closely (one data point fell almost right on it) supports our interpretation. The total amount of helium in sample 6 supports our interpretation of that sample also. However, we could dispense with both samples entirely with no damage to our case at all. This is just another quibble about an inconsequential issue. 8. “seriously underestimating the helium concentrations in the zircons from 750 meters depth and not realizing that their Q/Q0 value for this sample (using Q0 = 15 ncc STP/µg) would be greater than one and therefore spurious” This is an interesting issue, if you like to delve into details. It turns out that the problem is not with the data itself, but rather with my summary of it, and the fact that Henke believed my summary uncritically! This all has to do with Appendix C in ICC 2003, where our experimenter reported that, “This sample has a very high helium yield, 540 nmol/gram”, and where he reported the amounts of helium liberated per step in the “Helium 4” column of Table C1. He did not report the units for that column, so I assumed they were also “nmol/g” and added those units to the label of the column. I also assumed that the numbers in that column added up to 540, so at the end of section 9 of ICC 2003, I reported that the experimenter was reporting “a partial (not exhaustive) yield of 540 nanomoles of helium per gram of zircon.” However, it turns out that the units of the helium column should be “ncc”. When we divide the sum of the numbers in that column (1794 ncc) by the mass of the sample (350 micrograms), we get 5.126 ncc/µg. Multiply that by a conversion factor (0.4462 ×10-4 nmol/ncc) and convert micrograms to grams to get 228.7 nmol/g. Dividing that by 540 nmol/g gives us a ratio of 0.4235, which agrees exactly with the bottom entry of the “Cumulative fraction” column. This means that 540 nmol/g is the total yield after melting the crystals, not a partial yield. Converting 540 nmol/g to 12.1 ncc/µg and dividing by Q0 = 15.0 ncc/µg gives us a retention for the 750 meter sample of 80.7 %. I reported that as “~80” in Table I of CRSQ 2004. (I used the “~” sign because as I reported in CRSQ 2004, p. 5, the average size of the zircons in the 750 meter sample is unknown, making detailed comparisons with the other samples inappropriate.)[11] By that time our own sample 2003 (the one with 42% retention) had made me conclude that the 540 nmol/g in sample 2002 was a total yield, but I did not think of going back to Table C1 in ICC 2003 to check on things there. The bottom line is that the retention fraction for the 750 meter sample is less than one, not “greater than one”, as Henke thought. I don’t blame him for being misled by my mistake, but perhaps he will want to blame himself. The critic wasn’t critical enough! 9. “not properly considering the possible presence of extraneous (‘excess’) 3He and 4He in their zircons” Henke’s reason for raising this issue was his reasoning about the previous item. Because he thought that the retention fraction in sample 2002 was greater than 100%, he figured there had to be “excess” helium coming into the zircon from outside it. As the above item shows, his premise was wrong. But let’s look at his scenario more closely. First, if the helium in the zircons were “excess” and came from outside them, it would have had to come through the biotite. As I pointed out on p. 9 of CRSQ 2004, the helium concentration in the biotite is two hundred times lower than the concentration in the zircon. That means, according to the laws of diffusion, that the helium is presently leaking out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. Also, as I pointed out, the total amount of helium in the biotite is roughly the same as the helium lost from the zircon. In Henke’s vague scenario, the source of the helium is “recent” (100,000 to 1.45 million years ago) volcanic magmas several kilometers away from our borehole. He is apparently assuming that conduits of such magma came relatively close to borehole GT-2. The conduits could not have broken through to the surface, because then they would have immediately vented their helium into the atmosphere. Henke wants “fluids” from the magma to carry helium through the mineral interfaces in the granodiorite, through the biotite, and into the zircons. It is doubtful that such fluids could travel very far. First, the granodiorite is presently dry and well-consolidated, even at the surface. Second, the overlying rock puts the Jemez Granodiorite under in situ pressures hundreds to thousands of times greater than atmospheric pressure. Those factors would mean that the interface widths between minerals would be microscopic, perhaps only an Angstrom (the diameter of a hydrogen atom) or so. Henke needs to show—preferably with experimental data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal—just how far the helium could travel in this rock unit during the time he thinks is available. That would determine how close his conduits of magma would have to be. Then he would have to show geological evidence that conduits of basalt (solidified volcanic magma) presently exist within that distance of the borehole. Next, Henke would have to show that the concentration (atoms or nanomoles per cc) of helium in the magmatic fluids could have been high enough to do the job. Our 15 ncc/µg value for Q0 in the zircons means there were at least 3140 nanomoles of helium per cubic centimeter in the zircons originally. (Henke’s value of “41” ncc/µg in item 6 above would require even more helium, 8590 nmol/cc.) The concentration in the assumed fluids would have to exceed that value in order to transfer helium from the fluid into the zircons. Yet the concentration of helium produced by uranium decay in typical basalt[12] (and hence in basaltic magmatic fluids) would be less than 80 nmol/cc, more than forty times too small. No transfer would take place. So Henke’s scenario requires extraordinary amounts of helium in his magmatic fluids. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the helium somehow gets into the zircons. Now it has to stay there. The magmatic fluids would raise the temperature of the zircons considerably higher than their present temperature, and temperatures would remain high for dozens of millennia. As I showed in ICC 2003, section 7, the zircons would then lose essentially all their helium—contrary to what we observe. Moreover, most of the helium outside the zircons has to disappear somehow, so that the biotite concentration would drop to its present low level, hundreds of times less than the concentrations in the zircons. Henke’s scenario is pure conjecture. It depends on unknown factors to produce improbable coincidences. Even though this is his best shot (that’s why I’ve spent some time on it), it falls far short of credibility. All the data point to a much more straightforward scenario: the source of the helium is the observed nuclear decay in the zircon, the helium is diffusing as observed out of the zircon into the biotite, and according to the observed total quantities not much of it has gone beyond the biotite into the surrounding minerals. 10. “listing the average date and standard deviation of their 2004 results as 6,000 ±2000 years, when [citing a two-] standard deviation (two-sigma) [error] of ±4000 years [would be] more appropriate” (Brackets show my clarification of Henke’s confused grammar.) This is entirely a matter of personal preference. I made clear that my date was plus or minus one standard deviation (one-sigma), so it is easy enough for people like Henke to multiply that number by two to get a two standard deviation (two-sigma) error more to their liking. However, this is again just a ridiculous quibble. One or two standard deviations pale into insignificance compared to the difference between the helium leak age and his preferred age of 1.5 billion years—a whopping 750,000 standard deviations! 11. “‘fudging’ old Soviet data that should have been ignored” So Henke believes inconvenient data should be “ignored”, does he? That offers insight into his attitude toward truth. Only people who blindly follow consensus thinking and modish fashions in science would dismiss data simply because it is “old”. The same kind of people try to find excuses to ignore data that go against the consensus opinion. That is exactly what Henke is trying to do with the helium data. Henke’s word “fudging” is a lie about what we did, as anyone who wants to read section 5 of ICC 2003 can find out. As Figures 5 and 6(a) of that paper show, interpreting the ambiguous label of the Soviet graph in a reasonable way makes its high-temperature zircon data line up with everybody else’s zircon data. But again, this is just a ridiculous quibble, because our conclusions depend in no way on the Soviet data. The purpose of section 5 was simply to explain why I didn’t understand those data until after we had made our own measurements. 12. “deriving ‘models’ that are based on several invalid assumptions (including constant temperature conditions over time, Q0 of 15 ncc STP/µg, and isotropic diffusion in biotite)” Henke is counting on his readers not to have read my papers carefully enough to know that I considered and discussed all the factors he mentions. I pointed out [iCC 2003, section 7] that, “Our assumption of constant temperatures is generous to uniformitarians.” That is because their thermal history models require a recent (by their timescale) pulse of high temperature which would wipe out all the helium in the zircons. I further pointed out that the zircons would have to be colder than dry ice [CRSQ 2004, p. 9] for most of their history in order to save the 1.5 billion year scenario, and no geologist would consider such a low temperature to be in the realm of possibility. As I said in item 6, Henke’s hoped-for value of Q0 would make no practical difference in our results. And I discussed the assumption of isotropic diffusion in biotite, showing that a more precise assumption would make no practical difference in our results. Biotite has hardly any effect on the outflow of helium from zircon, as we demonstrated. Again, this is a molehill, not a mountain. Finally, if I used such poor judgment in choosing the simplifying assumptions for my “6,000 year” model, how did it happen to anticipate the data in Figure 2 so exactly? 13. “failing to provide standard deviations for biotite measurements (b values) and then misapplying the values to samples from different lithologies” Again majoring on minors. As we pointed out in the papers, the diffusion rates for biotite and other micas were so much higher than the rates for zircon that it was clear the biotite affects our results to only a small degree. However, Henke has the raw data we published, so he can compute the standard deviations for himself. 14. “inserting imaginary defect lines into Arrhenius plots” The curve fits, which have no imagination, show a numerical change of slope in the zircon data between 200 and 300°C. It doesn’t take much imagination to see such a bend in Figure 2. The change of slope implies a change in the dominant physical mechanism of diffusion at that temperature. However, it does not matter in the least to our results whether we call the low-temperature part of the curve a “defect line” or not. Yet again, this is a ridiculous quibble. 15. “deriving and using equations that yield inconsistent ‘dates’” Equations are only as good as the numbers one plugs into them. Henke plugs garbage into the equations and gets garbage out. Figure 2 shows obvious-to-the-eye evidence for the dates I got. Notice how well the data fit the “6,000 year” prediction. Notice how far away the data are from the “1.5 billion year” prediction. All of Henke’s slung mud cannot obscure the obvious conclusion: the helium leak age is very much closer to 6,000 years than it is to 1.5 billion years. That is the last of Henke’s summary. He makes other allegations throughout the paper, but evidently he did not think them good enough to put into his summary, so I’ll similarly disdain them. Henke’s Tactics and Motives The first thing to notice about Henke’s issues is how few of them there really are. For example, of the fifteen items above, six of them (4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12) boil down to only one issue, how much helium was deposited in the zircons. Several other items repeated themselves similarly. The second thing to notice is how peripheral they are. Not one of them has any chance of solving Henke’s real problem: how to keep helium in leaky minerals for over a billion years. Third, notice how petty most of them are. One of my challenges in answering those charges was to find different words describing their basic character: “molehill, not a mountain ... distinction without a difference ... haggling ... ridiculous quibble ... inconsequential ... majoring on minors ... irrelevant”. Eight of the items (1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12) fall into that class. But despite his scarcity of significant issues, Henke chose to puff them up to enormous proportions with a torrent of hot air—fifty single-spaced pages using up my printer supplies. Why? Well, of course he is trying to bluff his readers. Unless the reader is technically well-informed in this specialty and wants to take the time to examine Henke’s monograph carefully, he is apt to think that where there is so much verbal smoke there must be some factual fire. However, I suggest there is a more basic reason for the inflation: Henke may be trying to reassure himself that he was correct in rejecting the Bible many years ago. This brings us into the area of motives, which require a lot of guesswork. But it is worthwhile to do so because people like Henke seem to be the worst enemies of creationism, and creationists need to understand that. In an Internet review[13] of a book Henke contributed to, he asserts that he was once a sincere convert to Christianity but then “deconverted” himself: I committed my life to Christ and I encouraged others to do so. However, after I read the Bible, and especially the false prophecies in Revelation and the countless contradictions in the Gospels, I realized that the claims of Christianity were false. (Emphasis mine). The order of events here is interesting. First Henke commits his life to something or someone he considers Christ. Then he reads the Bible. That order is contrary to the order in 1 Peter 1:23, where the word of God causes the new birth: For you have been born again, not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God. It is possible that Henke had some exposure to the word of God at the outset, enough that, like the rocky soil in the parable of the Sower, he and others like him “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:12). The previous verse (Luke 8:11) connects believing with being saved. If eternal life, after it begins with salvation, is truly eternal (some Christians might disagree with that), then someday Henke might be extremely shocked to find himself in heaven, though without rewards. However, his hostility to Scripture when he encountered it is uncharacteristic of someone who has genuinely experienced the new birth. For example, after I was saved through reading the gospel of Mark and then accepting Christ as my Savior, my subsequent reaction to the rest of Scripture was the same as that of the prophet Jeremiah (15:16): Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. So it is possible that Henke did not have enough initial exposure to the word of God to be born “from above” (literal Greek of John 3:3) and merely made a shallow commitment to someone other than the real Jesus Christ—perhaps to a human authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, or pastor. Later on, when he encountered different authority figures, perhaps skeptic professors or persuasive friends, he then transferred his commitment to them, especially since their view was obviously the consensus. Whether he was genuinely born again or not, his present symptoms might look the same to outside observers (and even to himself)—a severe allergic reaction to the Bible and to anyone saying it is straightforward and accurate. The allergy shows itself in his strong objection (just before his conclusion) to my citation of 2 Peter 3:3-7 as a prophecy condemning uniformitarianism. The medication he takes for that malady is (foolishly) to swallow the claim of theologically liberal “higher critics” that 2 Peter is “probably a 2nd century forgery.” He doesn’t seem to see that their reasons for claiming that are specious, motivated by a desire to do away with all the supernatural events of Scripture, such as the virgin birth of Christ. We should not naively accept claims from people (such as Henke himself) with such motives. Henke also doesn’t seem to see that the passage is remarkably accurate about the biggest intellectual blunder (uniformitarianism) of our age, a mistake characteristic of only the last two centuries since the time of Christ. That accuracy alone (which he inadvertently supports by his vehemence) would support its validity. Last, Henke would not like to hear that I have based a theory on the creation of planetary magnetic fields[14] on part of the passage (2 Peter 3:5) he disparages, and that NASA spacecraft have confirmed the scientific predictions of that theory.[15] Because of his flight from Scripture, Henke has to keep reassuring himself that it can’t possibly be true. That is why he has so much spleen to vent when he encounters someone saying, “Here’s scientific evidence that the Biblical 6,000-year timescale is correct!” Henke cannot abide it; he must expunge it from his mind. His battle is not so much with creationists as with Christ himself. I’m glad that the Spirit of God may be using some of this crystal-clear zircon evidence to convict one who has fallen away from the truth. Notes [1] Kevin Henke, Part-Time Instructor in geological sciences, http://www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Geology/faculty/henke.html [RETURN TO TEXT] [2] Henke, K. R., Young-earth creationist helium diffusion “dates”, posted March 17, 2005 at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html See March 17, 2005 copy archived here. [RETURN TO TEXT] [3] An acronym for “Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth”, an eight-year research initiative sponsored by several creationist organizations. See http://www.icr.org/newsletters/research/researchoct01.html [RETURN TO TEXT] [4] Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, editors., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, and the Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, expected publication date, on or before November 2005. [RETURN TO TEXT] [5] DeYoung, Don, Thousands not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, expected publication date, on or before November 2005. [RETURN TO TEXT] [6] (ICC 2003) Humphreys, D. R., S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, and A. A. Snelling, Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, 2003a, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, edited by R. L. Ivey, Jr., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 175-195, 2003. See http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf. [RETURN TO TEXT] [7] (CRSQ 2004) Humphreys, D. R., S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, and A. A. Snelling, Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41(1), 1-16, 2004. See http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf. [RETURN TO TEXT] [8] Gentry, R. V., Glish, G. J., and McBay, E. H., Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management, Geophysical Research Letters, 9(10), 1129-1130, 1982a. [RETURN TO TEXT] [9] Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis?, in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, Chapter 7, pp. 333-379, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, San Diego, CA, 2000. [RETURN TO TEXT] [10] Gentry, R. V., T. J. Sworski, H. S. McKown, D. H. Smith, R. E. Eby, and W. H. Christie, Differential lead retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Science, 216, 296-298, 1982. [RETURN TO TEXT] [11] For example, if the average length of zircons in that sample (number 2002) were larger than the average length in the other samples (about 60 microns), then the percentage of alpha particles retained would be higher. That would make Q0 higher than the value of 15 ncc/µg we used for the other samples, thus dropping the retention from 80.7 % to a smaller value. This affects Henke’s reasoning in item 8. [RETURN TO TEXT] [12] Stacey, F. D., Physics of the Earth, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 245, Table 9.3, 1969. The table says the average amount of uranium in basaltic crust is 0.8 ppm by weight. Assuming that at most an equal amount of uranium has already decayed to lead (the thorium, having a much greater half-life, would not have decayed nearly as much), and that all the helium produced thereby has remained in the basaltic magma, gives an average helium concentration of less than 80 nmol/g in such magmas. [RETURN TO TEXT] [13] Henke, K., Testimony to the failure of fundamentalism, posted December 31, 2001, http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AKAJJROZZM9M4/103-0783137-0663064?_encoding=UTF8. [RETURN TO TEXT] [14] Humphreys, D. R., The creation of planetary magnetic fields, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):140-149, December 1984. Archived at http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html. [RETURN TO TEXT] [15] Humphreys, D. R., Beyond Neptune: Voyager II supports creation, ICR Impact, No. 203, May 1990, archived at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm. [RETURN TO TEXT] =====================oooooooo==================== Humphreys graduated B.S. from Duke University and was awarded his Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972.[1] He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics where he received a patent and a science award.[1] From 2001-2008 he was an associate professor at The Institute for Creation Research.[1] He currently works for Creation Ministries International (USA).[1] Humphreys is a board member of both the Creation Research Society and the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico.[2][3]

