Secret Societies

September 26, 2002 at 3:45 pm
Contributed by:

I saw the last part of this program on TV late last night…one of only two showings of it on the History Channel this month…and boy, did it give me a lot to think about. Would love to hear your take on it, showing again this Sunday.

Incredible But True?

Secret Societies

Sunday , September 29 1:00 PM-2:00 PM

Some of the world’s most powerful individuals belong to secret organizations. The Skull & Bones, the Bilderbergs, and the Tri-Lateral Commission are just a few of the groups that many suspect are conspiring to take over the world. Others believe they already have. What fuels such rampant conspiracy paranoia? We examine a number of these clandestine organizations, past and present, and reveal why so many people fear their nefarious agendas. TV PG


TIME Investigative Report re: 9/11

September 25, 2002 at 6:20 pm
Contributed by:

This is an excellent article–long, but well worth the read. It’s the most

comprehensive report about the intelligence we had on Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11

that I’ve seen yet.

More to come…

—–Original Message—–

Subject: TIME Investigative Report re: 9/11

Explains the Clinton administration had a plan drawn up to deal with

Al-Queda, and the current administration’s reluctance to be investigated for

any foreknowledge.

This link came from the following article at

War on Iraq: Let your Congressmen know how you feel

September 25, 2002 at 6:11 pm
Contributed by:

Congress is expected to pass a
resolution next week — contact
them now.


Attached, another similar suggestion from the “Not in our Name”
initiative. Good text.


then, enjoy a bit of humor: 



[You are on my PRIVATE Poli-spam list; if you don’t want to be, just say

—–Original Message—–

Don’t Attack Iraq; Work Through the

If you agree with the objective, then definitely try this out. It
literally took me about 2 minutes to send a fax/email to 30 US Reps.
Pro-peace citizens have just a
couple of days to
influence the Congressional debate about Iraq.
is expected to pass a resolution next week —
and there is evidence that a
strong outpouring of
anti-war sentiment is starting to have an impact, as

members from both parties express skepticism about the
broad war mandate
sought by the White House.

Please take a minute as soon as you can

(1) Send a letter to Congress
can do it in less than a minute.

(2) Pass this alert along to your

(3) Display your opposition to war with peace
    U.N. flags, Earth flags, anti-war posters,
    Proceeds make Progressive Portal possible.

(4) For more information,
see the Iraq section of the
Global Exchange Web site, and the Iraq links

is VERY short — please act today if you can!

More on Chemtrails, and CIA connections

September 19, 2002 at 1:30 pm
Contributed by:



Catching you up with a few more articles:


Another, more detailed, site about Chemtrails. Seattle friends, best get
yourselves some gas masks and HEPA filters! 

Chemtrail smoking gun

If you haven’t heard of Mike Ruppert yet, I suggest you check out his 30-year
effort to expose the CIA’s involvement with drug smuggling and money laundering
for world financial markets. A former LAPD detective who was courted for a while
by the CIA, he has crusaded against their shenanigans ever since. Recently he
has produced a video called “Truth and Lies of 9-11” that, while failing to make
a truly cogent argument IMO, does present a lot of very interesting (and
damning) facts about the connections between the CIA, the SEC, our government,
and business leaders of major corporations over many years. Worth a

Also at that site, be sure to check out the story of D. “Mike” Vreeland,
who worked for U.S. Naval Intelligence and who tried to warn the U.S. about the
9/11 attacks as early as December 2000, and who has since been the subject of a
campaign to discredit him:

all for today.


[You are
on my PRIVATE Poli-spam list. If you don’t want to be, just say

Paul Krugman, \"Cronies in Arms\"

September 18, 2002 at 7:06 pm
Contributed by:

Hello all
you defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (what is that these
days, anyway?),


If you’re
not familiar with Paul Krugman, his column in The Economist is consistently
incisive and high quality. As another correspondent said:


so I’m just gonna keep sending along Krugman’s
column’s every week until he’s not the most well-researched analyst of all that
is wrong with the folks that are running things in DC right now. the evidence is
so surmountable that it’s hard to figure out what it all means sometimes, but he
does it perfectly and with so much fact that he can’t be denounced.

