April 7, 2010 - The Constantine Report    
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading

The Nazi Sympathizers Who Ran American Universities (Book Review)

This is a modified py-6 that occupies the entire horizontal space of its parent.

“… Norwood, a serious historian who co-edited The Encyclopedia of American Jewish History, is anything but hysterical. The examples cited by Norwood are manifold and disgraceful: Harvard University suppressing protests against Nazi atrocities and sanctioning the Nazi consul general in Boston to lay a swastika-emblazoned wreath in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. …”

The Nazi Sympathizers Who Ran American Universities

By Jerome A. Chanes

Forward | April 07, 2010

The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses
By Stephen H. Norwood
Cambridge University Press, 350 pages, $29

American Jews remember the Ivy League colleges of the 1930s as being places where Jews were not especially welcome. Quotas on Jewish students — the infamous numerus clausus imported from Europe — were, very literally, the order of the day. The question of quotas in higher education was, and remains, a difficult and controversial matter. On the one hand, a generation and more of American Jews were denied access to the Ivies; on the other hand, as my mother (herself a victim of antisemitism and gender discrimination in the university world) would say: “Jews can’t get into Yale? That’s terrible. But quotas are not expulsion. Quotas are not murder.”

But there is nothing nuanced about the deeper and darker dynamics at work in the Ivies and other citadels of higher learning during the 1930s: It was more than a matter of mere appeasement of Nazi leaders on the part of university administrators. Stephen H. Norwood, a professor at the University of Oklahoma, traces, in his compelling “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses,” a chilling pattern in the Ivy League and the Seven Sisters, as well as in some state universities and Catholic colleges. From callous indifference to the rise of Hitlerism on the part of university administrators, to concrete instances of complicity with the Nazi regime and with its policies during the crucial early years of the regime, Norwood provides an indictment of Hitler sympathizers in power at the heart of American education.

Norwood … is an excellent narrative historian — but his analytical skills are what make this book work. “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower” analyzes an era when the dubious political sympathies of university administrators came at a time of tremendous growth for the academy in America. “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower” is nothing less than a litany of outrages, but were it just that, the book would be viewed, legitimately, as a hysterical screed.

Norwood, a serious historian who co-edited The Encyclopedia of American Jewish History, is anything but hysterical. The examples cited by Norwood are manifold and disgraceful: Harvard University suppressing protests against Nazi atrocities and sanctioning the Nazi consul general in Boston to lay a swastika-emblazoned wreath in the Memorial Church at Harvard University; Columbia University’s president, Nicholas Murray Butler, was egregiously shameful in many respects — especially in his utter destruction of the academic career of art historian Jerome Klein, one of the most popular teachers at Columbia, for publicly protesting Nazi crimes. These and numerous other actions signaled to the Nazis that academia in America would not protest anti-Jewish behavior.

Had the university presidents merely remained silent in the face of Nazi policies and activities, they might have betokened a principled neutrality. But — to take one of dozens of examples — the expulsion by Butler of a student who protested book burning by Nazis, signaled that the Ivy administrators were more than just dozing during the early years of the regime.

Notwithstanding the substantial evidence that Norwood brings to bear, there is a tone of outrage in the author’s retelling that is a tad overdone. Much of Norwood’s — and resultantly, the reader’s — indignation is based on what we retroactively know. Knowing what we know now about Nazi policies and activities, the behavior of the universities was unconscionable. Ah, hindsight! But for a historian, the word “context” is crucial. What certainly ought to have been done by university presidents and faculty after 1935 might not have been expected in 1933 and 1934.

It may not have been entirely unreasonable, for example, for Harvard’s president, James Bryant Conant, in 1934 to “welcome” Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl, the Nazi foreign-press chief and a Hitler favorite, to his 25th Harvard reunion, an event that gets a lot of ink in “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower.” In the eyes of the university president, such a visit might have been a legitimate cultural exchange: 1934 was, after all, not 1939. We do not want to let the Conants and the Butlers off the hook — they were devils — but historians, rather than merely looking back, need to refract the events through the prism of the historical era. It’s always a question of balance: where exactly does the historian want to set the bar? Norwood sets it very high indeed, especially for the early years of the Third Reich.

One area touched on by “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower” is that of the shabby treatment by universities of refugee Jewish scholars from 1930s Germany. Norwood focuses on New York’s New School for Social Research as a noble response to the plight of the Jewish professors; missing, however, is the obverse side of the coin: the positive reception of the Jewish refugee scholars on the part of black colleges in the South. These scholars were welcomed in Southern black colleges, and they established relationships that were a factor in the civil-rights struggle a decade later. The history of the refugee Jewish professors in black colleges is an important nuance that is missing from “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower.”

These reservations notwithstanding, “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower” will be fascinating to the general reader, and not just as an eye-opener to Ivy League educated readers. As a result of Norwood’s prodigious archival research, the book will be an invaluable resource to scholars, as well. Indeed, “The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower” will become what Deborah Lipstadt’s “Beyond Belief: The American Press & the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945” and others in the genre were in their time.

What can be done to recognize these actions 65 years later? With the luxury of hindsight, it might not be a bad idea, in the first instance, for Columbia to remove the “Butler” from the university’s Butler Library.

Jerome A. Chanes is a contributing editor to the Forward and author of the award-winning “A Dark Side of History: Antisemitism Through the Ages” (Anti-Defamation League, 2001).


Gerald Posner: Plagiarism An ‘Old Story,’ New Times Is Out to ‘Destroy’ His Book

By Tim Elfrink

Miami New Times | March 30, 2010

In this week’s New Times, we report on 16 new examples of apparent plagiarism in Gerald Posner’s latest book, Miami Babylon. We emailed all the problems to Posner last week and left multiple phone messages for him, but he never responded.

