Tag Archive: Jimmy Carter


ImageSource

*********************************************************************************************

George W. Bush tops list of ex-presidents’ expenses in 2012 at $1.3 million

 Dallas Morning News

By JOSH LEDERMAN

Associated Press

Published: 26 March 2013 06:47 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton’s 8,300-square-foot Harlem office near the Apollo Theater costs taxpayers nearly $450,000. George W. Bush spends $85,000 on telephone fees, and another $60,000 on travel. Jimmy Carter sends $15,000 worth of postage – all on the government’s dime.

The most exclusive club in the world has a similarly exclusive price tag – nearly $3.7 million, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. That’s how much the federal government spent last year on the four living ex-presidents and one presidential widow.

Topping the list in 2012 was George W. Bush, who got just over $1.3 million last year.

Under the Former Presidents Act, previous inhabitants of the Oval Office are given an annual pension equivalent to a Cabinet secretary’s salary – about $200,000 last year, plus $96,000 a year for a small office staff. Taxpayers also pick up the tab for other items like staff benefits, travel, office space and postage.

The $3.7 million taxpayers shelled out in 2012 is about $200,000 less than in 2011, and the sum in 2010 was even higher. It’s a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions the federal government spends each year.

Still, with ex-presidents able to command eye-popping sums for books, speaking engagements and the like in their post-White House years, the report raises questions about whether the U.S. should provide such generous subsidies at a time when spending cuts and the deficit are forcing lawmakers and federal agencies to seek ways to cut back.

Read Full Article Here

**************************************************************************************************************************************

Report: George W. Bush has most expenses among former presidents for 2012

By Josh Lederman, Published: March 25

Being the leader of the free world is an expensive proposition. And the costs don’t stop once you leave the White House.The government spent nearly $3.7 million on former presidents in 2012, according to an analysis released by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. That covers a pension, compensation and benefits for office staffers, and other costs.

The costliest former president? George W. Bush, who clocked in last year at just more than $1.3 million.

The $3.7 million taxpayers shelled out in 2012 is about $200,000 less than in 2011. All of it is a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions the federal government spends each year.

Still, former presidents are able to command eye-popping sums for books, speaking engagements and the like in their post-White House years, and the report comes at a time when spending cuts and the deficit are forcing lawmakers and federal agencies to cut back.

Under the Former Presidents Act, previous inhabitants of the Oval Office are given a $200,000 annual pension — the equivalent to a Cabinet secretary’s salary — plus $96,000 a year for a small office staff. The government also picks up the tab for costs such as travel, office space and postage.

Departing presidents get additional help in the first years after they leave office, one reason Bush’s costs were higher than those of other living former presidents. The most recent president to leave the White House, Bush was granted almost $400,000 for 8,000 square feet of office space in Dallas, plus $85,000 in telephone costs. Another $60,000 went to travel costs.

Read Full Article Here

**************************************************************************************************************************************

Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five-star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations

By Daily Mail Reporter
Created 3:33 PM on 24th August 2011

The Obamas’ summer break on Martha’s Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.

But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.

White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers’ money on vacations alone in the past year.

Expensive taste: Michelle Obama, pictured yesterday in West Tisbury, Massachusetts, has been accused of spending $10m of public money on vacationsExpensive taste: Michelle Obama, pictured yesterday in Massachusetts, has been accused of spending $10m of public money on vacations

Branding her ‘disgusting’ and ‘a vacation junkie’, they say the 47-year-old mother-of-two has been indulging in five-star hotels, where she splashes out on expensive massages and alcohol.

The ‘top source’ told the National Enquirer: ‘It’s disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position while the most hardworking Americans can barely afford a week or two off work.

‘When it’s all added up, she’s spent more than $10million in taxpayers’ money on her vacations.’

His and her jets: The President and his wife, who are spending nine days on Martha's Vineyard, have come under fire for travelling on separate planesHis and her jets: The President and his wife, who are spending nine days on Martha’s Vineyard, have come under fire for travelling on separate planes

The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.

And the first family’s nine-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.

The source continued: ‘Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

‘The vacations are totally Michelle’s idea. She’s like a junkie. She can’t schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next – all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.’