I concur
completely. Read on. And no, I don’t have a subscription to The Economist, so
those of you who do, please keep ’em coming!



Cronies in Arms

In February 2001 Enron presented an imposing facade, but insiders
knew better: they were desperately struggling to keep their Ponzi scheme going.
When one top executive learned of millions in further losses, his e-mailed
response summed up the whole strategy: “Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss
before the 1Q.”

The strategy worked. Enron collapsed, but not before
insiders made off with nearly $1 billion. The sender of that blunt e-mail sold
$12 million in stocks just before they became worthless. And now he’s secretary
of the Army.
Dick Cheney vehemently denies that talk of war, just weeks
before the midterm elections, is designed to divert attention from other
matters. But in that case he won’t object if I point out that the tide of
corporate scandal is still rising, and lapping ever closer to his feet.
article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal confirmed what some of us have long
argued: market manipulation by energy companies – probably the same companies
that wrote Mr. Cheney’s energy plan, though he has defied a court order to
release task force records – played a key role in California’s electricity
crisis. And new evidence indicates that Mr. Cheney’s handpicked Army secretary
was a corporate evildoer.
Mr. Cheney supposedly chose Thomas White for his
business expertise. But when it became apparent that the Enron division he ran
was a money-losing fraud, the story changed. We were told that Mr. White was an
amiable guy who had no idea what was actually going on, that his colleagues
referred to him behind his back as “Mr. Magoo.” Just the man to run the Army in
a two-front Middle Eastern war, right?
But he was no Magoo. Jason Leopold, a
reporter writing a book about California’s crisis, has acquired Enron documents
that show Mr. White fully aware of what his division was up to. Mr. Leopold
reported his findings in the online magazine Salon, and has graciously shared
his evidence with me. It’s quite damning.
The biggest of several deals that
allowed Mr. White to “hide the loss” – a deal in which the documents show him
intimately involved – was a 15-year contract to supply electricity and natural
gas to the Indiana pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly. Any future returns from the
deal were purely hypothetical. Indeed, the contract assumed a deregulated
electricity market, which didn’t yet exist in Indiana. Yet without delivering a
single watt of power – and having paid cash up front to Lilly, not the other way
around – Mr. White’s division immediately booked a multimillion-dollar profit.

Was this legal? There are certain cases in which companies are allowed to
use “mark to market” accounting, in which they count chickens before they are
hatched – but normally this requires the existence of a market in unhatched
eggs, that is, a forward market in which you can buy or sell today the promise
to deliver goods at some future date. There were no forward markets in the
services Enron promised to provide; extremely optimistic numbers were simply
conjured up out of thin air, then reported as if they were real, current
earnings. And even if this was somehow legal, it was grossly unethical.
outsiders had known Enron’s true financial position when Mr. White sent that
e-mail, the stock price would have plummeted. By maintaining the illusion of
success, insiders like Mr. White were able to sell their stock at good prices to
naïve victims – people like their own employees, or the Florida state workers
whose pension fund invested $300 million in Enron during the company’s final
months. As Fortune’s recent story on corporate scandal put it: “You bought. They
It was crony capitalism at its worst. What kind of administration
would keep Mr. White in office?
A story in last week’s Times may shed light
on that question. It concerned another company that sold a division, then
declared that its employees had “resigned,” allowing it to confiscate their
pensions. Yet this company did exactly the opposite when its former C.E.O.
resigned, changing the terms of his contract so that he could claim full
retirement benefits; the company took an $8.5 million charge against earnings to
reflect the cost of its parting gift to this one individual. Only the little
people get shafted.
The other company is named Halliburton. The object of its
generosity was Dick Cheney.