Minutes ago, however, he uploaded a response to today’s stories on his blog. Posner claims that New Times is part of a “coordinated effort” to “destroy” his book. He says his plagiarism is an “old story” and that he’s already apologized.

Posner doesn’t dispute any of the reporting in our story. Nor does he explain how, precisely, this many passages from this many different sources ended up copied verbatim or nearly verbatim into his book.

Here’s the full response:

Last week, a former Miami New Times reporter told me that the paper, still stinging over having to run a correction to their last article about me, was going “to bury you.” So the attack piece today is not a surprise, but part of the coordinated effort to destroy my book, Miami Babylon. It is a mishmash of additional “examples” of text supposedly copied from other publications.

Several times I have addressed how and why that happened, offered apologies, and it is now an old story. I refer everyone to my blog where I have commented on this in detail. Today’s article also includes instances of alleged “new problems.” As always, I stand by the accuracy of each and every interview I conducted, more than 200, for Miami Babylon.

Just for the record, New Times never published any corrections to last week’s stories, which broke the news that Posner lifted eight passages from Frank Owen’s 2003 book, Clubland.

(We did post Posner’s response to Owen’s account of a confrontation that took place at a Posner book reading.)


by Stephen Lendman

Baltimore Chronicle | 6 April 2010

… After General Stanley McChrystal took charge of US/NATO Afghan forces last June, systematic atrocities escalated sharply after promises of kinder, gentler killing (an oxymoron), winning hearts and minds, and fewer civilian casualties as a “paramount” objective – now much higher the result of more than a fourfold increase in night raids, targeting civilians, including children, while they sleep.

McChrystal’s resume exposed his history – death squad terror, mostly against civilians, the same counterinsurgency he waged throughout Iraq as Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), especially in Al-Anbar Province that increased violence to curb it.

It’s no surprise for a man this writer earlier called “a hired gun, an assassin, a man known for committing war crime atrocities as (JSOC) head” – since 1980 comprised of Army Delta Force and Navy Seal units, killers to reign terror on vulnerable targets, mainly civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and earlier in Vietnam as part of Operation Phoenix. More on that below.

Rare On-the-Ground Reports

The London Times Kabul-based Jerome Starkey reports what major US media accounts suppress. For example, his March 15 commentary headlined, “Survivors of family killed in Afghanistan raid threaten suicide attacks.”

The incident involved the February 12 killing of two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a policeman and his brother. “No one has claimed responsibility (and) A US official in Kabul refused to” say for reasons of national security, the usual cover-up for high crimes and misdemeanors prohibited for any reason.

This time, survivors were paid off for their loss, but family head Haji Sharabuddin wants justice, not money, and to get it “will….do suicide attacks and (the whole province) will support us.”

Starkey debunked the official story about the raid being a mistake. These were targeted assassinations, the same kinds rampant daily on the ground and by drone-launched missiles, mostly against civilians called Taliban or Al Qaeda militants.

Sayed Mohammed Mal, Gardez University’s vice-chancellor, told Starkey that he once thought these type raids safeguarded Afghans, what he now knows isn’t so after members of his own family were killed. “I realize I was wrong,” he said. “Now I accept the things (other) people told me. I hate (foreign forces). I hate the Government” that tolerates them.

According to the dead policeman’s son, Abdul Ghafar, “My father was friends with the Americans and they killed him….I want to kill them. I want the killers brought to justice.” Another victim’s father, Mohammed Tahir, said “They teach us human rights, then they kill a load of civilians. They didn’t come here to end terrorism. They are terrorists.”

A March 8 Starkey article titled, “Karzai offers families ‘blood money’ for sons killed in raid” told a similar story about other victims – “nine children killed (aged 12 – 18) in a brutal night raid” called a mistake – a cold-blooded one murdering children while they slept, shot in their beds, or dragged to another room and killed. Also, Abdul Khaliq, a neighboring farmer, was gunned down when he ran out of his house during the raid.

During the February Marja campaign, Operation Moshtarak killed 19 civilians. US Special Forces bombed three minibuses in Oruzgan province, killing at least 27 more, at times apologizing when victims are revealed as noncombatants.

As for the reported successful US offensive, New York Times writer Richard Oppel’s April 3 article headlined otherwise, saying: “Violence Helps Taliban Undo Afghan Gains,” explaining “how little (control) Marines (have) outside their own outposts,” the Taliban as dominant as ever. So much so that “Even the Marines admit to being somewhat flummoxed,” Brig. General Larry Nicholson saying “Most people here identify themselves as Taliban,” stopping short of acknowledging widespread hostility to occupation.

Starkey’s April 19, 2009 article headlined “Botched Afghan raid kills mother and (her brother-in-law and three) children (one a new-born)” in Khost province – another “mistake” the Pentagon conceded, the same kind made daily, always against civilians, admitted only as damage control, the official lie, when cover-up doesn’t work.

A late December Kunar province massacre killed 8 children, dragged from their beds and shot in cold blood, some of them handcuffed. The Pentagon called them terrorists, making improvised explosive devices (IEDs). They were kids, students, in grades six through 10 (aged 11 – 17), eight from the same family. After speaking to their school headmaster, a government investigator said:

“It’s impossible they were Al Qaeda. They were children. They were civilians. They were innocent. I condemn this attack.”

In late February, nine more children were killed, aged 12 – 18. Most were “shot at close range while they slept,” another dragged from his bed and murdered, NATO initially alleging their involvement in IED making, then saying they entered a village and took fire so returned it, and finally admitting they were civilians saying:

“Knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack. We don’t now believe that we busted a major ring,” something known all along but only acknowledged as damage control.

