Overt Neo-cons and religious fanatics

The only sure way out of the present and coming dangers is for the people of America, as a whole, to turn to God in repentance—with their leaders showing the way. The US deserves credit for toppling of an evil and cruel regime in Iraq, we don’t stop there. The Bush administration has refused to deal decisively with the terrorist problem at its head: Iran. In recent issues, the Trumpet has exposed the actions of the current administration in actually furthering the cause of this most dangerous country in the Middle East through a policy of appeasement. Articles such as “Is America Empowering Iran?”[53] and “Conquest Through Sabotage”[54] expose the underhandedness and hypocrisy of the current administration in its dealings with this “axis of evil” nation. The Iraqi war will never be won, unless America confronts and conquers its dangerous lack of will to use its military might.[55]

Covert Neo-cons

Force is the answer. "The United States will lead, or the world will shift into neutral" - Bush on May 20, 2004 to congressional Republicans. Promote a war within Islam (Pipes, Friedman, et al). Change regimes in as many Muslim countries as possible. “Any armed insurgency” opposed to US establishing decent governments “must be destroyed.”[56]

Promote and impose the US way of life (actually the submissive-to-their-dictates way of life which the ruling elite in the US want the world to adapt). They use the language of power, conquer and destroy for transforming the Muslim world. Note: “Fallujah must be conquered and terrorists denied safe haven in Fallujah and other centers of insurrection. Moqtada Sadr's militia must be rendered powerless. This will have to be accomplished primarily by American and British military power.”[57]

Reformers still under the influence of “mainstream” media

Expose the real culprits behind 9/11. Relieve American from two party dictatorship and restore freedom and liberty.

It doesn't really matter whether a society can survive without government. Today, that's an academic question with no practical application. What matters is that society would be far better off with much less government than we have now.

Uninfluenced Reformers

Many traitors in our government have supported Zionism's criminal activities rather than the true interests of the American people. They have spawned the hatred that drove these terrible acts. Unless their power is broken Americans will be haunted by an increasing specter of terrorism.

Once we understand the reason why, then we will all agree on the sure way to prevent such terroristic acts in the future. The solution to this huge problem is extremely obvious and it is very simple. America must heed the farewell address of the Father of our Country and "avoid foreign entanglements." Finally, we must always put America and the American People first.

The reformists in many garbs actively seek far-reaching changes to the current orthodox understanding and use of force in American policy at home and abroad. They want to eliminate the harmful ballast of local and international tradition that has, over the centuries, intertwined itself with Zionism. They further believe in the historicity of the government mechanism, i.e., that governance as it was practiced in the days of its founding fathers reflected non-intervention as well as historical circumstances that were appropriate to that time but are no longer valid.

They think it is possible to identify an “essential core” of American belief; further, they believe that this core will not only remain undamaged but in fact will be strengthened by changes in foreign policy based on justice, even very substantial changes, that reflect changing the undue sponsorship of Israeli terrorism, support of Muslim dictators, and other historical circumstances.

The things that reformists value and admire most about American values tend to be quite different and more abstract than the things the overt and covert neo-cons value. Their core values—the primacy of the justice and fair play and an international community based on mutual respect, responsibility, equality, and freedom—are easily compatible with an America that wants to be the world leader.

Each of these outlined positions takes a characteristic stance on key issues of controversy in the contemporary American debate. And their “rules of evidence” for defending these positions are also distinct, as sketched above.

Reformists under the influence of so-called mainstream media accept the correctness of US policies, even when they conflict with today’s norms and values, on the principle that the original American ideals represent the absolute ideal, but they no longer necessarily attempt to sanction all of the unjust practices. Often, however, their reason for this is not that they would not like to do it, but that they assess it to be temporarily or permanently unrealistic to do so. They rebut practices of the ruling elite that are problematic in today’s world.

The uninfluenced reformers do not see the present practices of the US administrations as just and which the US can afford to continue for too long. They prohibit the interventionist, preemptive and dominating approach that conflict with the principles of justice, morality, international law.

