Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Assorted Links and Stories, Listener Emails and More

Expand Messages
  • Violet Jones
    DISNEY, HITLER AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER Back in 1943, the New World Order was a bad thing, because Hitler was talking about it. Check out this Donald Duck
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 16, 2002
      Back in 1943, the New World Order was a bad thing, because Hitler was talking about it. 
      Check out this Donald Duck Disney short from 1943
      Donahue has apparently been covering some aspects of 9-11 that the mainstream won't touch.  A listener suggests you email donahueideas@..., donahue@... and encourage them to have Alex on as a guest (or to consult him about the cover-up).
      Checking freedom at the security checkpoint -- cartoon sent by a listener:
      Here's a great article we posted a couple days on infowars.com -- if you haven't read it yet, you should
      Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision
       Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

      Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision

      Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

      Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

      August 14 2002

      Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

      The complete article can be viewed at:
      w/regards to the gun-grab/snitch culture crossword for kids posted a couple of days ago on infowars.com:
      As of 12:30 pm central time  Wed 14 Aug
      Dare seems to have pulled it's Spy puzzle


      "To Resist Drugs & Violence"

      Under Construction

      We received a few responses about questions presented in the McGruff
      crossword puzzle originally shown on this page and it has been
      removed pending review of the original format/source.

      Biometric Firm Among Austin 9-11 Events Sponsors

      by Stefan Wray

      Aug. 14, 2002

      Austin, TX -- On Sept. 11 in Austin the 9/11 USA Project will host a series
      of events honoring the victims of Sept. 11. See the project's web site for a
      complete list of activities taking place that day (

      Primary event sponsors are the Travis County Sheriffs' Law Enforcement
      Association and the Austin Association of Professional Firefighters. And the
      lead event organizer is J.R. Gonzales, president of Austin-based JRG
      Communications, and vice chairman of the United States Hispanic Chamber of

      Among the event sponsors listed on 9/11 USA Project's web site is a company
      called CompuSol, Inc. Information about the Ft. Worth company on the 9/11
      USA Project doesn't tell you much. But a click onto CompuSol's home page is

      CompuSol is into Biometrics, and it has been for the past several years. A
      January 2000 article in the Dallas-Fort Worth Tech Biz says that CompuSol
      develops software for devices that use fingerprint, facial and voice
      recognition technology.

      Biometrics are a big deal in the post 9-11 ultra security environment. A
      recent Homeland Security plan coming from the White House calls for a
      "border of the future" between Mexico and the United States that according
      to an Aug. 5 American Forces Press Service story would "develop a state-
      of-the-art visa system through which visitors are identified by biometric
      information obtained during the visa application process."

      Biometric software and hardware firms must be ecstatic at the prospects for
      cashing in the implementation of the new Homeland Security regime. Surely
      CompuSol must have this in mind. After all, it's a business.

      The City of Austin is also a sponsor of this event. I wonder if the Mayor
      and City Council know who they are in bed with.


      Article: CompuSol puts biometrics in spotlight
      Post your Comments on Psychotropic Drugs and Kids on NYPost's Forum:
      What do you think about school systems recommending children be put on psychoactive drugs?

      The Bush administration’s compliance reports to a new Security Council committee show the extent to which we are now willing to let the United Nations dictate terms to us.

      UN Documents

      UN Resolution 1373
      U.S. Report to CTC - December 2001

      U.S. Report to CTC - June 2002

      With all the attention paid to the domestic war on terrorism and the dangers it poses to our liberties — the PATRIOT Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the TIPS program, and so forth — scant notice has been given to the United Nations’ international anti-terrorism campaign. Yet below the American public’s radar screen, the UN Security Council’s new Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) is trying to achieve on an international scale what measures like the PATRIOT Act are doing domestically: expand the reach and power of government — in this case, the UN’s embryonic world government — in the name of fighting terrorism. And the potential consequences for U.S. liberty are dire indeed.

      The Counter-Terrorism Committee was created by paragraph six of Security Council Resolution 1373, issued last September 28th in response to the September 11th attacks. The purpose of the CTC, in the words of 1373, is to "monitor implementation of this resolution." To allow the CTC to carry out this monitoring, UN member states are required to submit regular compliance reports to the CTC. The first round of such reports came in to the CTC from December 2001 through the early months of 2002 and, as we reported in the February 25th issue of The New American, the U.S. government was one of the first member states to submit its report on U.S. compliance with the Security Council’s new anti-terrorism guidelines. The U.S. report, dated December 19th, depicted the USA PATRIOT Act and other post 9-11 Bush initiatives as acts of compliance with UN demands in Resolution 1373.