The Obama administration was forced to pull a warning about racism in Spain - just as the First Lady arrived in the country for a summer holidayTraveling in style: Mrs Obama during her $375,000 trip to Spain last year

*************************************************************************************************************************************

federal spending

Spending is at record levels and is still growing, threatening economic freedom.

Heritage.org

  • federal-spending-per-household

    Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing
  • growth-federal-spending-revenue

    Federal Spending Exceeds Federal Revenue by More than $1 Trillion
  • growth-federal-spending

    Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income
  • federal-budget-vs-household-budget

    What if Families Handled Finances Like the Federal Government Does?
  • mandatory-discretionary-spending

    Mandatory Spending Has Increased Nearly Six Times Faster than Discretionary Spending
  • runaway-spending-tax-revenue

    Runaway Spending, Not Inadequate Tax Revenue, Is Responsible for Future Deficits
  • defense-entitlement-spending

    Medicare and Other Entitlements Are Crowding Out Spending on Defense
  • national-defense-spending

    National Defense Spending Would Plummet Under Obama’s Budget
  • budget-control-act

    Budget Control Act Sequestration Would Hit Defense Hardest
  • budget-and-defense

    Obama Budget Would Make Defense the Lowest Budget Priority
  • budget-entitlement-programs

    More than Half of All Federal Spending Will Be on Entitlement Programs in 2012
  • welfare-spending

    Total Welfare Spending Is Rising Despite Attempts at Reform
  • federal-spending-dependence-programs

    More than 70 Percent of Federal Spending Goes to Dependence Programs
  • saving-american-dream

    Cut Spending, Fix the Debt, and Restore Prosperity
    *******************************************************************************************************************************

    The two parties of Big Government

    NetRightDaily

    By Rebekah Rast — Would the author of the New Deal be pleased with the state of Social Security 80 years later?  Did President Johnson, when approving of the Medicare amendment in 1965, know of the volatility of such a program and the government dependency it would create?

    While Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Johnson did what they thought best for the nation at the time, they must have known that to inject even a little government spending into peoples’ personal lives would only lead to more spending and a new kind of government dependency.

    And that is exactly what has happened. Almost 60 percent of all federal spending is now dedicated to so-called “mandatory” spending, which includes entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.  In 1960, entitlement payments accounted for well under a third of the federal government’s total outlays, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Because this government largesse can no longer be afforded, entitlement programs are in trouble.  Projections have shown that if not dealt with Medicare as we know it might not be around in the next decade, with the trust fund set to run out in 2024.

    Both sides of the political aisle see fit to fund a federal health insurance program for America’s seniors, and both sides champion a need for some kind of reform to save it.

    Read Full Article Here

    ******************************************************************************************************************

    Taxpayers subsidize big banks handing out $83 bln annually


    AllNewsPlace

    Published on Mar 25, 2013

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the risks of having banks that are too big to fail on Tuesday. According to a recent Bloomberg study, some of the biggest banks are receiving $83 billion in subsidies each year. Bernanke appeared before the Senate Banking Committee and was forced to answer whether or not these financial institutions should be forced to reimburse taxpayers for the bailouts. Anthony Randazzo, director of economic research with the Reason Foundation, breaks down the numbers.

    *******************************************************************************************************************

About these ads

Meet Zbigniew Brzezinski, Conspiracy Theorist

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
via  Sott.net
Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:16 CST

They believe that false flag terror events are used to justify wars of aggression on political enemies. They believe that humanitarian rhetoric is used to mask military aggression, as in Syria. In short, they are realistic observers of world politics, just like Zbigniew Brzezinski. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we hear all about the conspiratorial view of history straight from the horse’s mouth.

Comment: This is the same Zbigniew Brzezinski who personally saw to it that the information contained in Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil, Adjusted for Political Purposes, would not see the light of day for another 20 years:

Ponerology

Once the book was completed in 1984 and a suitable translation made into English, he was unable to get it published. The psychology editors told him it was “too political”, and the political editors told him it was “too psychological”. He enlisted the help of his compatriot, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had just previously served as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser and who initially praised the book and promised to help get the book published. Unfortunately, after some time spent corresponding Brzezinski became silent, responding only to the effect that it was a pity it hadn’t worked out. In Łobaczewski’s words, “he strangled the matter, treacherously”.18

‘Ponerology 101: Lobaczewski and the origins of Political Ponerology’

A particularly useful chink in the conspirators’ armor is knowledge about how they think.