There are ironic similarities in the way those reformers which are influenced by “mainstream media” and those who have independent thinking approach the issue of terrorism and change. They both blame the US government for 9/11 and other terrorist incidents in the US. The only difference is that the former believes the US government used or let Muslims do it, while the later clearly establish that Muslims have nothing to do with these inhuman activities. Both, however, agree that the government has been over taken by a zealous minority of elite that has to go.

Reformers envision a global village an American society in which nations and individuals express their piety in a way each finds meaningful, decide national and personal moral matters and lifestyle issues on the basis of their own cultural and religious backgrounds — not as America dictates them, seek to lead lives out of their own conviction rather than Washington’s compulsion, and base their political system on principles of justice and equality — not on the principles that suites a minority of tyrants sitting in high places.

The system the reformers propose for the US should coexist peacefully with other orders and religions without labeling any of them as evil and incompatible. The uninfluenced reformers find concepts within American tradition that support the right of other nations to live as they like without taking dictation from the globalist totalitarians in Washington. They recognize other peoples’ right to live by their religious and other traditions and to make changes and revisions to basic laws and texts on their own without outside interference and intervention.

Outsiders have to be mindful of the different forces at work within the US. When governments and people abroad appear to endorse the official story about 9/11, for example, considering this to be a straight forward matter of terrorism that cheaply enable the US to take action against terrorists, they are in fact unwittingly taking a major stand on a central, wildly contested core issue in the US. They are aligning themselves with the extreme end of the spectrum, with the fundamentalists and the neo-cons ideologues, against the reformists who conclusively prove that things are not as simple as they appear in the official story. Once this complexity is understood, the road to finding the real culprits is paved giving the world an opportunity to take itself out of the clutches of those who have taken it for a ride.


Promoting rule of law, justice and fairness in the US — which claims to be the flag bearer of goodness ­— and assisting constructively in the US transition to accountable government look to be impossible undertakings. Each of the groups described above presents different challenges and prospects when we examine their potential in the context of a peaceful world order. “Weighing in” on an ongoing dialogue over values requires us to consider our purpose carefully, to avoid unintended consequences.

Although there are some ambiguities, a peaceful world order is premised on the principles of justice, fairness and non-undue and unilateral interference. It follows that the reformists should be our most natural allies in the US. Although they are not known as reformists, but what they propose for accountability of the US government and ending two party dictatorship run a select interest groups make them reformists in all respects. They have established radio station and web sites. They are engaged in extensive research and reach a vast majority of public. The problem they face is the mindset that the so-called mainstream media has consolidated over a long period of time. Penetrating it is not easy without giving due recognition to the work they have undertaken.

The other problem has been, and continues to be, that many important reformists in the US are still under the influence of extremely hostile “mainstream” media. Alex Jones, for example, would present conclusive evidence that the federal government was responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but it would not be easy for him to untangle his story from some mysterious Middle Eastern man. Commentator in another documentary ( has clearly separated Muslims and Islam in the final comments from what happened on 9/11.

Recognize the Reformists and their point of view

Another obstacle has been the assumptions of non-American theorists and policymakers have made that the US is all about Washington, CNN, ABC, NBC, New York Time, Washington Post, Times and Newsweek. They think that the rest of American rejects and refuse to accommodate other ways of life in exactly the same way as the totalitarian ideologues in power do. The outside world believes that opinions and views outside Washington’s line of thinking are having such a minority position in the US that it does not make sense to link oneself to its prospects and proponents.

This is factually incorrect. The alternative and reformist views have managed to hold power, legitimacy, and even popularity. Alternative movements have gained huge following too, but the system is geared toward sustaining the two party dictatorship in such a way that no other group can easily make an inread. Martim L. Gross’s book, “A Call for Revolution,” explains this problem in great detail.

The way anti-war movements are brushed aside before and after the war shows that neo-conic totalitarianism, when it is no longer in an oppositional role but holds power, tends to alienate large segments of the population with the oppressiveness and rigidity of its approach. If the outside world cannot position itself to enhance that alienation and utilize the backlash effect, it can at least give moral support to the groups struggling for peace and justice. All it needs is recognition. This global recognition can go along way. Populations that are exposed to the repressive ideologies of Bush, Cheney, Frum and Co. can respond by finding the reformists’ views and solutions attractive.