On March 22, Starkey headlined “US-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it,” saying McChrystal-led forces “are rarely called to account because most reporters are too dependent on access, security and the ’embed culture’ to venture out” and learn the truth. Worse still, they’re paid to lie, cover up, or be fired.

For example, New York Times writers CJ Chivers and Rod Nordland’s February 14 article headlined “Errant US Rocket Strike Kills Civilians in Afghanistan.” It quoted Hamid Karzai expressing “regret (for) this tragic loss of life.” Neither he or the writers acknowledged the cold-blooded murder of 10 Helmand province civilians, including five children, verboten admissions in major US media reports.

Nor by a puppet leader. Yet fearing national opposition to his regime, he’s begun openly criticizing Washington saying, “They wanted to have a puppet government,” virtually admitting that US/NATO forces are invaders.

Paid Lying – What Major US and Western Media Do

Like in America, the entire Western media, including BBC and so-called National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting scrupulously suppress the truth. They rarely mention “embarrassing” incidents, and when they do it’s dismissively. They won’t say raids terrorize, bomb homes and wedding parties, massacre civilians, their wives and children, noncombatants called Taliban or Al Qaeda, to save villages by destroying them, to pacify Afghans by killing them, to bring tyranny papered over as democracy. If reporters did, they’d be fired.

What they suppress, Starkey reports, his latest April 5 article headlined, “US special forces ‘tried to cover-up’ botched Khataba raid in Afghanistan,” saying:

“US special forces dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened….”

The victims – two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother, those killed in the above mentioned February 12 raid. After initial lies and cover-up, NATO finally “admitted responsibility for all the deaths for the first time last night,” yet continuing to deny a cover-up and saying no evidence showed inappropriate conduct. In other words, murdering civilians in cold blood is acceptable and appropriate. Apparently so as it’s ongoing daily.

Extrajudicial Killings – Predator Drones Target Civilians

On March 16, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit:

“demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and the other basis information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.”

At issue is using them against civilians, Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), saying US citizens will be targeted.

The ACLU sued the Defense, State, and Justice Departments after each provided no requested information “nor have they given any reason for withholding documents. The CIA answered the ACLU’s request by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant documents.” CIA wasn’t sued because the ACLU will first appeal its non-response to the Agency Release Panel.

Killer drones were used in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999. America’s new weapon of choice is now commonplace in Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, perhaps elsewhere, and virtually anywhere targeted attacks are planned globally.

Officially know as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or remote piloted vehicles (RPVs), they’re used, among other purposes, for surveillance and combat equipped with Hellfire or other missiles for targeted killings.

At issue is their legality, given their use outside traditional battlefields for extrajudicial assassinations, a practice US and international laws prohibit. Yet reports confirm the Obama administration ramping up their use – why the ACLU and other human rights groups express concern.

A December 2009 Social Science Research Network-published Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper titled, “Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004 – 2009” said the following:

“First drones launch missiles or drop bombs, the kind of weapons that may only be used lawfully in an armed conflict. Until the spring of 2009, there was no armed conflict (in Pakistan). International law does not recognize the right to kill without warning outside an actual armed conflict. Killing without warning is only tolerated during the hostilities of an armed conflict, and, then, only lawful combatants may lawfully carry” them out.

CIA members “are not lawful combatants and their participation in killing persons – even in an armed conflict – is a crime.” US military forces may be “lawful combatants in Pakistan” only if its government requested them. It did not.

Drone attacks recently have averaged killing up to 50 civilians for each militant. As a result, drone use violates “the war-fighting principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality and humanity.”

Further, beyond targeted individuals, collateral killing is commonplace. “Drones have rarely, if ever, killed just the intended target. By October 2009, the ratio has been up to” 50 civilians for each militant. As a result, drone use violates “the war-fighting principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality and humanity.”

Yet they happen daily in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and have escalated dramatically under General McChrystal for extrajudicial killings. Along with bombers and helicopter gunships, their use in Afghanistan (and North Waziristan, Pakistan) is so pervasive that anyone in the open or near targeted sites risks being killed – civilians, including women and children, most vulnerable.

Spiegel online (spiegel.de March 13, 2010) calls killer drones the “Lynchpin of Obama’s War on Terror….the weapon of choice….But the political, military and moral consequences are incalculable.”

One report said in the past two years the Air Force Research Laboratory embarked on a program to “build the ultimate assassination robot (described as) a tiny, armed drone for the US special forces to employ in terminating ‘high-value targets’ ” that most often are noncombatants.

On April 4, New York Times writers Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah headlined, “Drones Batter Qaeda and Allies Within (North Waziristan) Pakistan,” referring to a “stepped-up campaign….over the past three months (casting) a pall of fear over an area (by) fly(ing) overhead sometimes four at a time, emitting a beelike hum virtually 24 hours a day, observing and tracking targets, then unleashing missiles on their quarry….” The ferocity of strikes got one “militant” to say, “It seems they really want to kill everyone….,” civilians, of course, most vulnerable.

Vietnam’s Operation Phoenix – Prototype for McChrystal’s War

From 1968 – 1973, the CIA ran the Phoenix Program with US Special Forces’ Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG), involving covert missions to crush the National Liberation Front (NFL resistance Viet Cong or VC).

It was a depersonalized murder program to remove opposition elements and terrorize people into submission – now used against Iraq, Afghanistan, North Waziristan, Pakistan, elsewhere, and perhaps one day coming to a neighborhood near you.

In 1975, Counterspy magazine called Phoenix “the most indiscriminate and massive program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of world war two.” Included were security-risk US military personnel and members of the South Vietnamese government. Before it ended, around 80,000 people were killed, yet it failed.

In the mid-1960s, it began as a CIA Counter Terror (CT) program that recruited, organized, supplied and directly paid CT teams whose function was to use Vietcong techniques, kidnappings and intimidation against the Vietcong leadership.