Don\’t Mention the \’O\’ word

September 17, 2002 at 3:36 pm
Contributed by:

One more Poli-spam article for today. I’m sure I’m not the only one who wonders why, in all the talk about going to war with Iraq, no one has mentioned the “O” word, and who sees that omission as glaring. We must read between the lines if we’re going to understand what’s afoot. It will be interesting to see if there is any news coverage on Thursday of the OPEC meeting.


—–Original Message—–

…you’re so right about it. It is everything. After reading the following, I went from being very vague about about what was at stake in Iraq – aside from Junior getting back at Daddy’s nemesis – to seeing the whole thing only too clearly.

Don’t Mention the “O” Word – The Economist

Air Traffic Controllers Concerned Over Chemtrails

September 17, 2002 at 3:00 pm
Contributed by:

Brilliant! Instead of dealing with the causes of global warming, let’s fill
the air with more chemicals! (Thanks Stephanie for this link.)
Yes, I have much, much more Poli-spam stuff to send you all, but I’m waiting
for a point when I have the time to assemble it all properly. BTW I’m now
finally getting around to reading Noam Chomsky’s _Manufacturing Consent_,
and it couldn’t be more timely. It’s dense reading, but I highly recommend
Stay tuned…


\"The Troubling New Face of America\" by Jimmy Carter

September 11, 2002 at 12:13 pm
Contributed by:

Hello friends,


On this “Patriot
Day,” I feel compelled to submit some sort of commentary. I actually have a big
pile of stuff I’ve been meaning to send to you all, and soon I will, but for
today, I will content myself with sending out this one.


And though it’s a
bit late, I encourage all of you to boycott the media today while they treat
9/11 as another Super Bowl, and instead focus your thoughts on how true patriots
should respond to the world and the political stance of the U.S. at this point.


Published on Thursday, September 5, 2002 in the
Washington Post


The Troubling New Face of America by Jimmy


Fundamental changes are taking place in the
historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role
in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process — largely without
definitive debates (except, at times, within the administration). Some new
approaches have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions by
President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing from
a core group of conservatives who are trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions
under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism.


Formerly admired almost universally as the
preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target
of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles
of democratic life. We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support
our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as “enemy
combatants,” incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being
charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel. This policy has
been condemned by the federal courts, but the Justice Department seems adamant,
and the issue is still in doubt. Several hundred captured Taliban soldiers
remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay under the same circumstances, with the
defense secretary declaring that they would not be released even if they were
someday tried and found to be innocent. These actions are similar to those of
abusive regimes that historically have been condemned by American


While the president has reserved judgment, the
American people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president
and other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or
without support from any allies. As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign
allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent
officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad. In
the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority,
any belligerent move by Hussein against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear
test (necessary before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon
of mass destruction, or sharing this technology with terrorist organizations
would be suicidal. But it is quite possible that such weapons would be used
against Israel or our forces in response to an American attack.


We cannot ignore the development of chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer.
There is an urgent need for U.N. action to force unrestricted inspections in
Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate
our necessary allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of
state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirable


We have thrown down counterproductive gauntlets to
the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments to laboriously negotiated
international accords.


Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms agreements,
the biological weapons convention, environmental protection, anti-torture
proposals, and punishment of war criminals have sometimes been combined with
economic threats against those who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts
and assertions increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations
needed to join in combating terrorism.


Tragically, our government is abandoning any
sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our
apparent policy is to support almost every Israeli action in the occupied
territories and to condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of
our war on terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves


There still seems to be a struggle within the
administration over defining a comprehensible Middle East policy. The
president’s clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions and to support the
establishment of a Palestinian state have been substantially negated by
statements of the defense secretary that in his lifetime “there will be some
sort of an entity that will be established” and his reference to the “so-called
occupation.” This indicates a radical departure from policies of every
administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from
occupied territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their


Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be
dominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final decisions of the
president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial that the historical and
well-founded American commitments prevail: to peace, justice, human rights, the
environment and international cooperation.


Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter
Center in Atlanta.


 2002 The Washington Post

Page 1 of 11

Copyright © 2008 GetRealList
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.