      This first report was worrisome enough, since it showed the degree to which U.S. officials are now willing to let UN authorities dictate terms to us. But now there’s more. After receiving the first report, the CTC sent a more detailed, focused list of inquiries to the U.S. government and demanded a response by June 15th. The second U.S. compliance report, submitted in response, is truly scary stuff.

      Like the first report, the second is arranged as a series of responses to specific questions from the CTC on a range of domestic policies. The very first question pointedly asks: "Does the US have a specialist counter-terrorism body or is that the responsibility of a number of departments or agencies?" The report’s author meekly replies that the U.S. is now trying to create a Department of Homeland Security, a process that "will take time, especially since new legislation will be required." However, the report promises, "we will inform the CTC when these new changes are in place." In other words, the Bush administration considers the Department of Homeland Security an act of compliance with UN requirements, and will keep the UN informed of our progress. This kind of truckling to alleged UN authority speaks volumes about the Bush administration’s real attitude towards UN-centered internationalism, despite its occasional choreographed outbursts of anti-globalist rhetoric.

      But there’s more. Further on in the U.S. report, the CTC asks whether "natural or legal persons other than banks (e.g., attorneys, notaries, or other intermediaries) [are] required to report suspicious transactions to the public authorities." The U.S. compliance report explains that the Bank Secrecy Act gives our government broad power to spy on its citizens via banks, savings and loans, credit unions, and even the U.S. Postal Service, adding that the new PATRIOT Act requires the Treasury to issue a rule "requiring broker-dealers to file suspicious activity reports." Responding to whether the United States has "any means of monitoring financial activities, in particular fund-raising, by non-governmental associations or organizations," the U.S. report gives UN officials a long and detailed explanation of the U.S. tax code and the powers it confers on the federal government to monitor and control the activities of nonprofit and charitable institutions.

      Most alarming of all is a series sof questions that ought to give every American gun owner pause for thought. The CTC asks: "How does the United States control the establishment in its territory of paramilitary groups that have the potential to engage in terrorist activities?" Following that, under the heading "Weapons," the CTC presses the inquiry further: "What measures does the United States have to prevent terrorists [from] obtaining weapons in its territory, in particular small arms or light weapons? What is the United States legislation concerning the acquisition and possession of such weapons?" Following a long section in which the U.S. describes to UN officials the plethora of federal gun control laws on the books, the CTC asks: "Does the United States have any means of detecting at the local, as distinct from the national, level activities preparatory to a terrorist act? Are there agencies and procedures at the local level for monitoring sensitive activities, such as combat sports and shooting with light weapons, paramilitary training, the piloting of aircraft, biological laboratories, and the use of explosives for industrial purposes?" In other words, the UN would like to see our federal government empowered to keep tabs on local target shooters, private planes, and sundry other acts of potential "terrorist training."

      The second U.S. report to the CTC is in response to areas that CTC bureaucrats have already identified as being of special concern, based on their reading of the first report submitted last December. And it should be crystal clear from the CTC’s line of questioning that two areas of state power are particularly important to the UN, at least where America is concerned: Powers of surveillance over every conceivable private activity, from financial transactions to target shooting; and gun control.

      But the most frightening aspect of these dry reports is what they tell us about the post-September 11th relationship between the United States and the UN. UN officials have made no secret that they consider Resolution 1373 to be a turning point in the history of relations between the UN and member states. As paraphrased by a UN report, CTC chairman Jeremy Greenstock told the Security Council on June 27th that "the most important success of the Counter-Terrorism Committee to date was that it had directed widespread attention to the power of resolution 1373," and that "a broad range of international organizations and regional and subregional organizations were now aware that there was a global structure for countering terrorism, into which they should fit their activities.... The fact that the vast majority of Member States were now engaged with the Committee … and that all States recognized their responsibility to follow up resolution 1373 … was a massive change from the situation that had existed when the Committee was formed."

      It’s one thing for UN functionaries to make claims like this; it’s quite another when our government agrees with them. At the same Security Council meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte, responding to Greenstock’s comments, "reiterated the importance of all States abiding by their obligations under resolution 1373 … including the timely submission of reports. The second review would largely determine the impact that the Committee would have in the fight against terrorism." As described by the UN report, Negroponte added that "the resolution and the Committee had no time limits and would continue until the Council was satisfied with the resolution’s implementation."

