IndyTruth Blog
Threats & Deception: Cheney plans his next terrorist attack 
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 09:08 PM - Foreign Policy, News, Opinion
Posted by Administrator
The world has been reminded once again this weekend of the disgusting hypocrisy of the Bush administration regarding the nuclear development of Iran.

Vice President Cheney told the Washington Institute for Near East Studies today, "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences."

He more simply put it to the American Israel Public Affairs March 7, 2006, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Ironically, less than a month before on February 13, 2006, The Raw Story reported that Valerie Plame, the CIA agent who's identity was revealed by the Vice President's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, "was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran."

Intelligence sources told Raw Story "that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation."

The Bush administration's outing of Valerie Plame through conservative columnist Robert Novak was allegedly retaliation for a New York Times op-ed by her husband Joseph Wilson, which asserted that White House officials twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

The Raw Story returned to that story this Saturday, discussing Plame's involvement in a "highly classified mission to deliver fake nuclear weapons blueprints to Tehran."

For a second time, a report about the Bush administration's sabotage of intelligence operations to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran has been followed by calls from Dick Cheney to aggressively hault Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

Earlier this week, Bush continued his pressure, saying "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel." This misquotation of the Iranian President has of course been discredited for many months now.

Bush went on, "So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," a quote reminiscent of "mushroom cloud" warnings preceding the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. President, your lies and your threats are once again exposed. Your wars for Israel end here.

I call on every American to rise and be heard. We must counter the Bush administration's threats with an equally aggressive force of information. Write to your Senators and Representative, your local newspaper and blog, and make sure your friends and associates know too.

Bush is setting up for a preemptive strike against Iran, just like he has done with Iraq. His entire justification is based on lies, which he accompanies with images intended to intimidate those who would otherwise use logic to oppose him.

Many of our Senators and Representatives are part of this terror campaign, included most of the leading candidates for the 2008 presidential election. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, Edwards. Their names should ring with the same shreaking tone of Osama bin Laden. The "War on Terror" is being conducted by terrorists.

add comment ( 7 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Terminator: [Eyes] of the Machines 
Sunday, September 30, 2007, 09:49 PM - News
Posted by Administrator
Telecommunications giant AT&T has recently updated its Legal Policy to say "AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service ... for conduct that AT&T believes ... tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

Since termination of service "also constitutes termination ... of your license to use any Software," you could also assume the router and any hardware purchased upon installation to be useless. If that isn't enough money to waste, consider the startup cost of a new service, that is if you do not live in a neighborhood such as mine, which is monopolized by the company. Further, imagine if you spent 600 dollars on an iPhone, exclusively available on AT&T's wireless network, before AT&T decided to terminate your service.

As an AT&T customer, I am curious to know what qualifies as "conduct that tends to damage the name or repuation of AT&T." I personally believe it should be the constitutional defenition of slander. But, could speaking the truth be enough for them to terminate your service? Let's find out...

In January of 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T, accusing the company of "violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications."

"This configuration appears to have the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic," wrote J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC. AT&T has 15 to 20 rooms around the country capable of monitoring nearly 10 percent of purely domestic internet traffic.

USA Today reported in May 2006 that the NSA was "secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth."

One of USA Today's sources called it "the largest database ever assembled in the world," adding that the NSA's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the United States.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

USA Today reported that AT&T and the other companies were "working under contract with the NSA."

If AT&T's new termination policy is to quell criticism of its "Big Brother" program, then they could terminate services from Wired, USA Today, countless other mainstream media outlets, the EFF, and IndyTruth. But are these messengers damaging the reputation of AT&T, or is the company damaging its own reputation through its creepy surveillance? Perhaps, AT&T should read its own termination policy and terminate itself.

As always, surveillance programs will not scare me from speaking my mind. Company policies or even U.S. Law will not discourage me from exposing the truth. AT&T and the NSA are illegally spying on American citizens. No spokesman's claim will shroud the crime. No threats of "termination" will suppress the concerned public. Big government and big business will never fully succeed in databasing all human behavior. Liberty will prevail.

Submitted by Douglass.
add comment ( 11 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
The Truth About Iran 
Tuesday, September 4, 2007, 07:37 PM - Foreign Policy, News
Posted by Administrator
A source within the neoconservative movement revealed last week that Vice President Cheney has planned a campaign to rally support for attacking Iran. Taking place during the week after Labor Day, the campaign would use the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox and others to "assault on the airwaves" and "knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained." Cheney intends for his propaganda to bring support for a war up to 35-40% (apparently he does not need a majority). To counter Cheney's week of lies, we bring you the truth about Iran.

Like every single other nation in the world including the United States, Iran has crime, corruption, tyranny, religious fanaticism, basic rights which are not fully protected, and many policies which people disagree with. Two things that Iran does not have -- and the U.S. does -- are nuclear weapons and an aggressive foreign policy.

Iran is one of the fastest growing nations in the "third world." Growth requires energy. Plants grow from sunlight, animals from food. A nation uses electrical energy. For a highly developed nation, most of that comes from coal (50% in America, 80% in China). China is primarily using coal to develop, building two power plants a week. As a result, 6,000 Chinese miners died in 2004, and China's CO2 emissions rose by 9% last year.