WIKI ABOUT EARLIER HARD BACK , not later paperback. http://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-James-Bacque/dp/1551681919 This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition. MAY 1 1999 By E. Rodin MD review The first edition of this controversial book caused an international scandal by claiming that almost one million German prisoners of war had died of starvation in American and French death camps after World War II. In 1992, Bacque visited the newly-opened KGB archives where he discovered more evidence to support his claim. This revised edition of Other Losses presents all the relevant new material on the deaths plus new evidence of the suppression of truth by Western academics, press, and governments. Mr. Bacque is to be congratulated for publishing this book which describes the fate German soldiers who had surrendered to General Eisenhower's forces at the end of WWII. They had expected to be treated according to the Geneva convention governing the conduct of armies in regard to captured enemy personnel. This was not to be the case. As Mr. Bacque points out an entire new category of "Disarmed Enemy Forces", DEF, was created. Its only purpose was to avoid having to feed and house these millions of ex-soldiers and thereby bypass the Geneva convention to which America was a signatory. One may argue about the precise numbers of ex-soldiers who died in these "temporary enclosures" but the fact that inhuman treatment did exist cannot be denied. Neither can the fact that a considerable percentage of them was subsequently given to the French for what is called today "slave labor," albeit this term refers nowadays only to non-German nationals. Readers who may feel negatively about Bacque's revelations should be aware that this treatment of former members of the German army was not just happenstance but the execution of the Morgenthau plan to render Germany harmless forever. The plan was not directed against the German leadership or Nazis, but the German people at large. Mr. Baque makes frequent reference to this unfortunate document but readers, who cannot conceive that U.S. personnel may also carry out atrocities should look at the Document section of Warren F. Kimball's "Swords or Ploughshares? The Morgenthau plan for Defeated Nazi Germany."The book clearly shows that Roosevelt had endorsed a policy of "being hard on Germany" and Eisenhower was in full accord. That you cannot be "hard" on a country but only on its people and that this policy is bound to involve cruelties was not a consideration. The conditions changed only after Eisenhower's return to the U.S. and the appointment of Lucius D. Clay as High Commissioner. He clearly saw that the existing situation, even for the civilian population, made neither military nor political sense. It would merely turn the population to communism because even the Russians fed the people in their zone better than the Americans did. It is also to President Truman's credit that he quietly dropped the Morgenthau plan soon after the Potsdam meeting. As a former member of the Wehrmacht I had become aware of the Morgenthau plan in the winter of 1944-1945 but had regarded it as Nazi propaganda. I had always had high admiration for the principles America stood for and the Morgenthau plan seemed to be in total contradiction to those ideals. As mentioned in my book War and Mayhem I had intended to surrender to the U.S. forces towards the end of the war, but changed my mind on VE day and through the grace of God managed to avoid American as well as Soviet captivity. Having read Mr. Bacque's book I am even more grateful for the good fortune which kept me out of DEF status and instead allowed me to go to medical school within about six weeks after Germany's capitulation. I had no idea about the conditions German ex-soldiers were exposed to in those days, just as I had no idea about what really went on in the Nazi concentration camps until after the war. There are things people just didn't talk about. To "let it all hang out" became popular only in the late sixties and thereafter. But for the sake of historical accuracy both sides need to be heard and Mr. Bacque has done us this service for which he deserves our gratitude. ============== My Uncle Was There. April 1, 2000 review By A Customer My uncle served in the US Army during WW2. When I was younger, he had told me about the US prison camps that he had seen as a member of an Army Engineering detachment. His stories are, sadly, supported by the book, "Other Losses". Unfortunately, my uncle is now dead, or else, he could give everyone reading this review an eye witness account of the American attrocities perpetrated on the German people after the war had ended. As he had said, "We were supposed to be the Good Guys!" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ only post 1999 wiki source more supportive Other Loses Anglo American troops held in German POW camps suffered a 4% mortality rate which was praised by the ICRC and credited to the German military ensuring that POWs continued to receive Red Cross food parcels despite their own food shortages in the final months of the war.[109] Conditions in some of the camps that housed captured German soldiers support claims for a higher mortality rate. Lt. Colonel Henry W. Allard, the commander in charge of the DEF camps in France, later stated "The standard of the PW (POW) camps in the ComZ (U.S. rear zone) in Europe compare as only slightly better, or even, with the living conditions of the Japanese PW camps our men tell us about".[109] The U.S. Army's surgeon general described some of the camps as resembling Andersonville Prison in 1864 and noted that the lack of food in some cases led to "extensive malnutrition".[110] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ James Bacque Answers a Critic (8/20/1993) This is a letter by James Bacque, author of Othe Losses. It appeared in The Times Literary Supplement of August 20, 1993. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sir,- It is every writer's delight to be attacked in a famous journal by a confused critic, so my thanks go to John Keegan for airing his views on my work in the TLS on July 23. Mr Keegan has been misled by the editors of the book, "Eisenhower and the German POWs: Facts against falsehood," which he cites to refute me. The principal editor, Stephen E. Ambrose, clearly does not know what he thinks from day to day, because he has varied wildly from strong approval of my book, "Other Losses," to snarling slanders of me personally, together with buffoonish misrepresentations of American army policies. Having kindly read my manuscript, he wrote to me as follows: "I am not arguing with the basic truth of your discovery...you have the goods on these guys, you have the quotes from those who were present and saw with their own eyes, you have the broad outline of a truth so terrible I really can't bear it...you really have made a major historical discovery..." It appears from the latest Ambrose writings that, indeed, the truth was something he could not bear. The same might be said for his co-editor, Gunter Bischof, an Austrian. Keegan admires the "scholarship" of Bischof, but Bischof does not know a displaced persons camp from a prison camp. He chastises me for stating that there was a US Army prison camp at Ebensee in Austria: he says that the camp was for DPs. In fact, I have photocopies of General Mark Clark's secret report about the condition of prisoners of war in the camp, plus US Army medical reports of prisoners in the camp, plus eyewitness accounts of the catastrophe among dozens of thousands of prisoners, including the manuscript of a diary kept by the priest Franz Loidl who ministered to the dying. This manuscript is on deposit in the Church History Institute of the Catholic Theological Faculty, University of Vienna. In the same book so admired by Keegan is a gross error made by Rudiger Overmanns, who does not even know the number of prisoners taken by the Americans. This was not 3.8 million as he says, but over 6 million, according to US Army records in Suitland, Maryland. Of course, this error, conveniently for Ambrose and Keegan, apparently diminishes the number of lives for which the Americans were responsible. Underlying the Ambrose-Bischof book is a series on German prisoners edited by Erich Maschke. Underlying that series is no important documentation from the US Army archives in Washington. The author of the book on the American camps casually omits all the significant records that survived the paper purges of the late 1940s. However, for an expert judgment on the condition of American camps Mr Keegan may rely on the words of an American Lieutenant-Colonel who was in charge of the camps in France in 1945. In a report preserved at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Lieutenant-Colonel Henry W. Allard wrote that "the standards of PW camps in the Com Z in Europe compare as only slightly better or even with the living conditions of the Japanese PW camps our men tell us about, and unfavourably with those of the Germans". Let us remember that after the war, the Americans executed Japanese for precisely the crimes referred to by Allard. Mr Keegan does not accept the definition of the term "Other Losses" given me by Colonel Philip S. Lauben. He is unaware of the US Army report discovered by Richard Boylan, a senior archivist at the US National Archives, which confirms Lauben. The report plainly states that the "Other Loses" category of prisoners meant deaths and escapes. And finally, of course, 1,700,000 Germans, plus hundreds of thousands of other Europeans, are still missing from their families. This astounding fact is normally neglected by the Western apologists, unless they can also use it to hammer the Soviets, saying they all died in the Gulag. But now that the Soviets are gone, their archives are open and the truth at last emerges. That truth is simple. The Soviets took some 4.1 million prisoners of war east and west, of whom some 600,000 died in slavery. Of the total take, some 2.4 million were Germans. Of these, some 450,600 died, the rest were sent home. Subtracting the 450,600 dead Germans from the missing 1.7 million, we see that some 1.25 million are still not accounted for. Of these, probably 100,000 - 200,000 died in Polish, Yugoslavian and other camps. The number remaining is very nearly the number I said in "Other Losses" of those who died among all Europeans taken prisoner in the West. I wonder if Mr Keegan will consult the Soviet records before attacking them? The surprising thing about the Soviet records is that they are extensive, detailed, accurate and incriminating. For instance, on the subject of prisoners of war, these archives display a dossier for each prisoner, complete with capture records, biographical information, legal,labour and medical history, including X-ray photographs, and so on. The average is about fifteen pages per person. The dossier of Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz, the Austrian zoologist contains two hundred pages about him and his work. No such records exist anywhere in the West. In months of work in the archives of the West, I was never able to find the dossier for a single one of the 9 or so million prisoners held. Not one. But in the first hour in the NKVD/KGB archives, I found the archival boxes containing over 4 million personal dossiers. I was allowed to walk up and down the aisles, and take down and photocopy any box I chose at random, and did so. I have scores of photocopies of those records here in Toronto, and Mr Keegan is welcome to consult them. Or he may wish to visit Moscow. He will find interesting information beginning with the story of the Japanese prisoners. The Japanese authorities have long since determined that some 62,000 of their prisoners, chiefly in the Kwantung Army, died in the Gulag. The Soviets lied to the Japanese government for years about the number of deaths, first saying 3,800 had died, then about 4,000, then around 35,000. Finally, the Soviet archives were opened, and mirabile dictu, the death certificates were all there, totalling very nearly 62,000. Do I hear Keegan protesting that Japan is not Germany? On his visit to Moscow, he may see for himself the Soviet records showing that the prisoners of various nationalities were often mixed together in the same camp, so that Japanese were enslaved beside Germans, were all treated the same way, and died in approximately the same ratio of much the same causes. Letters to me from individual prisoners and records at the Hoover Institution in Stanford all show independently of the Soviet archives that this was the case in more than thirty major camps Let me also remind Keegan that the Poles long accused the Soviets of massacring some 14,000 officers at Katyn, but that the Soviet archives reveal that the true total was around 21,000. If John Keegan and his friends wish to attack the authenticity of the Soviet archives, they are going to have to show that the fragmentary documents in the Western archives, airy with lacunae and poxed with evasions, are superior to these tremendous archives which incriminate its masters for a horrifying crime against humanity. What will they say then? That the Soviets are hiding something? JAMES BACQUE 422 Heath St. E. Toronto, Ontario