For all his wishful thinking and unflinching self-belief, Brzezinski apparently realized this (well, maybe ‘sensed’ is a more appropriate term) …

They have already figured out what makes us tick. That’s why they deploy ‘shock therapy‘, ‘perception management‘ and ‘limbic warfare‘ against whole populations all the time. This is, after all, what ‘psychological operations’ are all about.

To stand a fighting chance of meeting them on the battlefield of ideas, it is crucial that we arm ourselves with knowledge of what psychopaths are and how psychopathy infects everything.

Published on Nov 29, 2012

Abby Martin Breaks the Set on US Foreign Policy, Palestinian Statehood, Jimmy Carter and the erosion of the rule of law.
LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin

EPISODE BREAKDOWN: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin returns from her trip to Haiti and goes over her interview with former US President Jimmy Carter and their discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the erosion of the rule of law in the US. Abby then speaks to William Blum, Historian and Author of ‘America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy’ speaking about the history of US interventionism around the world and the brainwashing of America.

 

 

Former US President Carter slams drone attacks

By: INP 

WASHINGTON – Former US President Jimmy Carter has slammed American drone strikes in other countries, stating that killing civilians in such attacks would infact nurture terrorism.

“I personally think we do more harm than good by having our drones attack some potential terrorists who have not been tried or proven that they are guilty,” Carter said in an interview with Russia Today.

“But in the meantime, the drone attacks also kill women and children, sometimes in weddings… so this is the kind of thing we should correct,” he added. Carter, who served as US President from 1976 to 1980, also criticized incumbent American policy makers for violating the country’s “long-standing policy” of “preserving the privacy of US citizens.” “We now pass laws that permit eavesdropping on private phone calls and private communication,” he noted, explaining that in the past, in order to do that, the government had to obtain a court ruling that proved the nation’s national security was at risk, “which was very rare, but now it’s done all over America.”

“We need to back off [and] restore basic human rights as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” he stated.

 

 

Former president Jimmy Carter OK with legalizing marijuana

 

Former President Jimmy Carter is shown. | AP Photo

Carter noted that when he was president, he wanted to decriminalize marijuana. | AP Photo

 

CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux asked Carter whether he supported marijuana’s legalization during a forum hosted by The Captain Planet Foundation on Friday in Georgia.

“I’m in favor of it. I think it’s OK,” Carter told Malveaux. “I don’t think it’s going to happen in Georgia yet, but I think we can watch and see what happens in the state of Washington for instance around Seattle and let the American government and let the American people see does it cause a serious problem or not.”

Washington and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana last month, becoming the first two states to do so, putting state laws at odds with federal laws. U.S. officials remain critical of the laws passing.

Carter said that decriminalizing drugs doesn’t necessarily mean more drug users.

“All drugs were decriminalized in Portugal a few years ago and the use of drugs has gone down dramatically and nobody has been put in prison,” Carter said.

 

 

Read Full Article Here

 

Benghazi-Gate: Look Who’s Afraid to Testify At the Hearing . . .

Susanne Posel, Contributor
Activist Post

Victoria Nuland, mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, revealed that although “[Clinton] was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the Chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week.”

In response, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, stated to the US State Department that:

While I understand that investigations by the FBI and the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board are ongoing, it is imperative that this Committee, having direct oversight responsibility, be kept informed every step of the way of developments in the matter. [P]lease be prepared to present State Department officials to testify on these issues when Congress reconvenes later this month.

The US State Department has permitted Senators to view sensitive documents concerning Benghazi and Stevens’ death; however the agency refuses to allow those documents to be taken home by the elected officials. According to David Adams, State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs:

We are currently in the process of gathering and reviewing record responsive to Congressional requests. Our efforts have already identified a large volume of potentially responsive records that address the security situation leading up to the attack.

Last month, Clinton assured House Representative Darrell Issa, at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the US State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) was building their core members. Nuland also confirmed that the ARB was “getting down to business.”
Originally, Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of State for Management, was purported to have denied US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’ 20 requests for more security at the gated-villa in Benghazi.