      And that’s the real heart of the matter. The CTC is designed to accrue power over time, as so-called "soft law" — the dense, vaguely committal jargon of international "protocols" and "resolutions." It then morphs into "hard law" — the brass-tacks reality of enforceable national and international statutes and regulations. As Greenstock himself has pointed out regarding the work of the CTC, "we believe that there may always be further work to do to meet the objectives of the resolution against a constantly evolving background.... [W]e will want all States to remain in close contact with the Committee, and to inform the CTC of any new developments which are relevant to the implementation of 1373."

      What 1373 and the ongoing process of reporting to the CTC amount to is a never-ending sequence of reporting and reviewing, of subtle pressure brought to bear by the CTC against the U.S. to bring its laws into compliance with Security Council expectations. The second round of reviews currently under way is to be the stage where the CTC begins to ratchet up the pressure for "reforms"; in Greenstock’s words, "[during] the second review, the Committee intends to be more direct with the States in identifying gaps in the implementation of resolution 1373 and recommending appropriate action."

      All of this might seem irrelevant to a nation gearing up for yet another war in the Middle East, and naively secure behind the military might of the "world’s only superpower." But power is only as certain as those who wield it, and all indications are that America’s political leadership is committed to further empowering the UN, by allowing and even encouraging it to dictate terms to us in the name of combating terrorism. The globalists are clearly hoping to entangle America in the pernicious precedent of obeying UN edicts and to further condition us to continue surrendering our sovereignty.

      Sadly, many Americans see no harm in indulging the UN’s take-charge instincts, as long as we don’t see blue-helmeted troops swarming across the American landscape. But world government by overt conquest isn’t the UN’s game right now; world government by piecemeal, carefully-extracted consent is. Unfortunately for us, if we continue to allow our leaders to sell our sovereign birthright to the UN for the pottage of false security, the outcome will be the same as conquest by force.


      Military Scientists Developing Vaccines by Shooting Naked DNA Into Troops




      Hallo violet,

      Scientist's death haunts family
      By Fredric N. Tulsky
      Mercury News

      The death in 1953 of a government scientist, Frank Olson, in a fall
      from a New York hotel window, is one of the most notorious cases in
      CIA history.

      Only in 1975 did Olson's family learn that the CIA had slipped LSD
      into his drink, days before his death. President Ford apologized for
      an experiment gone awry, and promised that the government would
      everything about the case.

      But newly obtained documents show that the Ford administration
      continued to conceal information about Olson -- particularly his role
      in some of the CIA's most controversial research of the Cold War, on
      anthrax and other biological weapons.

      The documents show that two of the key officials involved in the
      decision to withhold that information were White House aides Dick
      Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, today the nation's vice president and
      secretary of defense.

      ``These documents show the lengths to which the government was trying
      to cover up the truth,'' said the scientist's son, Eric Olson, who
      gave them to the Mercury News. ``For 22 years there was a coverup.
      then, under the guise of revealing everything, there was a new

      Rumsfeld's office referred questions about the withholding of
      information to the CIA, where a media officer, Paul Nowack, said CIA
      activities related to Frank Olson's death were investigated by the
      Rockefeller Commission as well as subsequent congressional

      ``The CIA fully cooperated'' in those investigations, he said, and
      ``tens of thousands of documents were released.'' If anyone has new
      information, he said, ``they should contact appropriate

      Eric Olson has contended for years that his father was murdered to
      cover up his research for the CIA. At a news conference in Maryland
      today, he will reveal the results of his long inquiry into his
      father's death.

      The new documents do not prove those allegations. But they do show
      that the White House officials were concerned about any public
      revelation of Frank Olson's work.

      Contrary to the official explanation that Frank Olson was an Army
      scientist, Olson worked for the CIA, at the special-operations
      division at Fort Detrick, the Maryland laboratory where biological
      weapons were tested.

      Classified research

      Eric Olson said this week that a former colleague and friend of his
      father's contacted him last year and described some of the closely
      guarded work his father conducted.

      He said the colleague told him his father was among scientists
      studying the use of LSD and other drugs to enhance interrogations, as
      Cold War tensions ran high and Americans feared that captured
      had been brainwashed in Korea.

      In the months before his death, the colleague said, Frank Olson had
      gone to Europe, where he observed the interrogation of former Nazis
      and Soviet citizens at a secret U.S. base. And, the colleague said,
      Frank Olson had knowledge of the U.S. biological weapons program.