British Foreign Policy = a long phrase to say the word evil. (ONE DIRTY HAND WASHES ANOTHER,GAAL) =============================================== Bahrain Regime Finances Britain’s Officer Training Academy http://www.globalres...aining-academy/ ============================================== ‘UK forces oversee Bahrain repression’ British and American military and security advisors are overseeing training to Bahraini forces involved in the crackdown on revolutionaries, a leader of Bahrain’s Amal Movement says. Hisham al-Sabbagh told Al-Alam news network that the al-Khalifa regime in Bahrain is also receiving military hardware including tanks from a number of western countries and some members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. Al-Sabbagh’s comments come only weeks after Bahraini ruler Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to step up cooperation during Hamad’s visit to London in late August. Hamad did point to security cooperation between the two sides after the meeting but disguised it as an attempt to “improve security and combat the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.” Cameron and Hamad also ironically called for cooperation to boost human rights and democracy while Bahraini forces continue to crush anti-regime protests. The British government has been repeatedly blasted by human rights, anti-war and anti-arms trade activists for arming repressive regimes including Bahrain despite clear evidence of bloody suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations there. Over the past months the British MPs have also joined the critics. The MPs said in their 2012 Scrutiny of Arms Exports that the government’s arms exports decisions have been clearly flawed as known repressive regimes such as Bahrain were armed regardless. The MPs also said the government paradoxically considers some of the countries on its own list of human right abusers as “priority markets” for arms sales. $$$$$$$$$ the love of ,the root of ..........

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Couldnt agree more !! Shame on us! EISENHOWER'S DEATH CAMPS aka "OTHER LOSSES" http://www.saveyourheritage.com/eisenhowers_death_camps.htm may God have mercy on our souls

with comments section. I SELDOM WRITE THAT During the clean-up, beams Mike Rivero During the clean-up, beams would be cut using a standard cutting torch, which cuts steel by feeding extra oxygen into the flame so that the steel burns away in a shower of sparks. Cutting torches don't melt the steel because said melted steel could easily rejoin the cut, hence the need to have it oxidize to be removed completely. So cutting torches do not leave the kind of melted steel we see in this photo. Only thermite cutter charges do that. Thermite produces intense heat using powdered aluminum and iron oxide. When ignited, the aluminum "steals" the oxygen from the iron oxide, both exothermic reactions. The newly created aluminum oxide wafts away as white smoke and the melted DE-oxygeneted iron hardens as a visible iron slag. That extra iron is a signature of thermite and is, of course seen clearly in the above photo. At the bottom of one of the WTC elevator slags was a solid melted iron block, dubbed "the meteor" which officially remains unexplained to this day. .09/09/2012 - 16:10