Kennedy arrived at the HOGR meeting with a pre-written statement which read (in part):

The Department of State regularly assesses risk and allocation of resources for security; a process which involves the considered judgments of experienced professionals on the ground and in Washington, using the best information available. The assault that occurred on the evening of September 11, however, was an unprecedented attack by dozens of heavily armed men.

Then the story changes as Clinton publicly took partial responsibility in the vein of appearing to save the Obama administration as if she were throwing herself into political harm’s way.

She admitted that the executive branch of government is not involved in security decisions. Clinton continues:

Nobody wants to get answers more than I do. These were people who I care deeply about. I knew Chris Stevens. I asked him personally to be in Benghazi during the revolution. I personally nominated him to be ambassador because I couldn’t think of a better person to represent the United States: Somebody who understood what was at stake for Libya what was at stake for U.S. I saw how these revolutions could be so positive or hijacked. He understood that. He was instrumental in working with Libyans. I care deeply about what happened that night.

The mainstream propaganda began circulating a story that Obama had planned to trade the Blind Sheik for Stevens after a faked kidnapping. The story touts Obama’s desire to recreate former US President Jimmy Carter’s success and ultimate sympathy gained by the American public for the Iranian hostage crisis.

Finally, Clinton announced that she would be leaving her position at the US State Department the day after Obama was re-elected; citing that she was tired and needed to take a break.

 

Read  Full Article Here

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Politics :  Debates -  Polls

Obama’s Approval Rating Soars To Its Highest Point In Three Years

Brett LoGiurato

Barack Obama

AP

In the midst of a painful news cycle after last night’s debate, President Barack Obama received a bright sign for re-election. His Gallupapproval rating hit 54 percent, jumping to its highest level since November 2009.His approval rating soared four points from the previous day in Gallup’s three-day rolling average. The last time he matched that came in the Nov. 11-13, 2009 period.

The 54-percent mark puts Obama well above the “safe” 50-percent threshold for an incumbent’s re-election.

Obama’s highest mark this year came in the sunny aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, when he reached 52 percent. Then it tanked, and since then it has fluctuated wildly.

Here’s why the 50 percent threshold is important, per Gallup managing editor Jeffrey M. Jones:

The 50% approval mark is significant because post-World War II incumbent presidents who have been above 50% job approval on Election Day were easily re-elected. Presidents with approval ratings below 50% have more uncertain re-election prospects. Historically, two presidents below 50% in their final approval rating before the election — George W. Bush and Harry Truman — won, and three, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, lost.

George W. Bush’s approval rating at this point in 2004 was only at 50 percent, so comparatively, Obama is in good shape.

In the Gallup daily tracking poll, Obama leads Romney 49-45. That was unchanged from the previous day.

Published on Jul 3, 2012 by

PBS home video documents the bitter 50-year war between the Israelis and Arabs. This program begins with the 1947 decision of the U.N. to partition Palestine. In 1948 and 1967, Arab armies were defeated as Israel struggled for statehood. The film follows the development of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The final episode features the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the 1978 Camp David Peace Accord, the 1987 Palestinian uprising, the 1993 Oslo Agreement, and continuing attempts to solidify this unstable relationship. Featured in this documentary are Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Shamir of Israel; King Hussein of Jordan; Yasir Arafat from the Palestine Authority; Hafez al-Assad of Syria; Jafaar Numeiry of Sudan; and American Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Jimmy Carter. The 50 Years War: Israel and the Arabs follows a half-century of war, struggles, and negotiations.

The conflict in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbors is given comprehensive treatment in this two-video set produced by PBS. Using archival footage and extensive interviews with participants, the production begins by explaining conditions in Palestine at the end of World War II and the crisis created by the exodus of European Jews who went to the Middle East after the Holocaust. The withdrawal of the British, who had controlled Palestine for decades, is detailed, as is the creation of the state of Israel. Much of the region’s history is complex, with the local struggles being conducted at times as a part of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, but these videos do an admirable job of explaining the complexities of the situation. The segment on the Six Day War, for example, is masterful, with the scenes shifting from Israel to Egypt to Washington to Moscow, the story developing before the viewer’s eyes. The 50 Years War is often a tale of mistrust and betrayal, but this production strives to present a balanced view of history, and is not only impressive for its command of the facts but for its skillful and often dramatic presentation of history

Leading statesmen, generals, terrorists and others who made the headlines in one of history’s most bitter and enduring struggles tell the story of the Arab-Israeli conflict in The 50 Years War: Israel and the Arabs. Opening with the U.N decision to partition Palestine in 1947, the program charts the ensuing half-century of enmity, warfare, mediation and negotiation.