Reject the overt and covert neo-cons

We know that the overt and covert neo-cons are hostile to peaceful coexistence of different ways of life; that their overall goals and visions are incompatible with the majority of world population; and that they oppose any system and way of life more vigorously which they feel can present an alternative to their perfected form of tyranny and exploitation.

In the past, some experts have felt that the neo-cons is a fringe group and it may be possible to avoid them. But the way the 9/11 inquiry is conducted and the way lies — used to invade and occupy two sovereign countries — are still being down the throats of others without any sense of shame or remorse show that the situation is far grave than one could imagine.

By now the world must realize that neo-cons remain in control, no matter which party rules. Neo-cons have been at work since long. They have set up a mindset that accepts invasions, indiscriminate bombings of civilians, genocidal sanctions, Abu Gharib kind of human rights abuse and torture and above all occupation. Neo-cons don’t have horn on their head. Almost everyone, particularly in the media, academia and politics, who supported the administration in genocidal sanctions, invasions and occupations is neo-cons to one or another degree. Thus, accommodation with neo-cons is not currently thought to be a viable choice.

A number of authors believe that neo-cons hostility to the world and to Muslims primarily reflects anger over some aspects of some Muslims’ views and actions towards the US and its allies. It is important to be aware that, while such concerns play a part, neo-conic totalitarianism represents a basic and total rejection of justice and fair play, and of the core values and international laws and institutions. It wants to break the neck of any way of life or a system that has the potential to present an alternative model to the prevailing tyranny in the US. They believe in just one way of life that suits the world mastering demi-gods and their capitalism, which cannot survive without expansion. Capitalism has to expand to survive of it will dry up and wither away. That is what the globo-tyrants cannot afford.

Just because words such as freedom, democracy and liberation are in frequent use, it does not mean that the totalitarian ideologues are really interested in governments of the people, for the people and by the people.

The Danger of Domestic Backlash

Following Washington and ignoring the emerging forces in the rest of American entails domestic backlash in countries which has strongly allied themselves to Washington. Neo-conic totalitarianism is highly critical of, and often insulting toward, non-neocon culture, religion and ways of life. So, it would take considerable forbearance for the rest of the world to seem to accept the criticism that the rest of the world is depraved and shallow, that only Islam’s history has been oppressive, and that it is to blame for many of the problems the rest of the world experiences, while going to great lengths to show admiration for Washington’s point of view. The cover neo-cons, such as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, went to the extreme of declaring a war on France for its refusal to join an illegitimate war on Iraq.

In the United States, the solidarity as a result of the general shock over the September 11 is waning in the wake of ongoing state of emergency, war, and terror preparedness. Support for a wide range of government measures intended to ensure security is gradually turning into a backlash, however, slower it may be in coming. This will hurt all allies of Washington for their support in slaughtering thousands of innocent as a result of lies and an illegitimate war.

Spain has shown how voters and intellectuals alike are already showing an incipient negative reaction to what they perceive as an excessively naïve embracing of Washington’s neo-conism on the part of some Western political leaders. It used to be some fringe elements of the European political spectrum that tended to be wary of Washington’s policies.

Worries of alliance with Washington have already spread to wider segments of the population. According to BBC report, Europe's leaders may be divided on the Iraq crisis, but the majority of people across the continent are united in their opposition to war, polls suggest. More than 87% of Germans oppose war on Iraq.[58] Only 6% said they thought President George W Bush and Co. were concerned with "preserving peace". Protesters from London to Rome took to the streets to voice opposition to a war with Iraq.[59] Pulling down Bush’s statue in Trafalgar Square was not merely symbolic in nature, it show how people will react if given a change and opportunity to do so.