LEFTY OBAMA ??? NO !! Colonialist Obama +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ America’s Shadow Wars in Africa Secret Wars, Secret Bases, and the Pentagon’s “New Spice Route” Here’s an odd question: Is it possible that the U.S. military is present in more countries and more places now than at the height of the Cold War? It’s true that the U.S. is reducing its forces and giant bases in Europe and that its troops are out of Iraq (except for that huge, militarized embassy in Baghdad). On the other hand, there’s that massive ground, air, and naval build-up in the Persian Gulf, the Obama administration’s widely publicized “pivot” to Asia (including troops and ships), those new drone bases in the eastern Indian Ocean region, some movement back into Latin America (including a new base in Chile), and don’t forget Africa, where less than a decade ago, the U.S. had almost no military presence at all. Now, as TomDispatch Associate Editor Nick Turse writes in the latest in his “changing face of empire” series, U.S. special operations forces, regular troops, private contractors, and drones are spreading across the continent with remarkable (if little noticed) rapidity. http://www.globalres...wars-in-africa/ ######o##### The Scramble for Africa: Another U.S. Battleground To Challenge, Supplant China While the US was flexing its muscles in Iraq and Afghanistan (later, in Libya, currently in Syria, and further on other nations), taking a much less outspoken but nonetheless more effective approach of “soft power” penetrated the abandoned regions. The role of the frontrunner among new patrons of the developed world was unambiguously taken by China, which has established itself as the number one trade partner and a prominent investor not only in Africa but also in the region that for centuries had been regarded as the US’ “backyard” – Latin America. [W]hat is surprising, though, is the fact that a call to Africa not to fall prey to “new colonialism” comes from Washington. Or do US political and business leaders think that the “forgotten continent” is also forgetful and that the people of Africa have forgotten what real colonialism and neocolonialism is, and who were the main bearers of the phenomenon? http://www.globalres...supplant-china/ ####o#### RELATED A Secret War in 120 Countries: The Pentagon’s New Power Elite see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19157

TO CLARIFY LUCE WAS A ...........PILGRAM ALSO (below bio from partial list of Pilgram Society) as was also McCloy, John Jay ......Pilgram Society a (more Secret than Skull & Bones) British organization to influence (control) USA foreign policy. GOLLY, HOW MUCH OF THE COVERUP WAS BRITISH ??????????? Luce, Henry Robinson 1898-1967 His mother was Elizabeth Root, from a family that had earlier intermarried with the Spencers and Pomeroys. Born in Shantung Province, China, in Presbyterian mission house. Attended Chefoo School, Chefoo [Yantai], China from 1908-1912. Attended St. Alban's School north of London, England 1912-1913. Attended Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, Conn. 1913-1916. B.A., Yale University in 1920 where he was introduced into Skull & Bones. Student at Oxford University in England 1920-1921. Reporter for the Chicago Daily News and Baltimore Sun 1921-1922. Cofounded Time with Briton Hadden (Skull & Bones 1920) in 1923 with the help of J.P. Morgan partners Thomas Lamont and Dwight Morrow. Harvey Firestone, E. Roland Harriman, and various members of the Harkness family were other funders of his early media empire. Married to Lila Holz 1923-1935. Founded Fortune in 1930. Editor-in-chief, Time Publications 1930-1938. First “March of Time” radio program in 1931. First “March of Time” newsreel in 1935. Married Clare Boothe Luce, a Dame of Malta, in 1935. Founded Life in 1936. Editorial director, Time, inc. 1938. Organizer of United China Relief in 1940. Initiated the Commission on Freedom of the Press in 1944. Awarded the Order of Auspicious Star (China) in 1947. Founded House and Home in 1952. Founded Sports Illustrated in 1954. Influential member of the Republican Party. Member of the Atlantic Union. Luce was a strong opponent of Fidel Castro and his revolutionary government in Cuba. This included the funding of Alpha 66 (which was guided by the CIA). In 1962 and 1963 Alpha 66 launched several raids on Cuba which included attacks on port installations and foreign shipping. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, Luce's Life Magazine purchased the Zapruder Film for $150,000. Soon after the assassination they also successfully negotiated with Marina Oswald the exclusive rights to her story. This story never appeared in print, but in an interview she gave to the Ladies Home Journal in September 1988 she argued: "I believe he worked for the American government... He was taught the Russian language when he was in the military. Do you think that is usual, that an ordinary soldier is taught Russian? Also, he got in and out of Russia quite easily, and he got me out quite easily." Luce published individual frames of Zapruder's film but did not allow the film to be screened in its entirety. It was shown to the public in March 1975 which convinced many that the fatal head shot come from the Grassy Knoll (because of Kennedy's violent backward and leftward movement while the bullet is supposed to have come from the back). Writers such as Noel Twyman, David Lifton, Jack White, John Costella and David Mantik have claimed that the Zapruder Film has been tampered with. Retired from Time/Life in 1964. ####################### also Dillon, Clarence Douglas 1909-2003 Born on a business trip in Geneva, went to Harvard, his daughter became Princess Joan de Luxembourg, director of United States & Foreign Securities Corporation and United States & International Securities Corporation, 1937-1953 (and from 1971 on again), US Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to France 1953-1957, United States treasury secretary 1961-1965, director Council on Foreign Relations 1965-1976, vice-chairman Council on Foreign Relations 1976-1978, chairman Brookings Institution 1968-1975, member Atlantic Council of the United States, director Chase Manhattan Bank and American Telephone & Telegraph, vice president, then director, then chairman of the board of Dillon Read and Company, owner of France’s Haut-Brion vineyards, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1989. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dulles, Allen Welsh 1893-1969 Brother of John F. Dulles. Princeton up to 1916. Attended Cap & Gown events, according to Kay Griggs, just as Donald Rumsfeld, William Colby, Frank Carlucci, James Baker, George Griggs, and George P. Shultz (August 3, 2005, Rense). Sent to Bern, Switzerland to work under State Department senior Hugh Wilson (Skull & Bones 1909) to collect political information on Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1916-1918. Joines his older brother, John Foster Dulles (Pilgrim), and David Bruce (Pilgrim) as members of President Woodrow Wilson's staff at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. Became a partner in Sullivan & Cromwell from 1927. Director of Schroder Co. Director Council on Foreign Relations 1927-1933. Secretary Council on Foreign Relations 1933-1944. In May 1941 he urges the U.S. to enter World War II. Recruited by OSS intelligence chief and Knight of Malta Colonel William J. Donovan 1941. Sets up and runs a spy post in Bern, Switserland 1942-1945. Vice-president Council on Foreign Relations 1944-1946. Said to have been involved in Operation Paperclip where about many German scientists and their families were secretly imported into the United States and placed into the Military-Industrial complex. President Council on Foreign Relations 1946-1950. Director Central Intelligence Agency 1953-1961. Member of President Johnson’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy 1963-1964 (forerunner of the Warren Commission). Primary United Fruit Company shareholder. Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C. is named after him. Member of the Pilgrims Society, and the Order of Malta. Seems to have been a member of the 'Knight's Templar' (together with Kermit Roosevelt and Frank Wisner), an elite intelligence group within the CIA. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.bibliotec...msociety02f.htm