By 1968, it was expanded and called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), then Phoenix, to neutralize the VC as top priority, much like McChrystal’s counterterrorism in Afghanistan and North Waziristan, and earlier in Iraq.

In Vietnam, a Civil Operations and Rural Development Support (CORDS) organization was established overseeing Phoenix. It was a gimmick doomed to fail, much like current Iraq and Afghanistan occupations aren’t sustainable in countries known historically as foreign occupier graveyards.

Phoenix was called Vietnam’s “grand illusion of the American cause,” the same miscalculation today no matter how long current wars continue, whatever amounts are spent, or how much more terror, mass killings and destruction lie ahead for people determined to resist and prevail. Given their past successes, odds are they’ll do it again, no matter the price.


Responding to Rev. Jim Wallis’ statements about him in the Washington Post, Glenn Beck stated, “Thou shalt not lie.” However, contrary to Beck’s denials, Wallis’ Post op-ed accurately described Beck’s repeated statements that social justice is code for communism and Nazism and his advice to his listeners to “run as fast as you can” from churches espousing social justice.

Beck falsely claims Wallis is lying about Beck’s comments on social justice

Beck to Wallis: “Thou shalt not lie.” On the April 7 broadcast of his radio show, Beck stated:

BECK: There’s trouble today. Christians are standing up to Glenn Beck by Jim Wallis in the Washington Post. “Glenn Beck has picked a fight with me, but he recently started a more troubling battle with the nation’s churches with his criticism that ‘social justice’ is ‘code’ for ‘communism’ and ‘Nazism’ ” — no, no. He said, quote, “Christians should leave their churches if they preach, practice or even have the phrase on their Web site.” No, Jim, that’s – Jim, let me just, because I know you’re a minister, and may I? Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy brother. Now I know we’re not technically brothers, but in the Lord’s eyes, we are. Thou shalt not lie. Social justice is also about stealing. Thou shalt not steal. Look in second Kings. I found something this weekend that I just loved, something about giving from your heart, the Lord rejects it if it’s not coming from your heart – yeah look that one up, Jim.

Wallis in Wash. Post op-ed: “Christians stand up to Glenn Beck.” In a March 27 Washington Post op-ed, Wallis wrote:

Glenn Beck has picked a fight with me, but he recently started a more troubling battle with the nation’s churches with his criticism that “social justice” is “code” for “communism” and “Nazism,” and that Christians should leave their churches if they preach, practice or even have the phrase on their Web site.

But Beck has equated social justice with communism and Nazism and encouraged listeners to “run” from it

Beck: “On each banner” of Nazism and communism “read the words, here in America, of this – social justice.” On his television show, Beck stated:  

Both the communists, who are on the left — they say — you know, these are communists. And the Nazis are on the right. That’s what people say. But they both subscribed to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. One had the hammer and sickle; the other was a swastika. But on each banner read the words, here in America, of this — “social justice.” They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly — I love this — democracy. [Glenn Beck, 3/2/10]

Beck: “Look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can.” On his radio show, Beck stated: “I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.” He continued: “Now, the idea — hang on — Stu is saying, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes. If I’m going to Jeremiah Wright’s church, yes. Leave your church.” He later added, “If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, ‘Excuse me. Are you down with this whole social justice thing?’ ” Co-host Steve “Stu” Burguiere said, “It’s possible they need to be illuminated to the hidden meaning behind some of these terms.” Beck replied, “There’s a very good chance that people don’t know what it is. That’s why you have to educate yourself.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Glenn Beck Program, 3/2/10]

Beck: Social justice “is a perversion of the Gospel,” “not what Jesus was saying.” On his radio show, Beck addressed a caller who said his daughter was taking classes for confirmation in the Catholic Church that were “becoming more and more about social justice.” Beck stated: “I want you to know that even some members in my faith, where I go to church — there are members that preach social justice as members. My faith doesn’t, but the church — the members preach social justice all the time. It is a perversion of the Gospel. Nowhere does Jesus say, ‘Hey, if somebody asks for your shirt, give your coat to the government and have the government give them a pair of slacks.’ That’s not what — that’s not what Jesus was saying.” [The Glenn Beck Program3/11/10]

Beck’s advice for when you see the words “social justice”: “Run, and don’t listen to anyone who is telling you differently.” On his radio show, Beck stated:

BECK: [T]here are big forces within the faith of different churches that have joined hands with truly Marxist groups, and it’s all under social justice. And this is why social justice started. It started in groups in Latin America that they knew they couldn’t get into the government because the government — what was really regulating people there was the church. And so the churches were so powerful, they knew they had to weasel their way in there and tie it to God.

It’s the same thing that progressives did in the early 20th century. They used God and the churches, and then they broke it apart. That’s what’s happening. And I’m going to share some evidence next week on different faiths that, known or unknown to many people in the faith, they are part of the social justice movement. And it is Marxist, and it is extraordinarily dangerous. These people have been laying eggs, and they have hatched a long time ago. They are in many, many organizations. You are doing exactly the right thing. You cannot take anything on its face value anymore. You’ve got to look at the layers and know what you’re looking for.

Whenever you see some thing that talks about a strong democratic movement or strengthening democracy, you’re in trouble. If you see anything that talks about social or economic justice, you’re in trouble. Those two things are the language of people like Hugo Chavez. We are a republic, not a democracy.