Among the current and former heads of state and prime ministers interviewed or featured in the series are Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir of Israel; King Hussein of Jordan; Yasir Arafat of the Palestine Authority; Hafez al-Assad of Syria; Jafaar Numeiry of Sudan; and U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and Jimmy Carter. Also appearing are foreign ministers, defense ministers, commanders in the field, heads of intelligence and guerrilla leaders, as well as high-ranking officials in the United States and the former Soviet Union.

“Disable the purveyors”: Is US secretly liquidating dissidents?

 

Press TV

By Kevin Barrett

A government that extra-judicially murders, disappears, and tortures its own citizens should clean up its own act before it criticizes other nations. The US should heed former President Carter and start obeying its own Constitution if it wants to have any credibility on human rights.

Will writing this article put me on a US government hit list? Twenty years ago, such a question would have sounded absurd. Today, with the USA becoming more of a banana republic every day, it sounds increasingly realistic.

There are worse places to be a dissident than the USA.

In many countries, people who cross the line in opposing the government risk incarceration, torture, or murder.

Until recently, it was hard for American dissidents to cross that line. If they wanted to get arrested for saying something subversive, mere ideas weren’t enough; they would have to actually threaten to physically harm the President or another high official.

But the post-9/11 USA is no longer a beacon of human rights. As former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote in the New York Times, “The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.” In his article, Carter points out that top US officials are now openly targeting US citizens for political assassination, “disappearance,” unlimited surveillance, and other forms of gross human rights abuse.

Since we now know that a secret National Security committee is ordering the murder of American citizens, and since we know the CIA has the power to easily simulate deaths from illness and accident, we might as well assume that every time a dissident dies unexpectedly, he or she has been murdered by the US government.

Consider the chilling words of Obama’s information czar Cass Sunstein, who openly advocates that the US government should “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” Sunstein’s article “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures” argues that “conspiracy theories” (by which he means the 9/11 truth movement) are so dangerous that the government should “cognitively infiltrate” 9/11 truth groups, “disable” those who spread these ideas, and possibly even make the ideas illegal.

One way to “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories” is to terrorize them with death threats. This is precisely what happened recently in Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia.

On June 13, Dr. James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, was scheduled to speak at the University Heights Community Center in Seattle. Shortly before the event, the Community Center received a letter that read:

“Community Center, the 9/11 truth event on June 13th is going to be attacked to Kill Jim Fetzer because he says ‘Space Beams’ brought down the Twin Towers. The attack may be a bomb or fire bomb or maybe just gun fire. The Bombing may come at a future date to pay you back for supporting the 9/11 truth movement. Kill Jim Fetzer and the 9/11 truth movement. Kill Jim Fetzer (repeated 6 times). Kill University Heights Community Center (repeated twice) Kill you now.”

Detective Kerry Hays of the Seattle Police Department is currently investigating the case.

The Community Center hastily canceled Dr. Fetzer’s talk. Fortunately, an alternate venue was found at the last minute.

Then a few days later, a similar death threat was emailed to the owner of the Denman Theater in Vancouver, British Columbia, where Dr. Fetzer was organizing the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings. This time, the threat named me and Press TV Canadian correspondent Joshua Blakeney as well as Dr. Fetzer. Fortunately, the theater owner was too busy hosting the event to read his email, so he did not become aware of the threat until the Hearings were over.

Death threats are one way to “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” Actual assassinations are another.

A long list of people who were trying to expose the truth of 9/11 have met with untimely, suspicious deaths. Barry Jennings, the deputy director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority on 9/11, appears to have been murdered after speaking publicly about explosions he witnessed that partly demolished World Trade Center Building 7 on the morning of 9/11. (The demolition of WTC-7, begun in the morning, was completed shortly after 5:20 that afternoon, after WTC owner Larry Silverstein and colleagues “made the decision to pull” the building according to Silverstein’s own statement.)