HOW CIA OPERATES THROUGH NON GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 4/12/12 http://www.classwarf.../#axzz264cSUtP3 (GO TO LINK TO GETS LINKS MARKED HERE) Everyone knows that the CIA funds various covert operations throughout the world. They do this through various front organizations including known CIA operations groups which funnel funds to “various non-governmental agencies” (NGOs) which then use those funds to achieve objectives both foreign and domestic. There is a tremendous history of this funneling to quasi-private organizations … but it’s also interesting how overt some of it is. Much of how the CIA operates has bubbled up due to failures and successes around the world in countries like Venezuela, Egypt, Pakistan and thanks to some American whistle-blowers. The #1 thing you have to understand about this…all of this taxpayer money (your money) that is being spent to further geopolitical and corporate goals is not just money spent to overthrow foreign governments…a good amount of that money is being spent to influence the hearts and minds in America too. America is a case study of how to successfully let the tail wag the dog; there are a LOT of journalists, editors and influential people on the take (propaganda assets). And they’re is always a concerted effort to punish those of us who share any semblance of truth. The video below is an investigative report by the great Mike Wallace in 1967 exposing how the CIA used NGO’s over the 50's and 60's. The investigation took place 45 years ago but that doesn’t make it any less relevant to today. The explanation of how the CIA operates begins at 5:23… CIA: Charity, NGO, Think Tank, Media, NWO Funding 1of5 Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 = (go to link for other parts) A list of purported CIA front groups HERE. Who can forget the news last year that various CIA linked NGO’s conducted a fake polio drive in Pakistan to gain intelligence information in the lead up to the assassination of Osama bin-Laden. More HERE. The CIA used to fund the NGO “National Student Association” for many years until a bombshell whistle blower account brought light to that particular organization. More HERE. The Telegraph explains how the U.S. planned the Egypt uprising since 2008 HERE. A GREAT documentary of how the U.S. attempted a coup of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 HERE. A video from RT showing how America used NGOs to take down Libyan President Gaddafi HERE. Here is just a small list of various NGOs that are either known or are broadly accepted as CIA front operations. These organizations funnel money directly from their budget into various unknown and foundations, humanitarian groups, and private companies to further CIA priorities: •National Democratic Institute for International Affairs •National Endowment for Democracy •Freedom House •Millennium Challenge Corporation •International Center for Journalists •Center for International Private Enterprise •USAID National Endowment for Democracy The NY Times writes about the National Endowment for Democracy: The National Endowment for Democracy is a quasi-governmental foundation created by the Reagan Administration in 1983 to channel millions of Federal dollars into anti-Communist ”private diplomacy.” Its bylaws require ”openness” and ”public accountability” in its stewardship of millions of dollars a year in taxpayer funds, which are distributed to labor, business, education and other groups and organizations overseas to promote democratic ideas. Today, however, for the second time in its brief existence, the endowment finds itself in trouble with Congress. Some of its ”private diplomacy,” it turns out, has been more than private; it has been secret. And the NED is still around; you can see their website HERE. Reagan created it. A former CIA case officer – Philip Agee – explains how the money moves from the NED through various conduits to influence international affairs – video HERE. The NED website lists their mission as: The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. Each year, with funding from the US Congress, NED supports more than 1,000 projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for democratic goals in more than 90 countries. The most recent budget for the National Endowment for Democracy (page 7): Foundations, National Endowment for Democracy, and Independent Exchange Programs FY11 Budget Request: $ 134 million FY10 Enacted: $ 162 million Change from FY10 to FY11: $ 28 million decrease (-17.3%) ? Asia Foundation reduced from $19 million to $15.7 million ? East-West Center reduced from $23 million to $11.4 million ? National Endowment for Democracy reduced from $118 million to $105 million Michael Barker writes about NED – more HERE: So although the CIA still carries out most of its activities under a veil of secrecy, a lot of their former work is now carried out overtly by the National Endowment for Democracy and an assortment of other related groups. This apparent openness has in turn ensured that there has been next to no critical reporting on the democracy-manipulating activities undertaken by government agencies and private philanthropists. However, as Agee noted in 2003, the CIA still remains a key player in the democracy-manipulating field, especially given the “CIA’s long experience and huge stable of agents and contacts in the civil societies of countries around the world.” Agee adds that: “By joining with the CIA, NED and [uS]AID would come on board an on-going complex of operations whose funding they could take over while leaving the secret day-to-day direction on the ground to CIA officers.” Moreover, the CIA has “ample funds of its own to pass quietly when conditions required,” while the CIA officers themselves play a critical role in monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of democracy-manipulating activities. Millennium Challenge Corporation The most recent budget for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (page 5): Millennium Challenge Corporation FY11 Budget Request: $ 1.28 billion FY10 Enacted: $ 1.11 billion Change from FY10 to FY11: $ 170 million increase (+15.3%) ? Request assumes four possible compacts for Zambia, Indonesia, Malawi, and Cape Verde A Wikileaks cable shows the involvement of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in Uganda – a country we have been very active in as of late: Uganda (ACCU), Jasper Tumuhimbise, went into hiding in late December after publishing a “Fame and Shame” booklet on government corruption. Funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s (MCC) anti-corruption threshold program, ACCU’s booklet is a public perception survey in which Security Minister and National Resistance Movement (NRM) Secretary General Amama Mbabazi was perceived as Uganda’s most corrupt public official. Tumuhimbise went into hiding after he and ACCU staff received threatening telephone calls and a visit from security personnel seeking information on the ACCU’s international donors. On December 24, Tumuhimbise told PolOff that security forces followed him from the eastern town of Soroti to Kampala. He blames Mbabazi for the intimidation of ACCU staff. Steve Dobransky writes an analysis about MCC’s official reason for being – MCC does exactly the same thing as USAID and utilizes information from Freedom House (a purported CIA front group): The MCC was intended to make up for USAID’s apparent gap in political and economic “morality.” The MCC was portrayed as America’s conscience and will to enact a new world order and not just talk about it. The MCC conditioned all its aid on recipients’ nature and intentions in terms of democracy and free markets. The MCC would use data from Freedom House, the World Bank, and other outside institutions. Never before has a U.S. bureaucracy outsourced its primary judgment and decision-making authority to external organizations. The creation of the MCC also reflected a sizeable distaste for past U.S. policies and their apparent amorality. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs The Daily Beast writes about the recent crackdown of U.S. NGO’s in Egypt: Just after noon on Dec. 29, Julie Hughes, the Egypt country director of the U.S.-based National Democratic Institute (NDI), got a phone call saying police were raiding the group’s office in the south…. That day, 10 civil-society organizations operating in Egypt were raided, including U.S. pro-democracy groups International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House, which, like NDI, receive U.S. government funding. The Ministry of Justice launched an investigation into the groups and interrogated employees; Hughes’s own questioning lasted four and a half hours. At least seven Americans, including Hughes and IRI country director Sam LaHood, son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, have been banned from leaving Egypt. With Egypt still wracked by pro-democracy protests a year after the uprising that overthrew Hosni Mubarak, the ruling Supreme Council for the Armed Forces (SCAF) has taken to blaming “foreign hands” for the continued unrest. In their search for scapegoats, they’ve launched a full-scale investigation into civil-society groups. But storming NGOs, interrogating U.S. citizens, and banning them from leaving the country has strained U.S.-Egypt relations, and threatened the sacrosanct $1.3 billion in military aid from the U.S. that SCAF thrives on. Freedom House People’s World talks about Freedom House in Egypt – read HERE: Among those facing trial in Egypt are representatives of Freedom House, a U.S. organization with a worldwide reach receiving 80 percent of its funding through the NED. Allegations have repeatedly surfaced of Freedom House ties to the CIA and involvement with clandestine anti-government activities in foreign countries. Between 1997 and 2009, Freedom House gathered in $10.6 million for democracy-promotion work in Cuba. The Permanent Representative of Cuba to the UN says Freedom House is an appendage of the CIA – read HERE: With regard to Freedom House, a United States-based NGO enjoying consultative status, the Permanent Representative of Cuba went on to say that the Committee had been dealing with that “so-called NGO” for several sessions after having received complaints from many delegations. He had submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO carried out against his Government. The NGO’s links with terrorist groups in Cuba as well as the fact that it was an instrument of the special services of the United States were no secret. He said he was fully aware of the close and proven links between Freedom House and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under which the NGO carried out destabilization missions against legitimately-established governments. Freedom House tried to sell the image of an NGO promoting democratic values while concealing the fact that it was a tool of subversion. While he supported the positive and constructive contributions made by NGOs, he could not allow their image to be tarnished by a tiny minority of groups such as Freedom House. As he had several questions to pose to the organization, he regretted that its representative was not present at the meeting, even though the NGO had been informed that its case would be discussed today. That, he noted, represented a new lack of respect by the “so-called NGO” to the Committee. He informed delegates that information on the links between the NGO and the CIA had been placed at the back of the conference room. The Monthly Review Foundation says Freedom House is still filled with neo-cons and details their history with CIA involvement – more HERE: Today, Freedom House continues to serve as both a think tank and a “civil society” funder as part of the State Department’s modern “democracy promotion” complex. Frequently cited in the press and academic works, the reports and studies produced by Freedom House and its affiliates promote the neoconservative ideology of its trustees and government sponsors. Although some names and affiliations have changed, the group is still dominated by neocons. Brzezinski, Kirkpatrick, and Forbes are still on the trustees list, as well as Liasson, O’Rourke, and Noonan. Trustee Ken Adelman is a contributor to the Project for a New American Century, along with former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who joined Freedom House in 2000. Adelman was an assistant to Rumsfeld from 1975-1977, U.N. ambassador and arms control director under Reagan, and is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board. He wrote an article for The Washington Postin 2002 titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq”28 in which he said: “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” Another trustee, Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, is the U.S. author of the Trilateral Commission report, The Crisis of Democracy and The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order (1996). The Santos Republic details the involvement of various NGO’s in Egypt – including Freedom House…more HERE. In 2009 sixteen young Egyptian activists completed a two-month Freedom House ‘New Generation Fellowship’ in Washington. The activists received training in advocacy and met with U.S. government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks. As far back as 2008, members of the April 6th Movement attended the inaugural summit of the Association of Youth Movements (AYM) in New York, where they networked with other movements, attended workshops on the use of new and social media and learned about technical upgrades, such as consistently alternating computer simcards, which help to evade state internet surveillance. AYM is sponsored by Pepsi, YouTube and MTV and amongst the luminaries who participated in the 2008 Summit, which focused on training activists in the use of Facebook and Twitter, were James Glassman of the State Department, Sherif Mansour of Freedom House, National Security Advisor Shaarik Zafar and Larry Diamond of the NED. International Center for Journalists From their website: ICFJ does more than train citizen and professional journalists. We launch news organizations, media associations, journalism schools and news products. We help journalists develop stories that lead to better public policies such as improved access to health care and cleaner environments. Our trainees expose corruption, increase transparency and hold officials accountable to their citizens. The L.A. Times reports that the ICFJ receives money from the CIA arm NED – more HERE: In Egypt, the four U.S. organizations under attack for fomenting unrest with illegal foreign funding were all connected to the endowment. Two — the GOP’s International Republican Institute and the Democratic Party’s National Democratic Institute — are among the groups that make up the endowment’s core constituents. The two other indicted groups, Freedom House and the International Center for Journalists, receive funds from the endowment. The history of the National Endowment for Democracy would not be unknown to Fayza Aboul Naga, the minister of planning and international cooperation who has been leading the attack against the American organizations. Aboul Naga, a career diplomat, spent five years in New York in the 1990s as an advisor to a fellow Egyptian, U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. It was not a good time and place for her to watch American democracy in action. Center for International Private Enterprise The Alliance for Global Justice is not a fan: The boards of the NED and its core organizations are full of Spin Doctors from public relations firms, big advertisers, corporate headquarters; political analysts and advisors; and ex-CIA and military personnel. Vin Weber, NED Board Chair, works for a public relations firm that is part of the Omnicom Group, the world’s 3rd largest advertising agency. The Center for International Private Enterprise, an NED core institute, includes an executive from Google and a major contractor with Google. The International Republican Institute, another NED core institute, includes a former Senior Advisor to the CIA and various representatives from the military-industrial complex. These are just a few examples. Through well-placed contributions to political parties and other organizations, and through its web of corporate PR, military-industrial, and intelligence connections, the NED is able to coordinate campaigns of misinformation and bring together a diverse coalition in order to intervene in and control foreign elections. If that fails, the NED empowers that coalition to overthrow elected governments—like it did in Haiti and like it is trying to do in Venezuela. CIPE is publicly known to have attempted and failed at a coup of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 – more HERE: One memorandum between the State Department and the NED reveals a supplemental $1,000,000 awarded in April 2002, right after the failed coup d’etat against President Chávez, that was slighted for NED’s Venezuelan benefactors. The primary grant recipients include the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity and the Center for International Private Enterprise. Smaller grant recipients include Acción Campesina, Asociación Civil Asamblea de Educación, Fundación Momento de la Gente, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Asociación Civil Liderazgo y Visión and Asociación Civil Consorcio Justicia, amongst others. Other NED major award recipients, such as the Center for International Private Enterprise, which received over $200,000 last year for Venezuela activities and the International Republican Institute, which was awarded almost $300,000 for its work during the past two years in Venezuela, have poured their financial aid into support for Fedecámaras, the radicalized business association at the forefront of the opposition movement and into the development and strengthening of political parties to successfully oppose Chávez in future elections. CIPE was involved in Egypt’s uprising as well – Jenny O’Connor explains HERE: According to the NED’s 2009 Annual Report, $1,419,426 worth of grants was doled out to civil society organisations in Egypt that year. In 2010, the year preceding the January – February 2011 revolution, this funding massively increased to $2,497,457.11 Nearly half of this sum, $1,146,903, was allocated to the Center for International Private Enterprise for activates such as conducting workshops at governate level “to promote corporate citizenship” and engaging civil society organizations “to participate in the democratic process by strengthening their capacity to advo­cate for free market legislative reform on behalf of their members”. Freedom House also received $89,000 to “strengthen cooperation among a network of local activists and bloggers”. Solidarity Center The Solidarity Center is run by the AFL-CIO which receives the majority of funding from the NED. It could be very beneficial to America to destabilize countries with an appeal to workers for better pay, better working conditions and who better to create that internal resistance and resentment to a country’s leaders than those who run unions for a living. You can read a history on the Solidarity Center HERE. The American Prospect writes about the relationship between the AFL-CIO and the CIA as of 2001 HERE. You can find their website HERE. Michael Barker writes about the very current situation with the Solidarity Center’s involvement in Egypt: There is no question that union organizing against oppressive laws is fantastic, but one can understand the Egyptian government’s repressive response in light of foreign-run NGOs — and especially those partnering with the US government — channeling considerable monies to Egyptian organizations that might not have the Egyptian government’s best interest in mind. These corporate connections are intriguing, and just a little more research on Beinin’s part would have revealed that the chairman of Suez Cement Company is Omar Mohanna. This is worth acknowledging because Mohanna is the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which indicates that the US government, if it chose to, could exert significant indirect pressure on reforming the ETUF through their good friend Mohanna. One would expect, however, that such pressure is already being applied given that Mohanna is involved with numerous groups that work closely with the NED’s “democracy-promoting” apparatus. For example, Mohanna is the vice chairman of the Egyptian Center for Economic Studies (a group that has received aid from the NED in 1995 and 1997 via the Center for International Private Enterprise), and his work as a board member of the NED-connected New Civic Forum. (20)In fact, as mentioned earlier, the NED has already given the Solidarity Center grants to work with the ETUF, and Beinin himself even explains how the ETUF “received funding and technical assistance from the Solidarity Center to establish child labor programs in the rural governorates (provinces) of Sharqiyyya, Minufiyya, Buhayra, Fayyum, and Kafral-Shaykh, and in Alexandria.” Then, remaining on his theme of uncritical support for the US government, Beinin continues by adding that: “These programs were positively evaluated in reports prepared for USAID…” (21) Now there is a surprise! Owning the Media Carl Bernstein writes in “the CIA and the Media“: “Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations…” The Church Committee uncovered how the CIA funded journalists abroad …where those stories were picked up in the U.S. as truthful and factual. The NY Times came across an old CIA cable during the time of the Warren commission. The goal was to discredit critics of the Commission and to use “propaganda assets” i.e. journalists to do so. You can find a source HERE. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.) The CIA went after Iraq war critic Professor Juan Cole during the Bush administration – story HERE. Alternet explains what you can do: Combined with current events factoids, Wikipedia and Sourcewatch, anyone with basic internet competence [ability to follow links and do key word searches such as ‘African Wildlife Foundation, MI6, CIA’ or ‘Fossey Foundation, arms trafficking’] and is able to make and organize notes while sifting out blatantly misinformed or amateur articles, can learn to overcome disinformation, do their own analysis, map the corporate activities, identify the rip-offs and peoples exploited by these schemes, all while identifying the actual players and motives behind the New York Times propaganda. Apply the preceding method and the result is quite clear; the New York Times is but one arm of a mechanism to deceive on behalf of a corporate centered sociopath get-mega-rich[er]-quick scheme of the 1%, exploiting Americans belief in their institutions, any consequence to the USA and actual democracy be damned in process Dr. Francisco Dominguez says U.S. based NGO Human Rights Watch published propaganda on Venezuela – more HERE. Read more: http://www.classwarf.../#ixzz264ctqx9N