BECK: When you say, you know, I see “social justice” — when you see those words, run. Because social justice is what Jeremiah Wright preaches. Run, and don’t listen to anyone who is telling you differently. Look at the roots of social justice. See what radicals put it together. [The Glenn Beck Program10/8/09

Beck: “What I would call socialist or communist, they’ll call just social justice or progressive.” On his radio show, Beck stated that “progressives don’t speak the same kind of language that you and I do. Economic justice: That’s Marxism, it’s taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. Social Justice, what is that? Well let me quote Mark Lloyd, the guy I introduced you again to last night. ‘Someone needs to step down so someone else can have a turn.’ ” He later added: “What I would call socialist or communist, they’ll call just social justice or progressive.” [The Glenn Beck Program, 1/5/10]

Beck warns of “Marxist code words” like “social justice” in “infiltrated” churches. On his radio show, Beck warned his listeners to “watch the messages in your own church. Because if you see the words ‘social justice,’ you’re in trouble.” He continued:

BECK: If you see the words — what is — social justice, and what was the other one? Economic justice. You see these — these are code words. These are the Marxist code words for the new global order. You see those words, if you see things that are now being preached about from the pulpit in many churches, about health care. Warning. Warning. Many churches have been infiltrated with this line of thinking that is absolutely against the freedoms that our Founding Fathers designed. And you can find them, you can find them. And they’re not hard to find. Look for them and wake your fellow parishioners and your fellow congregants up to what is going on, because there are hidden messages that are there. And they’re not hidden. I mean, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s all out in the open. [The Glenn Beck Program, 12/15/09]


By Douglas Haddow

Guardian | April 7, 2010

Collateral Murder forces us to confront the deplorable unreality of US aggression and the grim fate of those caught in its scope

Monday Wikileaks, a Sweden based non-profit website that publishes leaked documents pertaining to government and corporate misconduct, released a classified US military video from 2007 that shows an Apache helicopter attacking and killing a group of Iraqi civilians. The incident rose to prominence because two of those who died were Reuters personnel – photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saeed Chmagh. The video, entitled Collateral Murder, is already being heralded by some as the most important revelation since Abu Ghraib, and challenges not only the effectiveness of the US military’s rules of engagement policy, but also the integrity of the mainstream media’s coverage of similar incidents.

Like many of the millions who have viewed, re-viewed and analysed the video, it instantly reminded me of a videogame, specifically the game that currently sits inside my Wii – Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. If you’re unfamiliar, or prefer not to spend your spare time sniping imaginary terrorists, Modern Warfare offers a very simple and entertaining first-person narrative: as a member of the marines or the SAS, your job is to kill everything that moves.

These types of first-person shoot ’em ups, which have long been utilised by the US military for training purposes, demand a simplistic rendition of warfare in order to achieve their rapid pace. There is little room for ambiguity or social realism, because if the player is required to discern the character of those who fall within their line of fire, it would interrupt the action, and make for a less thrilling gaming experience.

One of the most alarming aspects of Collateral Murder is that it demonstrates how similar the logic of the Apache pilots is to that of the average gamer. The video allows us to examine the entire process of how a rationale for attack is reached. We see exactly what the Apache pilots saw, the black-and-white gun-cam footage underscored by their darkly cynical colour-commentary of the ensuing carnage. As the helicopter approaches the men, we hear a pilot say: “See all those people standing down there?” The camera zooms in on the group and we see Saeed with a camera bag slung on his right shoulder. “That’s a weapon,” a pilot says. “Fucking prick,” comes the reply.

And with that, a few unarmed, relaxed civilians hanging around a courtyard are transformed into a contingent of dangerous insurgents that must be destroyed. Within seconds the pilots have described the situation to their superiors, received approval to engage and are gunning down the crowd. After the smoke clears from the initial attack, we see a wounded Saeed attempting to crawl to safety, the pilots vocalising their desire that he pick up a weapon, even though there is clearly no weaponry anywhere near his person. A van then pulls up and some men arrive to help Saeed. The pilots request permission to re-engage, quickly becoming impatient as they wait for approval. “Come on let us shoot!” a pilot says. Permission is granted, and they fire on the van, killing Saeed along with the good samaritans. And it is soon revealed that rather than armed insurgents, there were actually two children sitting inside the mini-van, both of whom have sustained serious injuries.

Of course, our ability to deconstruct the footage down to the second allows for a level of hindsight not afforded to the pilots, and so the video doesn’t necessarily condemn, in criminal terms, those directly responsible for the deaths, but rather US engagement protocol as a whole.

The video has already provoked a huge amount of praise and criticism within the American media. Many commentators are calling for an official investigation while others are defending the actions of the pilots and pleading for context. One of the most bizarre apologias has come from Gawker, a Manhattan media-gossip blog, who went out of their way to lament the civilian deaths in detail, only to go on defend the actions of the pilots under the premise that “innocent civilians get killed in wars“.

Regardless of how many pundits attempt to frame this tragedy within the vagaries of a “war is hell” narrative, Collateral Murder will prove to be a landmark event in the reportage of the Iraq war, as it forces the viewer, in the most visceral way possible, to simultaneously confront both the deplorable unreality of American aggression and the grim fate of those caught within its scope.


More coverage:

Killings of Iraqi journalists: US says they were not war crimes

Christian Science Monitor – Peter Grier – ‎13 minutes ago‎

WikiLeaks posted a video Monday that shows two Iraqi journalists killed in a US attack. US Central Command has released its own probe, saying war crimes

Reaction on Military Blogs to the Wikileaks Video

New York Times (blog) – Timothy Hsia – ‎13 minutes ago‎

As much as in the general public, military blogs have reacted with passion to the released Wikileaks video of a 2007 Apache attack in Iraq.  
Newsweek – Christopher Dickey – ‎2 hours ago‎
The video of two Reuters newsmen being shot by Americans in 2007, however grim, shows business as usual in a war zone. Please fill in the following

Military can’t find its copy of Iraq killing video

Washington Post – Pauline Jelinek, Anne Flaherty – ‎21 hours ago‎

But Web site Wikileaks.org on Monday posted the video shot from one of the Apache helicopters, putting it on “collateralmurder.com” site.

Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video

FOXNews – Justin Fishel – ‎5 hours ago‎

WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed “whistle-blowing” investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the
During an event this morning at the National Press Club, whistleblower website Wikileaks unveiled that it has a video, obtained from unnamed military

Iraqi journalists want probe of taped US shooting

Washington Post – David Rising – ‎Apr 6, 2010‎

The Web site Wikileaks.org on Monday posted the video shot from one of the two Apache helicopters involved in the attack in the New Baghdad district of the

AP source confirms video of Baghdad firefight

Washington Post – Anne Flaherty – ‎Apr 5, 2010‎

Jake Hanzlik, a spokesman for US Central Command, said US forces in Iraq recognize many of the images in the video posted at Wikileaks.org and have no

Toronto Sun | March 13, 2010

Leonard Peltier is now starting his 35th year in prison.

He is 65, and more than half his life has been spent as a prisoner.

Impassioned supporters who argued for justice and his freedom in the past, have grown silent.

Bored, frustrated, exhausted, they have died, or become involved in other causes.

Peltier has faded in memories.

These include Amnesty International, for whom Peltier is still a political prisoner of conscience.

His defenders include Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Tutu, the archbishop of Canterbury, members of the European Parliament, some 50 Canadian MPs, Hollywood mogul David Geffen, and various Leonard Peltier defence committees around the world.

Most have dropped by the wayside.

Robert Redford made a movie about him: Incident at Oglala. The Belgian and Italian parliaments espoused his freedom. They’ve joined the ranks of the silent — not because anything has changed, but because Washington wouldn’t listen. Somewhat sheepishly, I admit, to having been sidetracked to other issues over the past 15 years.

Three times I visited Peltier when he was incarcerated at the federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas. Since then he has been moved several times — to the federal prison at Terre Haute, Ind.; to Lewisburg, Pa.; to Canaan, Pa., and today back to Lewisburg.

At each, he was jumped, beaten, threatened with death by so-called native inmates when in general population. Provocateurs? Who knows?

Peltier insists his only enemies are the system and justice department.

In the past I (and others) argued that the case against Peltier was not only flawed, but grotesquely dishonest, unfair and unjust, replete with admittedly perjured testimony and fraudulent evidence by the FBI.

No longer should guilt be an issue — Peltier is not a conventional criminal or felon.

Even if one believes he was guilty, he has served enough time and deserves to be free. But no — that’s not the American way in his case.

Peltier was found guilty in the 1975 shooting deaths of two FBI agents — Ron Williams and Jack Coler — during a range war on the Lakota-Sioux reserve at Pine Ridge, S.D., near Wounded Knee where, in 1973, there was a highly publicized 71-day siege.

The Pine Ridge range war was between traditional, back-to-our-roots Indians, and “progressive” mixed-blood Indians who favoured the mining of uranium on Indian land.  The militant American Indian Movement (AIM) sided with the traditionalists, while the FBI, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and authorities backed the progressives. The FBI had labeled AIM a terrorist organization, trained and financed by Castro and the Soviet Union — phony charges, evolving from Cold War paranoia of the day. AIM was (is) an Indian advocacy group.

In a three-year period at Pine Ridge, over 60 murders occurred, not one of which was ever investigated, much less solved.

On the day Coler and Williams died — chasing a “red pickup truck” into the Jumping Bull community, allegedly driven by Jimmy Eagle who was believed to have stolen some cowboy boots — another young Indian, Joe Stutnz, was shot and killed. No investigation was ever held.

Shots were fired and returned. Some 125 bullet holes were found in the two FBI cars. Peltier was one of four Indians charged with murder, but he fled to Alberta where eventually he was turned over to the RCMP.  The other three went on trial, where one had charges against him dismissed.

The other two, Bob Robideau (since deceased) and Dino Butler, were found not guilty, having fired in self-defence.

The prosecution’s circumstantial evidence against them was too thin to get a conviction.

At Peltier’s extradition hearing in Vancouver, the FBI produced affidavits by one Mabel Poor Bear, claiming she was Peltier’s girlfriend, and had witnessed him shooting the FBI agents at close range. It subsequently turned out Poor Bear was a mental case, had never met Peltier, and was nowhere near the murder scene.

She later tried to recant, claiming she didn’t even know what Peltier looked like, and claimed the FBI threatened to take away her child if she didn’t sign the affidavit.  The trial court judge refused to hear her testimony. But her fabricated affidavit got Peltier extradited. (Canada’s solicitor general at the time was Liberal MP Warren Allmand, who supported the extradition, but later became one of the strongest advocates on behalf of Peltier, urging the U.S. to review his case.)

At Peltier’s trial, the FBI claimed ballistic tests proved Peltier’s AR-15 rifle had fired the bullets that killed the agents. This was later proved to be false — shell casings at the death scene did not come from Peltier’s rifle.At his trial prosecutor Lynn Crooks said categorically that evidence proved Peltier “killed the agents in cold blood.” Later, in appeal, Crooks said he believed Peltier had killed the agents “but we didn’t prove it.”

At a parole hearing in 1995 Crooks said if there was a retrial “the government could not re-convict.”  Parole was rejected because Peltier was the only one they had, even though the court ruled that the FBI’s suppression of evidence “cast strong doubts” on the government’s case. The jury heard none of this.

Mishandled key evidence

Radical left-wing lawyer William Kunstler (now deceased) represented Peltier at his appeal — and mishandled key evidence which the 8th circuit appeal judge, Gerald Heaney (since deceased), later said would probably have gotten Peltier freed, or a new trial if he, the judge, had known the facts. Kunstler apologized, and urged the judge not to penalize Peltier for his mistake.