Another 9/11 truth advocate and eyewitness, Dr. David Graham of Shreveport, Louisiana, was murdered – apparently by the FBI – for writing a book about two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, who were obvious intelligence assets controlled by people at Barksdale Air Force Base. Graham was poisoned with ethelene glycol (antifreeze). The case is discussed in Sander Hicks’ new book Slingshot to the Juggernaut.

It might be objected that Jennings and Graham were murdered because they were eyewitnesses to a State Crime Against Democracy, or SCAD, not because they were dissidents. Is there any evidence that the US government (or a rogue network infiltrating it) is “disabling the purveyors” of dangerous ideas by killing or otherwise physically harming them, even if they are not eyewitnesses?

Mike Ruppert, the original leader of the 9/11 truth movement, writes that his office was attacked by microwave and/or EMF weapons after he began publishing critiques of the official story of 9/11. The attacks may have contributed to Ruppert’s poor health and distraught frame of mind, which led him to quit the 9/11 truth movement and temporarily flee the USA in 2006.

Another early 9/11 truth advocate, publisher Byron Belitsos, told me that he and many other 9/11 truth organizers in California were targeted by EMF or microwave weapons during the first years after 9/11. Belitsos says the weapons were wielded by men in plain white vans that would park in front of the victim’s house, and that victims suffered immediate and sometimes extreme health effects including headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, vomiting, severe depression, dizziness, and loss of consciousness.

It does seem that bad things have happened to far too many of the most trail-blazing, prestigious, and/or effective 9/11 truth leaders. Justin Raimondo, the pioneer investigator of Israeli complicity in 9/11, was warned away from the subject – and after he disregarded the warning, he suffered a severe heart attack, despite his relative youth and excellent physical condition. Since his mysterious heart attack, Raimondo has stayed away from the subject of 9/11, and has remained in good health.

David Ray Griffin, the world’s leading voice of 9/11 truth, suffered a partially-disabling stroke in the summer of 2010. While he has recovered sufficiently to continue to write and research, the stroke left him with a slight aphasia that has ended his career as a prolific public speaker.

Dr. Bob Bowman, the former head of Star Wars under two US presidents, has had his 9/11 truth efforts slowed by his struggle with cancer.

Even more tragically, the most prestigious scientist ever to take up the cause of 9/11 truth, Lynn Margulis, died of a stroke November 22, 2011. When I last spoke to Lynn, less than a year before her death, she told me she did not want to speak publicly about 9/11 any more, because “politics is too dangerous.” She sounded scared – like someone had warned or threatened her.

Steven Jones, the physics professor who was forced out of Brigham Young University for researching the demolition of the World Trade Center, was warned to stop by a “connected” colleague. Jones did the right thing: he immediately went public about the apparent threat.

Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, may have been attacked by the type of EMF or microwave weapon described by Ruppert and Belitsos. In the summer of 2009, in Washington, DC, Gage suddenly suffered vertigo and hearing loss. Activist colleagues who were present suspect some kind of covert attack. Today, Gage still suffers from the after-effects: partial loss of hearing in one ear.

Though some consider microwave and EMF weapons the stuff of science fiction, Maj. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., the former head of the US Army’s depleted uranium cleanup project after Gulf War I, says these weapons are very real, and commonly used in military circles. He described to me how he personally used such weapons on a regular basis while training with Special Forces at US Army facilities: “We had them van-mounted, truck-mounted, plane-mounted, and hand-carried. We would go around zapping each other for fun. This was during exercises, or sometimes just as a practical joke.” Rokke assured me that, based on his firsthand knowledge of US military mind-set and capabilities, 9/11 truth activists have undoubtedly been targeted by exotic non-lethal (and lethal) weapons.

Will writing this article put me on a US government hit list? Twenty years ago, such a question would have sounded absurd. Today, with the USA becoming more of a banana republic every day, it sounds increasingly realistic.

A government that extra-judicially murders, disappears, and tortures its own citizens should clean up its own act before it criticizes other nations. The US should heed former President Carter and start obeying its own Constitution if it wants to have any credibility on human rights.

KB/HJL

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is http://www.truthjihad.com. More articles by Dr. Kevin Barrett
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 710 other followers