President of Italy’s Supreme Court To Refer 9/11 Crimes To International Criminal Court http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-of-italys-supreme-court-to-refer-911-crimes-to-international-criminal-court/ ================================o Ferdinando Imposimato is the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, and former Senior Investigative Judge, Italy. Imposimato presided over several terrorism-related cases, including the kidnapping and ultimate assassination of President Aldo Moro, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, other political assassinations and kidnapping cases and several cases against the Mafia. He is a former Senator who served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations. Imposimato is also a former legal consultant to the United Nations regarding institution of laws to control drug trafficking. This week, Judge Imposimato stated publicly in writing that 9/11 was just like the “strategy of tension” carried out in Italy. Specifically, the former Italian Prime Minister, Italian judges, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special: Judge Imposimato writes that 9/11 was the exact same type of attack: an act of false flag terror. Judge Imposimato announced that he is going to recommend that the International Criminal Court hold a criminal trial into 9/11. Imposimato noted that the International Criminal Court was set up to protect the world from criminal acts of war, and that it is the perfect judicial body to hear such a case. Numerous High-Level Legal Scholars Agree That Additional Action Is Necessary Imposimato is not the only legal scholar to call for prosecutions and/or further investigations into 9/11. Many other high-level legal jurists, professors and trial lawyers have said the same thing. See this and this. Note: Judge Imposimato is a member of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth and a panelist on the Toronto Hearings. ===============================================o Yet Another Congressman Questions 9/11 http://www.globalresearch.ca/yet-another-congressman-questions-9-11/ ================================================o Congressman Jason Chafetz just said that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11. A nutjob, right? Maybe. But he joins quite a few other Congressmen: According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House(confirmed here) Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?” Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigationand states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on” Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11 Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11 Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside” Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job And 9/11 Commissioners: The Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required) 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting” 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up” 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said ”At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said ”I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And senior intelligence officers: A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored) Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recentlysaid that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [u.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath. A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and seethis). 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006). A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.” Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11. And other government officials: U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.” Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11 The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt” The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!” If he’s nuts, Congressman Chafetz is in good company. And see this and this =====================================================o SEE BACKGROUND Historical Basis for 911 TRUTH in Video http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19249

http://whatreallyhappened.com/node/189030 with comments section.

British Special Forces In Syria? 28.06.2012 As Syria spirals into civil war, fresh rumours of covert British military support of rebel forces have surfaced. Since late last year there have been rumours of UKSF involvement in supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in their efforts to topple the Syrian regime(1). Such support was rumoured to include training of rebel forces in bases set up outside of Syria. DEBKAfile, an Israeli news website, has now reported that British Special Forces have pushed into Syria via Turkey(2) and have begun covert operations there. DEBKAfile claims that the British incursion is part of a wider effort which includes the deployment of American, French and Turkish special operations forces into Syria. One of the aims of such covert intervention is to secure safe havens within Syria for civilian refuges fleeing the fighting, DEBKAfile reports. DEBKAfile's sources also suggest that UKSF have provided assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), including the provision of communications equipment. It was also claimed that UKSF provided close protection for Burham Ghalioun of the Syrian National Council, a rebel opposition leader, as he briefly set foot inside Syria after crossing the border with Lebanon(3). DEBKAfile speculates that a similar pattern is unfolding in Syria as to what occurred in Libya last year : British special forces setting up inside the country and assisting indigenous rebel forces with communications, logistics and tactical planning. A major missing element, however, is that of air power. During the campaign in Libya, UKSF forces coordinated NATO close air support operations with rebel ground movements - arguably the deciding factor in the rebel victory. As of yet there seems to be little political appetite by Western powers for such overt intervention in Syria, especially in light of a likely strong opposition to such a move from Russia and Iran. more info, further reading: 1: British Special Forces Training Syrian Rebels? (eliteukforces.info report) 2: British forces in Syria, Assad presidential compound said under attack (DEBKAfile) 3: Obama rebuffs Erdogan's appeal to lead Turkey in Syria attack (DEBKAfile) http://www.eliteukfo...orces-syria.php ############################################## Al-Qaeda, US, and Syrian Crisis http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/09/260661/alqaeda-us-and-syrian-crisis/