      Eric Olson contends that in the final days of his life, his father
      became morally distraught over his work and decided to quit.
      records show that agency officials were concerned that he was a
      security risk. Eric Olson believes that the thought of Frank Olson
      quitting was a motive for the government to want him dead.

      In 1993, Eric Olson arranged for his father's body to be unearthed
      examined by a forensic scientist, James Starrs. Starrs concluded that
      Frank Olson had probably been struck on the head and then thrown out
      of the hotel window.

      Starrs' conclusion is one of the tantalizing pieces that Eric Olson
      has gathered to support his belief that his father was murdered.
      Friday, satisfied that he has accomplished what he could, Olson
      intends to rebury the remains of his father.

      In late November 1953, Frank Olson, then 43, joined a group of
      government officials at a conference at Deep Creek Lodge in western
      Maryland. For days afterward, Olson was withdrawn. His son, Eric,
      his father told his wife that he intended to quit his job.

      But Frank Olson did not quit. And on Nov. 23 he went to New York with
      another government official, where he twice visited Harold A.
      Abramson, a doctor who was one of the first researchers to study the
      effects of LSD.

      Olson returned to Washington, then went back to New York on Nov. 28
      and checked into the Statler Hotel. He was scheduled to enter a
      sanitarium the next day.

      But early in the morning of Nov. 29, Frank Olson went through the
      window of the hotel room he was sharing with a colleague, Robert
      Lashbrook. Lashbrook told police that he was awakened by the sound of
      breaking glass.

      The Olson family knew little else. But in 1975, a commission headed
      Vice President Nelson Rockefeller issued a report on CIA abuses, and
      an account in the Washington Post included a mention of an Army
      scientist who jumped from a New York hotel room days after being
      slipped LSD in 1953.

      ``We realized they were talking about my father,'' Eric Olson
      recalled. Family members talked to reporters about their outrage and
      said they would sue the government. Days later, the family was
      to the White House to meet President Ford. He assured them that they
      would be given all information about what happened to Frank Olson.

      Soon after, family members were invited to lunch with CIA Director
      William Colby, who gave them a file of documents that amounted to the
      CIA investigation into Olson's death. But the documents left many
      questions unanswered about both his work and the circumstances of his

      The family was told that a lawsuit was unlikely to succeed. Instead,
      the administration promised to support a private bill in Congress,
      through which the family received $750,000 to resolve its claims.

      ``The express understanding was that the government had promised to
      give us all information, which clearly meant information about his
      work relationship with the CIA,'' the Olsons' attorney, David
      of Philadelphia, said this week. ``It now appears that was not the

      Son finds clues

      Over the years Eric Olson turned up many clues, real or coincidental.
      There was, for example, the assassination manual that the CIA
      declassified in connection with its Guatemala activities. The manual,
      created in the early 1950s, identified ``the contrived accident'' as
      ``the most effective technique'' of secret assassination.

      ``The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of
      75 feet or more onto a hard surface,'' the manual stated.

      Only recently Eric Olson obtained files from a University of
      California-Davis history professor that showed White House officials
      had intentionally withheld details of Frank Olson's death from the

      The professor, Kathryn Olmsted, came across the records at the Gerald
      Ford library. They included a memo from Dick Cheney, a White House
      assistant at the time, to Donald Rumsfeld, the chief of staff, on
      11, 1975, one day after the Olsons first held a news conference.

      The memo warned that a lawsuit could involve ``the possibility that
      might be necessary to disclose highly classified national-security
      information in connection with any court suit or legislative hearings
      on a private bill.''

      The documents also include memos written by White House counsel
      Roderick Hills to the president that were routed through Cheney and
      other officials. ``Dr. Olson's job is so sensitive that it is highly
      unlikely that we would submit relevant evidence'' to a court, Hills
      wrote, regarding a potential suit by the Olson family.

      ``If there is a trial, it is apparent that the Olsons' lawyer will
      seek to explore all of the circumstances of Dr. Olson's employment as
      well as those concerning his death. Thus, in the trial it may become
      apparent that we are concealing evidence for national-security
      and any settlement or judgment reached thereafter could be perceived
      as money paid to cover up the activities of the CIA.''

      As a result, Hills urged settling the case out of court.


      Lab mice get extra baggage


      Man set ablaze in critical condition


      Belgium checks 'Toy Army' claims


      $116 trillion lawsuit filed by 9/11 families


      'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'


      'He Should Be In Jail!'


      Cloning pets: In search of Fluffy 2.0


      U.S. sperm banks to give gift of life to the U.K.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.