According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), more than 98% of primary energy in Iran is derived from oil and gas resources. Only a fraction of the nation's coal is exploitable, and at a very high cost. Solar and wind power are very expensive and far less productive, leaving the IAEA to conclude, the "nuclear option is the most competitive to fossil alternatives."

The IAEA was established by the United Nations to promote "safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies." The UN also created the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was signed by the United States, Iran, and over a hundred other countries. The NPT asserts "the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

Building nuclear power plants does not give a country nuclear weapons capability. In fact, production of weapons-grade nuclear material is a more expensive and complex process than enrichment for electrical energy. A country must either convert an existing nuclear facility or construct a small, dedicated facility to produce weapon-grade material. It is a lengthy process of converting large quantities of 3% material to small quantities of 90% material. It would be very difficult to complete this process without the detection of the IAEA.

Just last Tuesday, the IAEA reported "significant" cooperation from Iran with its nuclear probe. Tehran has slowed uranium enrichment, and are adhering to a "strict timetable" revealing the progress and intentions of the program. Rather than commend Iran's cooperation with the UN, the Bush administration plans to "ratchet up the pressure." Making a fool of himself, State Department spokesman Tom Casey urged Tehran to "serve the real needs of their people instead of trying to pursue a nuclear weapon." The State Department is apparently not capable of clicking on IAEA.Org and reading the UN documents which indicate that Iran needs electricity.

There is no proof of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Nearly all of the evidence suggests it is only peaceful nuclear energy within the limits of the NPT. On the side of the accusations are the speculations of UN officials who are not in the IAEA and therefore not experts on nuclear development, and members of the Bush administration, the people who lied about weapons of mass destruction -- including nuclear weapons -- to go to war with Iraq.

If the lies are not enough, let's examine the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's criticisms. In March of last year, President Bush signed a controversial deal with India, giving the country "access to U.S. civil nuclear technology." Sharing civil nuclear technology complies with the NPT, and is even encouraged by it, but President bush is sharing the technology with a country that has not signed the treaty. India has no legal obligation to obey the NPT.

Bush and many other U.S. politicians including most of the Republican and Democrat "top-tier" candidates for the 2008 presidential election refuse to take the nuclear option "off the table" for dealing with countries such as Iran.

The other significant piece of the Iran conflict is the Bush administration's claim that Iran supports terror and is a threat to the United States.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that "Iranian weapons are falling into the hands of anti-government Taliban fighters," and that the Irani government "likely" knows about it. He would not directly accuse the government, because it would be absurd. The Irani government has long disapproved of the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, and a Shi'ite power would not want to arm a neighboring Sunni power.

This is where the Bush administration's hypocrisy is most troubling. ABC News reported in May that the Central Intelligence Agency "received secret presidential approval to mount a covert 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government." The CIA "supported and encouraged" Jundullah, a militant group "that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran." Based in Afghanistan, Jundullah primarily targets pro-U.S. rulers in Pakistan. It also works for al-Qaeda's media wing, the al-Sahab Foundation. Jundullah is allegedly headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda operational commander of the September 11th attacks.

To reiterate, President Bush authorizes a CIA operation supporting al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out 9/11.

While Iran is slowing its uranium enrichment, the Bush administration continues to condemn its nuclear program and make it out to be the weapons program that it is not. Iran is complying with the IAEA and the NPT, while the U.S. is violating the treaty by threatening Iran's "inalienable right," and sharing technology with a nation that has not signed the treaty. The hypocrisy of the situation is made even more disturbing by the President's direct support of al-Qaeda terrorists.

As Vice President Cheney floods the media with propaganda this week, look back to the truths revealed in this paper. Call Congress and let them know that they must not allow this administration to attack a sovereign nation. Inform everyone you know and care about that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, that Bush is the terrorist, and that Cheney's campaign is a pack of lies aimed at further death, destruction, and destabilization of the Middle East.

Submitted by Douglass. Posted with footnotes at IndyTruth.Org.
3 comments ( 20 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
American Hero Russo Passes 
Friday, August 24, 2007, 11:31 PM - Media, News
Posted by Administrator
A great American hero passed away today, and you sadly will not likely see him recognized in the national mainstream media. Aaron Russo was a great entertainer, bringing Led Zeppelin on their first American tour and promoting The Who, Janis Joplin, The Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane. He also worked with Bette Midler, Lionel Hampton, Manhattan Transfer, and others. He went on to become a Hollywood producer for movies like "The Rose", "Trading Places", and "Teachers". He has received Grammy, Tony, Emmy, and Golden Globe awards and produced gold and platinum records.

In 2004, he started working on a documentary film investigating the Internal Revenue Service. It started with proving that there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor (the federal income tax). It went into the central banks' profit off America's debts. He finally discovered that it was part of a system placing virtually all the power in America into the hands of a few wealthy and evil men. His film is a grand awakening to the fascist police state overtaking our country.