Who the fluke is John Glaser? His claims are inadequately documented // end Colby +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ VERY GOOD BLOGGER !!!!!!!! John Glaser, Assistant Editor at Antiwar.com //Bio: John Glaser is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative Recent US Drone Strike May Generate ‘A Hundred’ New al-Qaeda Recruits September 07, 2012| News | John Glaser From a CNN report on a US drone strike this week in Yemen that killed killed 13 civilians, including three women: Residents are not denying the existence of al Qaeda elements in their region but say that misdirected strikes work in favor of the militant group, helping them recruit new operatives. “I would not be surprised if a hundred tribesmen joined the lines of al Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake,” said Nasr Abdullah, an activist in the district of the attack. “This part of Yemen takes revenge very seriously.” See here and here for more on how US drone strikes generate blowback and new al-Qaeda recruits. ((LINKS AT SITE)) ((http://antiwar.com/blog/ GOOGLE GLAZER)) ################################# Kingly Presidential Powers to Murder Anyone Are None of Your Business September 06, 2012| News | John Glaser Listen up, and get this straight. President Obama doesn’t answer to you or me or any American citizen or to the press, and if he doesn’t feel like explaining to you how he utilizes his kingly powers of executing anyone, anywhere on his immediate command, he won’t. And you just have to deal with it. Got that!? Noah Shachtman at Danger Room points to a recent CNN interview with President Obama on his use of targeted killing by drone. Obama does two things only: (1) completely dodges the questions and (2) what he does actually say, are lies. Shachtman says it’s “baloney.” ((CNN VIDEO AT SITE)) Regarding the alleged criteria for targeted killings – the target has to be “authorized by our laws” for a threat that’s “not speculative,” etc. – Shachtman writes: In both Yemen and Pakistan, the CIA is allowed to launch a strike based on the target’s “signature” — that is, whether he appears to look and act like a terrorist. As senior U.S. officials have repeatedly confirmed, intelligence analysts don’t even have to know the target’s name, let alone whether he’s planning to attack the U.S. In some cases, merely being a military-aged male at the wrong place at the wrong time is enough to justify your death. “What I found most striking was his claim that legitimate targets are a ‘threat that is serious and not speculative,’ and engaged in ‘some operational plot against the United States,’ That is simply not true,” emails the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko, who has tracked the drone war as closely as any outside analyst. “The claim that the 3,000+ people killed in roughly 375 nonbattlefield targeted killings were all engaged in actual operational plots against the U.S. defies any understanding of the scope of what America has been doing for the past ten years.” Zenko later describes Obama’s supposed inability to speak on such classified matters as “total BS.” According to law, the President can declassify anything. And anyways, it could not be any clearer that Obama avoids answering these questions, not because it would harm “national security,” but because it would harm his own political career if he simply admitted that he took it upon himself to kill anyone, even Americans, on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing, without charges or trial by jury. Not only are we not allowed to know who Obama is targeting for assassination by drone, we can’t even know who they’ve killed after the fact. As the Washington Post reported late last year, “the identities” of almost all drone victims “remain classified, as does the existence of the drone program itself.” And, “Because the names of the dead and the threat they were believed to pose are secret, it is impossible for anyone without access to U.S. intelligence to assess whether the deaths were justified.” If Obama doesn’t have to tell us who he kills, he doesn’t have to face public scrutiny for how many were innocent. “When you have warfare with no political costs at all, it becomes much too easy to resort to violence,” as Clive Stafford Smith put it. An ignorant public is absolutely essential to the functioning of Obama’s foreign policy. The normalization of covert war, gratuitous secrecy, and tyrannical executive authority is blithely accepted by most of the public, which is the final ingredient that will prevent this president and any of his administration from ever facing legal scrutiny for their actions. Comments (8) ########################################################## Bahrain Documentary Shows the Brutality Supported by the US September 06, 2012| News | John Glaser Yesterday, in our news section, we provided a link to Glenn Greenwald’s article on CNN International’s refusal to air a documentary it commissioned uncovering the brutal crackdown by the US-backed dictatorship in Bahrain. Greenwald linked to the documentary, now available on YouTube, but many people still have not seen it. It does a brilliant job of illustrating the abuses the people have suffered at the hands of the regime. It’s useful to remind yourself while watching this that Washington wholeheartedly supports this kind of repression. The US has sent more than $60 million in direct aid to Bahrain since 2008, and has another $11 million scheduled for 2013. In recent years, the US has sent Bahrain riot gear, tanks, helicopter gunships, and over a million pounds of ammunition – all of which have been integral to the ruthless crackdown imposed on reform-minded Bahrainis. After international condemnation, the Obama administration was forced to suspend a new $53 million package of military equipment, making it conditional on reform. And when Bahraini opposition groups and a U.N. statement acknowledged that no substantive move towards reform had been made, Obama began secretly pushing through the arms package, circumventing congressional rules and failing to inform the public. The protests in Bahrain are not just protests against that particular regime; they are de facto protests against this reprehensibly US foreign policy, which bribes dictatorships in order to maintain control of the Middle East. As a 2004 Defense Department report put it, when referring to the Gulf Arab states, “Without the US these regimes could not survive.” Comments (4) ################################################## Wasteful Warheads Worth More Than Their Weight in Gold September 05, 2012| News | John Glaser According to Jeffrey Lewis at Foreign Policy, “the United States is building a nuclear bomb that costs more than its weight in solid gold.” There is now a furious debate about whether the United States needs to modernize the B61, which dates to Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, making it the oldest design left in the stockpile. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, recently revealed that the cost of the program to extend the bomb’s life has more than doubled: Modernizing the approximately 400 B61 gravity bombs in the stockpile will cost $10 billion. That is billions with a “B.” In case you were wondering, it would be less expensive to build solid-gold replicas of each of the 700-pound B61s, even at near-record gold prices. So even though Washington has a nuclear arsenal that can obliterate much of the world’s population, somehow it’s necessary to “modernize” the warheads at a cost of $10 billion? This at a time when there is a virtual bipartisan consensus that defense budgets can’t be cut in order address deficit issues. “In 2010,” Lewis continues, “the Government Accountability Office took a look at all these changes and noted, quite sensibly, that this looked like the sort of program that might fall behind schedule and go over budget. The project then fell behind schedule and went over budget.” Normal people might look at this and ask “whether the B61 is worth it.” For the money? No, not worth it. For the security? Absolutely not. For politicians? Yeah, they need it. Right now, the United States forward-deploys 180 B61s at air bases in five NATO countries. They are “tactical” nuclear weapons, deployed to help stop a Soviet thrust into Western Europe. (That there is no Soviet Union anymore is a mere detail.) If the life-extension program slips, there may be a gap during which the United States does not have B61s in Europe. Do we really need them? Senior military and civilian officials have repeatedly stated, in private and public, that the B61 has no military utility. One senior official with European Command told a task force created by the defense secretary, “We pay a king’s ransom for these things and … they have no military value.” There is no military mission for these weapons; they exist largely to fulfill political needs. Comments (7) ################################################### CIA Declassifies ‘Oops’ Review on Iraq WMDs September 05, 2012| News | John Glaser In June, the CIA declassified a heavily redacted 2006 review of the intelligence failure on Iraq’s WMD in the lead up to the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, writing in Foreign Policy describes it as a mea culpa: This remarkable CIA mea culpa, just declassified this summer and published here for the first time, describes the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction as the consequence of “analytic liabilities” and predispositions that kept analysts from seeing the issue “through an Iraqi prism.” In reality, the document is much less remarkable when you consider how little a role the intelligence community’s findings played in the decision to invade Iraq. Much is made of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD and how wrong it was, but as Paul Pillar – who was head of the CIA’s Mid East division during the march to war – has written, “the campaign to sell the war [emphasis in original] moved into high gear before the estimate was ever written.” And there is little in the document that speaks to the pressure the Bush administration heaped on the intelligence community to generate findings that would help justify the war, as opposed to ones that would get closer to the truth. Pillar also writes, “The interaction between Bush administration policymakers and the intelligence community about Iraqi weapons programs was entirely one of the administration’s pressing the community for juicier tidbits that would make more of an impression on the public when talking about Iraqi weapons programs.” As Blanton notes, though, the document does acknowledge confirmation bias: ”Analysts tended to focus on what was most important to us — the hunt for WMD — and less on what would be most important for a paranoid dictatorship to protect. Viewed through an Iraqi prism, their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status needed to be preserved.” This is a reminder of how analogous the case of Iraq is to Iran right now. The case for war against Iran rests on a number of falsehoods, all of which flow from an inability to recognize the Iranian government’s central aim of self-preservation – that is, “their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status,” none of which they seem willing to give up by building nuclear weapons (thereby losing what international support and credibility they have) and adopting an offensive posture (which would immediately invite war and possibly regime change). Blanton writes that “the CIA took almost six years to release the report,” from the date of the declassification request, and asks, “How many years to learn the lessons?” Comments (4) ################################################### Bribery: An American Standard September 04, 2012| News | John Glaser Since the Egyptian revolution, Washington has been scrambling for leverage in Cairo. Losing longtime US puppet Hosni Mubarak was obviously a major blow to US imperialists who aim to have the policies of Arab states reflect American demands as opposed to the will of the people. With the Islamist victory in Egypt’s slogging democracy, the leading Arab country wrested back some measure of independence. But Washington has one more trick up its sleeve: bribery. The Wall Street Journal: American diplomats are closing in on an agreement to dole out $1 billion in debt relief to Egypt, part of a gilded charm offensive that Washington hopes will help shore up the country’s economy and prevent its new Islamist leadership from drifting beyond America’s foreign-policy orbit. Ah, yes – we’re “charming” them. As Esam Al-Amin described current US policy towards Egypt: “the strategy is to give the Islamic rising powers a chance to govern as long as they agree to: keep the Americans in, the Chinese and Russians out, the Iranians down, and the Israelis safe.” If they don’t agree, America could rely on the use of force. But this could backfire if used too soon, the thinking goes. So one thing America can do to – ahem, nudge them in the right direction, is to throw money at them. Make them owe us. Consider this ongoing subsidization of the Egyptian government a counter-measure to the Arab Spring. Jacob Hornberger: Morsi’s election came under military rule, which obviously skews the vote, given that people have to factor in the possibility that the military was monitoring how they voted. Moreover, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Morsi is simply assuming the same dictatorial powers exercised by military dictator Hosni Mubarak, leaving the military machine in its dominant and privileged position in Egyptian society and simply putting military officers who will be loyal to Morsi in charge. Morsi has also abrogated to himself legislative powers, especially since the military dissolved the legislature just before the elections. It’s nothing less than what a Don Corleone or Tony Soprano might do to muscle themselves a more profitable outcome and generate leverage – backed up, of course, with an offer Egypt can’t refuse from the world’s leading merchant of military violence.

Get back to us with the names of people with advanced degrees in biology who support creationism. //end Colby SEE http://www.icr.org/

Even he is not as hostile to Suu Kyi as you are. // END COLBY It would not be fair to argue that Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar is entirely a tool of the West. It certainly has merits and has evolved out of a genuine desire of much of the population to see democratic reforms and the liberalization of their country. However, it would be intellectually dishonest not to point out the obvious connections between the policies of the US State Department, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the pro-democracy movement embodied by the Nobel Prize winner and darling of the West, Suu Kyi. SEE WORD IT ABOVE ??? MOVEMENT HAS MERIT . YOU READ THE ABOVE AND SAY THIS IS PRO SUU KYI ????????