I interviewed Judge Heaney who said he had urged then-president Bill Clinton through Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, to have Peltier granted clemency. Clinton had indicated he’d grant executive clemency to Peltier, but changed his mind when some 500 FBI agents, retirees and families demonstrated outside the White House. Instead, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich who was indicted for illegal oil deals with Iran, and tax evasion.

In their book Game Change, authors John Heileman and Mark Halperin note that billionaire David Geffen had lobbied Clinton to pardon Peltier whom he felt was innocent. When Clinton pardoned Rich, Geffen saw this “as a sign of corrupted values,” and backed Obama for the presidency instead of Hillary Clinton.

In prison, Peltier has had a rough time. At Leavenworth his jaw was atrophying without medical attention — until publicity got him treatment.  He is going blind from diabetes, has kidney failure and is susceptible to strokes. He feels occasional beatings by inmates are stage-managed, but says what cannot be taken from him are “my dignity and self-respect … even if I die here.”

The law, in 1976, was that inmates with a good record after 30 years should get mandatory release. When Peltier’s 30-year parole hearings came up, he says “five FBI and government witnesses hammered me for over five hours that I should not be released … so the parole board gave me another 15-year sentence” (His next parole hearing is in 2024).

Peltier’s appeal of the parole board decision, has already been rejected , despite acknowledgement of his unblemished prison record.  Prior to rejection he wrote me: “I am waiting for them to destroy my appeal. I can’t see these same parole commissioners changing their minds, so I know what I’ll get. Next I will file in the federal courts, as we have some strong expert issues to file on. I have no doubt we can kick some butt in court, but even if I win, it will take five or 10 years before all the appeal processes take place, so you can consider the 15-year hit as a death (a slow-one) sentence.”

What stands out in Peltier’s case is the vindictiveness of the FBI and the justice system.  With the absence of clear proof who shot the agents in 1975, the FBI is determined that someone — anyone — must be held responsible. Had Peltier not escaped to Canada, and had he gone on trial with Robideau and Butler, he, too, would have been acquitted.

Flaws in case

Flaws in the case include the FBI changing the “red pickup truck” to a “red and white van” — owned by Peltier, three prosecution witnesses recanted and claimed intimidation forced their compliance, the jury heard nothing of the FBI’s suppression of evidence or its being rebuked by the court, fraudulent ballistic evidence withheld from the jury and the FBI’s later admission that “we do not know who killed the agents.”

Author Peter Matthiessen’s book on Peltier’s case, In the spirit of Crazy Horse, was delayed seven years to 1992 because of FBI legal suits against its publication.  In it, Matthiessen interviews a “Mr. X” who alleges he was the one who fired the fatal shots into the FBI agents. I became convinced that Mr. X was Bob Robideau, whom I phoned in Spain and questioned him. He equivocated.

When I phoned Judge Heaney, of the 8th circuit appeal court, he also implied Robideau might have been the shooter.

If so, “he had already been found not guilty of murder and could not be tried again,” Heaney said.

After 34 years in prison, and considering the political and social unrest at the time of the 1975 Pine Ridge Indian wars, Peltier’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Simple justice and compassion dictate he should be freed.

Recently, a new generation of Peltier defenders have emerged — one of whom — Kathi Robinson in Manitoba — Peltier has encouraged.

Assistant co-ordinator of the Leonard Peltier defence offence committee is his niece, Kari Ann Boushee, website: whoisleonardpeltier.info.

Peltier’s eventual release may hinge on clemency from President Barack Obama — presuming Obama has the courage to reject the FBI’s continuing thirst to punish a man they helped frame for murder.

Otherwise, Peltier will likely die in custody.


By Alan W. Petrucelli | Santa Ana Examiner | April 6, 2010

The Diva. Photos From the Collection of Alan W. Petrucelli

Diamonds are forever.

So is death.

But the cause of death can change.

And we hope that will be the case with Dame Shirley Bassey’s daughter, Samantha Novak. (Her father was Bassey’s second hubby, Sergio Novak.) British police have decided to reopen their investigation into the 1985 death of the diva’s daughter after detectives received new information that suggested she might have been murdered . . . and after Dame Shirley gave a newspaper interview last October questioning the death.

Samantha was found face-down in a river near a 250-foot suspension bridge in the English city of Bristol 25 years ago. A coroner’s report said the 21-year-old tumbled off the riverbank after a night out with friends.

Nonsense says Shirley, who has always insisted that her daughter‘s death was neither accident nor suicide. Last October she told The Guardian, “I never believed that she killed herself,” she muses. “If she’d jumped off the bridge, all her bones would have been broken. But there was not a bone broken. In fact she did not have a mark on her. So if anything, I’m suspicious about her death. They said she didn’t have a mark on her, and she didn’t have any water in her lungs. So if somebody’s drowning, they gasp, don’t they?”

Good points.

Police explain that they are “making fresh inquiries into the case” after the mother of Penny Beale—who was killed by her lover Michael Moffat in 2001—told them her daughter said Moffat was involved in Novak’s death. (Moffat spent 11 years in jail for brutally murdering Beale.)

Says Detective Chief Inspector Mike Carter, head of the force’s major crime review team: “The mother of Moffat’s victim wrote to us with some information in the last couple of weeks. Her daughter had said that Moffat told her he was involved in the murder of Samantha Novak. We looked at the circumstances surrounding the death after comments made by Dame Shirley Bassey.“

The official police statement read: “The mother of Moffat’s victim wrote to us with some information in the last couple of weeks. Her daughter had said that Moffat told her he was involved in the murder of Samantha Novak. There was nothing from the coroner’s report to suggest it was murder rather than suicide, however this information is obviously additional so we are making fresh inquiries.” Police plan on questioning Moffat, who is being held in Scotland.