After his rise to fame and fortune, Russo was in a position where he could have enjoyed the protection and pleasure of the elite. He instead produce a film that would expose them for their evil and awaken thousands and hopefully soon millions of Americans to the destruction of their Constitutional rights and their country. The film, "America: Freedom to Fascism" would appear in theaters around the country, before becoming a hit on DVD and Internet. It has inspired thousands of people to take a stand in defense of freedom.

Aaron Russo is an American patriot and one of the greatest heroes of our time. He will be missed by all who enjoyed the music and movies he produced, and by those fighting to restore the Constitution and bring liberty back to America. He died of cancer today at age 64.

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" free on Google video: ... ;plindex=0

Or buy the DVD at
add comment ( 9 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Barack Obama's globalist, neoconservative foreign policy 
Friday, August 3, 2007, 01:46 AM - Elections, Foreign Policy, Globalism, News, Opinion
Posted by Administrator
It's official. Barack Obama has declared his globalist candidacy.

Obama has offered his views on foreign policy to the journal Foreign Affairs, published by none other than the Council on Foreign Relations. In doing so, he has pledged his allegiance not to the United States of America, but to the New World Order.

The August Review writes,

Prior to the founding of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was the most significant body of global-minded elitists in the United States. As far back as 1959, the CFR was explicit about a need for world government.

This is the organization that published "Building a North American Community", the document notorious for announcing the establishment of a North American Union. The CFR's agenda is the elimination of America's borders, sovereignty and democracy. If they have their way, there will be one world government. No more U.S. Constitution. Global fascism.

To be President of the United States, one must be a member or at least have the approval of the CFR and/or it's "twin" or extension the Trilateral Commission. Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and Vice Presidents George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney were all members of the Trilateral Commission. President George W. Bush carried out the CFR's "North American Community" plan through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Senator Obama intends to advance their agenda as well if he is elected to the Presidency.

"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent [by the Bush administration]," Obama writes, "many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America."

He puts it more clearly, "the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders." This is the very idea that led us into Iraq, fighting the "War on Terror" over there, so that we don't have to fight it here. How has that policy worked out? We have created more terrorism and killed hundreds of thousands by invading Iraq. We have killed more civilians than terrorists in our operations in Afghanistan (Obama wants "to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces").

For "America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace [in the Middle East]," Obama writes, "Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy." Obama wants to continue arming Israel, as a means of reaching peace in the Middle East. His plan for peace is to arm the country in the region which has the most aggressive foreign policy.

Of course, Obama intends for America to have an aggressive foreign policy as well. "88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas," he complains, clarifying that our defense, our "national guard" will operate through operations abroad. Our National Guard working abroad under the Bush administration has certainly not been good for America. Catastrophe's on the homeland which equal and perhaps surpass those caused by terrorism, such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota, could certainly have been handled better with more National Guard present. 88 percent of our National Guard do not need to be "ready to deploy overseas," they need to be here, protecting our borders and responding to emergencies.

On the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, Obama calls on "George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn," globalist neoconservatives who were the leading foreign policy influences on the Bush administration.

"Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners," he says. He aims to "show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations." Sanctions certainly did nothing to engage the economy or assure security and diplomatic relations in Iraq. Certainly they will not do the same for Iran.

His concern that "It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy," neglects the fact that Imam Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, condemned weapons of mass destruction and specifically nuclear weapons:

If they continue to make huge atomic weapons and so forth, the world may be pushed into destruction and the major loss will afflict the nations. Everybody, where he is, the writers, intellectuals and scholars and scientists throughout the world should enlighten the people of this danger, so that the masses of people will standup vis-à-vis these two powers themselves and prevent the proliferation of these arms.

Nuclear weapons are considered prohibited and against the Islamic Law. As this blog has previously demonstrated, Iran is in compliance with the NPT, while the U.S. and Obama's good friend Israel violate it in many ways.

Obama's intention "to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security" sounds right out of the CFR's own documents encouraging globalization. These are the alleged goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which we could expect Obama to uphold in his administration.

Obama certainly intends to invest great resources into foreign "nation-building." he hopes to "build accountable institutions that deliver services and opportunity: strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, honest police forces, free presses, vibrant civil societies."

Senator Obama, how do we "spur development in poor countries" when employment and wages are in decline in our our country? How is your policy of using the military, National Guard, and other resources abroad any different than President Bush's?

Barack Obama's foreign policy is in tune with President Bush's. He will build up trade agreements, international authorities, the U.S. military, and foreign aid in a manner costly to American taxpayers and neglecting the core of America's foreign policy problem, the fact that other nations disrespect our imperialism.

Obama demonstrated his allegiance to the globalists by writing his piece for the CFR's Foreign Affairs. He declared in the essay his commitment to maintain the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. A candidate such as Obama is not sufficient to restore America's internation reputation, security, and domestic welfare. Few candidates are. The next President of the United States must strictly reverse the policies of the Bush administration, the neoconservatives and the Council on Foreign Relations. Barack Obama will not be that president.

Submitted by Douglass.
2 comments ( 45 views )   |  permalink   |  related link

<< <Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next> >>