What evidence is there that he "is a KOCH brother hack"? // END Colby POST #1 Do you have any evidence he is not honest? // end COLBY Treviño tweeted, “Dear IDF: If you end upshooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

COLD FUSION HOAX OR REALITY ?? Brillouin Energy of Berkeley, California has been granted a patent for their hot-water boiler technology in China. Patents had been submitted in countries around the world with Japan “not rejecting” the patent and “some back and forth” on the patent in the European Union, but as with virtually all submissions referencing this new energy technology in North America, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the application. Cold Fusion Now’s David J. French reviewed the rejection in this article from last May. Further, though no product is currently slated for public release and the company is still prototyping their commercial design, an Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) company has contacted Brillouin with interest in licensing the technology. The Chinese patent is a huge breakthrough for commercial development of this ultra-clean energy technology. Any duplicate technologies released in the United States would force the USPTO to grant the Brillouin patent, and compel the other company to negotiate with the Brillouin Energy Corporation. This would necessitate a break in the long-standing Department of Energy (DoE) policy that refuses to acknowledge the existence of cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), lattice-assisted nuclear reactions (LANR), and quantum fusion, and which influences USPTO policy. Brillouin Energy has just recently begun a partnership with SRI International of Menlo Park, California to test both the science and technology developed under the guidance of Robert E. Godes, the Founder, President and Chief Technical Officer at Brillouin Energy. It was in this capacity that Brillouin was able to garner funding for their hot-water boiler design that used a nickel cathode and regular water (H2O) to create the energy-producing excess heat. That funding allowed Brillouin to expand their team, adding seven additional engineers and physicists, along with the handful of non-technical support staff and three law firms helping the corporation in various aspects to move this revolutionary energy technology forward. The Brillouin lab is currently engineering a new gas-loaded design that will run at much higher temperatures, thereby increasing the power output. The Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT)™ is the core reactor of the new design. Essentially, it is a tube containing the catalytic material with the metal nickel that allows for control over the flow of hydrogen gas as well the Q-pulses, the electromagnetic pulses that start and drive the reaction. The company has been successful with the nickel environment, but is also working on a new architecture that uses titanium and tungsten in the core generator. Godes says the new dry-cell designs require Brillouin to raise more capital funding to expand the pace of work. “We’re not saying we’ll have a product right away, but we have a technology that we know can be developed, and we’re working with all possible speed to get it to market.” http://coldfusionnow.org/brillouin-energy-patent-granted-in-china/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEFTY OBAMA ??? Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On ============================================================= by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon Republicans and Democrats, like Romney and Obama are of one mind on many more things than they disagree about. From war and empire to their policies on Big Ag, Big Energy, “clean coal and safe nuclear power,” and the war on drugs their areas of agreement are vast and troubling, and perhaps far more important than the rhetorical and stylistic differences highlighted by US political campaigns. Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon Too much agreement between Republicans and Democrats has always been bad news for those at the bottom of America's class and racial totem poles. Back in 1875, Frederick Douglass observed that it took a war among the whites to free his people from slavery. What then, he wondered, would an era of peace among the whites bring us? He already knew the answer. Louisiana had its Colfax Massacre two years earlier. A wave of thousands upon thousands of terroristic bombings, shootings, mutilations, murders and threats had driven African Americans from courthouses, city halls, legislatures, from their own farms, businesses and private properties and from the voting rolls across the South. They didn't get the vote back for 80 years, and they never did get the land back. But none of that mattered because on the broad and important questions of those days there was at last peace between white Republicans and white Democrats --- squabbles around the edges about who'd get elected, but wide agreement on the rules of the game. Like Douglass, the shallow talking heads who cover the 2012 presidential campaign on corporate media have noticed out loud the remarkable absence of disagreement between Republican and Democratic candidates on many matters. They usually mention what the establishment likes to call “foreign policy.” But the list of things Republicans and Democrat presidential candidates agree on, from coddling Wall Street speculators, protecting mortgage fraudsters and corporate wrongdoers to preventing Medicare For All to so-called “foreign policy,” “free trade,” “the deficit” “clean coal and safe nuclear power” and “entitlement reform,” is clearly longer and more important than the few points of mostly race and style, upon which they disagree. 15 Although unemployment is the highest it's been since the Great Depression, the federal government should NOT enact any sort of WPA-style program to put millions of people back to work. Under Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, Depression-era unemployment was tackled head on by direct federal hiring to dig subways, build roads, schools, parks, sewers, recreational facilities and public buildings. Oblivious of this history, Democrat Barack Obama maintains that only the private sector can or should create jobs. 14 Medicare, Medicaid and social security are “entitlements” that need to be cut to relieve what they call “the deficit.” Republicans have been on record for this since forever, though they claim not to want to mess with the Medicare people already over 65 are getting. One of the first acts of the Obama presidency was to appoint a bipartisan panel stacked with “deficit hawks” like Republican Allan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles to recommend raising retirement ages and cutting back Medicaid, Medicare and social security, and pass a law directing Congress to have an up or down no-amendments vote on its recommendations. Fortunately the “cat food commission”, as it was called, was deadlocked and offered none. But Obama and top Democrats, most recently House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi continue to express their readiness for some kind of “grand compromise” with Republicans on this issue. 13 Climate change treaties and negotiations that might lead to them should be avoided at all costs. The differences between them are only style. Democrats admit that climate change exists and is man-made, Republicans say it's a myth. But both ignored the Kyoto protocol and Obama like Bush before him, has worked tirelessly to delay, derail and boycott any actual talks that might lead to constructive international climate change agreements. 12 NAFTA was such a great thing it really should be extended to Central and South America and the entire Pacific rim. Again, there are differences in style. On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama sometimes mumbled about renegotiating parts of NAFTA, and such. But even before the primaries were done, press reports had him assuring the Canadian government this was only campaign rhetoric, raw meat for the rubes. In four years he has pushed NAFTA-like “free trade” corporate rights agreements with South Korea, most of Central America and is now secretly hammering out something called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. 11 Banksters and Wall Street speculators deserve their bailouts and protection from criminal liability, but underwater and foreclosed homeowners deserve nothing. Well, maybe not exactly nothing. Republicans think underwater homeowners deserve blame for forcing banksters to offer millions of fraudulent high-interest loans were then re-sold to investors around the world. Democrats think underwater homeowners deserve empty promises of help that never quite arrives for most of the foreclosed, the about-to-be foreclosed, their families and communities. But both agree on free money for banksters and speculators but no moratorium on foreclosures and no criminal investigations of mortgage and securities fraud. 10 Palestinians should be occupied, dispossessed and ignored. Iran should be starved and threatened from all sides. Cuba should be embargoed, and Americans prohibited from going there to see what its people have done in a half century free of Yankee rule. Black and brown babies and their parents, relatives and neighbors should be bombed with drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and similar places. The politicians and corporate commentators have a misleading name for this. They call it “foreign policy.” The realistic term for it is global empire. 9 Africa should be militarized, destabilized, plundered and where necessary, invaded by proxy armies like those of Rwanda, Ethiopia, Burundi or Kenya, or directly by Western air and ground forces, as in Libya. President Georgia Bush announced the formation of AFRICOM, the US military command for the continent which has officially swallowed all US civilian diplomatic presence. But only a black US president, even under the cover of “humanitarian war” could have invaded an African nation and openly dispatched special forces to Central Africa. 8 US Presidents can kidnap citizens of their own or any nation on earth from anyplace on the planet for torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial or murder them and neighboring family and bystanders at will. To be perfectly fair, there are distinctions between Republicans and Democrats here that don't amount to differences. Republicans Cheney and Bush got their lawyers to say these things were OK and did them. Democrat Obama got Congress to enact “laws” giving these acts a veneer of fake legality, something a Republican probably could not have done. 7 Oil and energy companies, and other mega-polluters must be freed to drill offshore almost everywhere, and permitted to poison land and watersheds with fracking to achieve “energy independence”. The Republicans say “drill baby drill” but it seems only Democrats can chill out enough supposed “environmentalists” to make this happen. Obama campaigned on restricting offshore drilling four years ago, and reversed himself just before the BP oil disaster in the Gulf. The White House cooperated with BP in lying to the public about the extent of the disaster and has shielded BO from paying anything like the value of actual damages incurred to livelihoods, human lives and the environment. 6 The FCC should not and must not regulate telecoms to ensure that poor and rural communities have access to internet, or to guarantee network neutrality. Republicans have always been in favor of digital redlining, against network neutrality. Barack Obama claimed on the campaign trail he'd take a back seat to nobody in guaranteeing network neutrality. But he appointed as FCC chair a man who helped write the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1995, which gave away the government-built internet backbone to a handful of immensely powerful telecoms like AT&T and Comcast, and flatly reversed himself on network neutrality. The Department of Justice was forced to stop the ATT-T-Mobile merger by a storm of public outrage, but approved the Comcast-NBC deal. 5 Of course there really ARE such things as “clean coal” and “safe nuclear energy”. Again these are things Republicans have always pretended to believe. At the 2008 Democratic convention Democrat Barack Obama joined them, declaring he intended to be the president of “clean coal and safe nuclear energy.” Obama is building a wave of 33 nuclear plants across the country, the first two in mostly black and poor communities of Georgia and South Carolina where leaky existing nukes are causing cancer epidemics. The people know these things are myths. But Republican and Democratic candidates for office, all the way down to state and county officials seem not to. 4 Immigrants must be jailed and deported in record numbers. To be really fair, one should note that on this issue Republicans talk a mean game about sending them all back and jailing tens or hundreds of thousands along the way. But only President Obama has walked the walk, deporting over a million immigrants in his term in office, often with little or no due process and after housing many for months in atrocious privatized immigration prisons. 3 No Medicare For All. Forget about it eliminating the Medicare age requirement so that all Americans would qualify.. Republicans never wanted Medicare even for seniors, let alone everybody. Six or seven years ago Illinois State Senator Obama was telling audiences that if they elected Democrats to Congress, the Senate and the White House, they'd get single payer health care. But once in office he excluded Medicare for All from the proposals on the table, and enacted a national version of Massachusetts RomneyCare, requiring everybody to purchase private health insurance or be penalized. 2 No minimum wage increases for you, no right to form a union, no right to negotiate or strike if you already have a union, and no enforcement or reform of existing labor laws. Again, Republicans have always opposed minimum wage laws. Obama promised to boost the minimum wage his first two years in office, while he still had majorities in the House and Senate. But he didn't do this, or pass legislation beefing up the right to organize unions, which has been eroded under Democrat and Republican administrations alike. 1 The 40 year war on drugs must continue, and even mention of the prison state is unthinkable. There are 2.3 million people in US prisons and jails today, a per capita total that beats the world. Politicians of both parties wag their fingers in multiple directions. But as Michelle Alexander points out, if the US prison population were rolled back to say, only 1 million, the level it was about 1980, this would mean one million jobs, as contractors, sheriffs, cops, bailiffs, judges and functionaries of all kinds would have to go out and find real jobs. The rabbit hole goes still deeper. We didn't have to stop at these fifteen points of Democrat-Republican agreement, but you get the idea. Just as in Frederick Douglass's day, the more Democrats and Republicans agree, the worse it is for the rest of us. There was a time when black America had its own principles, and formed the immovable leftmost rock of the American polity. But in the 21st century, that rock has been dissolved by a tide of corporate money. With the rise of a cohort of black corporate Democrats and a right wing black Democrat in the White House there is no longer even any vaguely leftish influence on Democratic party politics. The House Progressive Caucus is the biggest in Congress, with over seventy members, but is powerless and irrelevant. Except for stylistic flourishes, the music they listen to and the color of some faces, the differences between Republicans and Democrats seem to exist mostly in political marketing campaigns and inside our own heads. Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a member of the state committee of the Georgia Green Party. He can be reached at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com