What’s surprising is that Penny Beale insists she first informed police of her concerns that the man who murdered her daughter might have killed Novak. She claims she has contacted officers with the allegation “over and over again,” but believes police refused to take her claims seriously until Bassey’s interview.
“In the summer of 2001, I told police my concerns he had murdered Samantha and was going to kill Penny but everybody thought I was just a mad, overprotective parent. What he did to my daughter wasn’t a one-off. He did horrible stuff. I think there is a strong possibility that Samantha Novak was murdered by Moffat.”

Dame Shirley’s take? Her spokesman insists, “We have no comment. We have not been informed by the authorities of this investigation. The police have only taken me seriously this time because of what Shirley said in interview.”


Scott Rothstein

By Bob Norman
Broward New Times | Mar. 17 2010

Add another member to Scott Rothstein’s unofficial Moroccan club — Cafe Iguana owner and longtime Rothstein associate Stephen Caputi. Caputi joins Rothstein’s “uncle,” a former bodyguard, and a Moroccan-born guide to the list of those who traveled to Morocco during Rothstein’s weeklong stay after he fled to the country when his $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme collapsed.

We already knew that there was a $1 million bank account in Casablanca with Caputi’s name on it. The money is being seized by the federal government. This mini-bombshell leads to many questions for Caputi, who of all of Rothstein’s close associates seems to be discussed the least. Chiefly, why did Rothstein ask him to fly out to Morocco? Another key question: What did he do for Rothstein, if anything, while he was there?

So I got Caputi on the phone.

“I don’t want you to take this in any kind of  rude way, because it’s not meant that way,” Caputi said after taking my call at his nightclub. “But I just don’t have any comment at this time. Bye-bye, Bob.”

He hung up as I tried to ask him questions. So much for that. I also asked Bob Scandiffio, Rothstein’s former bodyguard, if he saw Caputi in Morocco. Rothstein also flew Scandiffio out to Casablanca with a bizarre plan to try to shave time off of his eventual prison sentence. Other than Scandiffio and Caputi, the only other people who went with Rothstein to Morocco were Bill “Uncle Bill” Boockvor and his guide, Ahnich Khalid.

“I can’t comment on that because it’s an ongoing investigation,” Scandiffio said.

Cafe Iguana

​​Rothstein and his old law partner Howard Kusnick had business ties to Caputi dating back to the mid-1990s and apparently invested in Caputi’s clubs. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler bankruptcy records indicate that Rothstein issued a $61,500 loan to Caputi’s company, Kendall Sports Bar. He also apparently funneled some of the money through law firm associate Steven Lippman, who allegedly wrote an $89,000 check to KSB.

Caputi also attended Rothstein political fundraisers and made contributions to local politicians like Sheriff Al Lamberti. He also contributed thousands of dollars to Rothstein favorites, including the Florida Republican Party ($10,000) and presidential candidate John McCain ($1,000).

Of all of Rothstein’s close associates, though, Caputi has been talked about the least.

Yet it’s becoming increasingly clear that he was a key figure in Rothstein’s life. We knew that Rothstein represented Caputi’s clubs, including the Cafe Iguana in Pembroke Pines, and that he also put $1 million in a Moroccan bank account under Caputi’s name. Rothstein also threw law firm parties at Cafe Iguana, including the Christmas party in 2008.

Now we learn from sources that Caputi flew out to Morocco at the end of October to join Rothstein in Casablanca after the Ponzi scheme imploded and he fled the country.

If you want to get an idea of what Caputi is like, the best place is a 1997 article  that was published in the Miami New Times about Caputi’s struggle with state beverage agents, who shut a Cafe Iguana club down after it was discovered that bathroom attendents there were selling cocaine. From the article by Miami writer Kirk Semple:

“The ABT needs to be dissolved!” erupts Steve Caputi, director of administration for Chameleon Concepts Inc., the Hollywood-based corporation that owns a small empire of South Florida nightspots including Cafe Iguana, Marsbar, Fat Kats, a second Cafe Iguana in Fort Lauderdale, and Bermuda Bar and Grill in North Miami Beach. “When you can turn evidence like $235 worth of cocaine over a three-month period into the need for an emergency suspension order, you need to go back to the statutes and learn what crime really is!”

He swigs his bloody mary through a straw and puffs out his chest. “You know what it is? It’s the rise of communism into American society. You can’t arbitrarily usurp life, liberty, and property without due process. Hey, the only thing they didn’t do was kill us.”

The arrival of a waitress wearing almost completely cutoff jeans and a T-shirt bunched in a knot at her breasts is enough of an interruption to distract Caputi, and he wanders off. But attorney Louis Terminello, who represented the clubs against the ABT, quickly takes up where his client left off. The issue isn’t whether drugs were being sold on the premises, says Terminello, a heavyset man with a penchant for heavy metals: gold watch, gold rings, gold bracelet. During the hearing he didn’t dispute allegations that the bathroom attendants were peddling cocaine. But the dealing was taking place without the knowledge of the management and the owners.

Sounds like two guys who would have gotten along famously with Rothstein, doesn’t it? At that time, Caputi’s clubs, which he owned with three partners, were said to bring in more than $15 million a year. The majority shareholder in the company at the time was David Lageschulte, who also owned at least 15 Hooters restaurants and, interestingly, a stake in Dan Marino’s American Sports Bar & Grill.

Another Caputi quote from the 1997 piece: “They’re supposed to help us, not act like the Gestapo. They could’ve picked up the phone and told us we had a problem. But they didn’t want to solve the problem. They wanted to crucify and get headlines. ‘Operation Bar Bust.’ We called it ‘Operation Ball Bust.'”

— Thanks to everyone who supplied questions for tomorrow’s radio debate with District 19 U.S. congressional candidates. I’m going to ask them, and more suggestions are welcome.