Although the governments which are allied with Washington are taking the internal complexities of the US for granted and although they appear to believe that “terrorists” would be appeased if they opposed Washington and seem to accept and honor Islam as a religion and way of life, but the US is not going to remain the way we see it today. Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told recently that "if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3. " The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.”[60] Not to speak of the wider schism and the undoing to Washington’s tyrannical grip over the Americans. Interestingly the report about possible civil war in the Republican party is coming from the main opinion making source in the US: the New York Times (Ron Suskind, “Without a Doubt,” October 17.).

The New York Times has been on the forefront of promoting a war within Islam, but it did not realize that the US is not immune to a war within America despite all that a few are doing to the vast majority of Americans and the rest of the world. It is time for Washington’s Allies and the rest of the world to get prepared for the upcoming changes in the US and subsequent local backlash.

Weakening Credibility

Accommodating neo-cons to an excessive degree have weakened credibility and moral persuasiveness of Washington’s allies. An uncritical alliance with Bush-the-neocon and Co. is nothing short of clear misunderstanding, appeasement and fear.

The submissive posture adopted by allied politicians and others leads American audiences, which believe in true liberty and freedom, to conclude that the world is in retreat and has gone soft in the face of tyranny.

Some voices from the American camp are already challenging concepts basic to ideas of self-proclaimed crusaders, such as the universality of human rights and democracy. They are declaring them to be a invention of globalists for using them as cover for their crimes. [61]

Suspending justice an fair play on the part of allies in the hopes of pleasing Washington is a risky business, particularly if they expect the justice and respect of international law and norms in return.

Undermining Reforms

Accommodating neo-cons ideology for dominating the world and transforming the Muslim world can undermine reform trends in the US. Over-endorsing neo-cons ideology is interference in the Americans ongoing internal struggle for freedom and reform effort within the US. De facto, the outside world’s ignoring the facts which the reformist unearth after diligent research further disadvantages the reformers in the US who truly believe in justice, peace, co-existence and international cooperation.

THE REFORMersThe American reformists’ vision matches that of what majority of the world believes. Of all the groups, this one is most congenial to the values and the spirit of human decency. Justice and equal rights is what worked for the successful government mechanisms. This included the necessity to depart from, modify, and ignore elements that transform countries into tyrannies and absolute empires that totally disregard rights of its subjects at home and those of others abroad. The way the business is conducted in Washington is hardly different from what happened in Egypt, Rome or Berlin, endorsing conduct and practicing rules and values that are literally unthinkable, not to mention illegal, in today’s society. This does not pose a problem because few people have the ability to penetrate the seeming prosperity and technological advancement to see the misery on the ground in the US. Furthermore, many consider themselves immune to what the US is doing abroad to other nations. Instead, they allow their vision of benign and well-developed America to dominate over its barbarism, which they regard as its reaction to what is done to it by “terrorists.” That is exactly the myth which the reformists are shattering. There are definite indications that change can be effected in the US provided every word of the neo-cons dominated administrations and so-called mainstream media is not taken for the face value. After all reformists with alternative ideas and all those who believe in them are not a bunch of lunatics. Reformers have credible voices

Reformers have many potential truth-telling leaders and voices, individuals who combine unimpeachable scholarly credentials, former public representatives, officials from FBI and CIA and thorough knowledge of the US governing mechanism and foreign policy. References given in this document will lead reader to many such personalities. Some are prominent in their local communities or in academic circles.

Weaknesses of the Reformers

On research and presentation of their findings grounds, the reformists in the US are the most credible vehicle for transforming the US into a law abiding, civilized country, but in the current reality, they operate under a number of handicaps that significantly reduce their effectiveness.

Their most basic handicap, which underlies most of the others, is financial. One often see request for donations on different web-sites which are providing the Americans alternative views and news. Of course, people behind such efforts need financial resources because one cannot devote their lives to such an intensive research work and its publication without any finances involved.

Powerful forces stand behind the covert neo-cons in the so-called mainstream media, which in itself is an extension of the corporate world. The ruling elite provide them with enormous resources: money, infrastructure, media and access to other popular platforms, control over educational and welfare institutions, etc.

More importantly, they have a captive audience through streaming cables right into public living rooms, schools, and offices. Both overt and covert neo-cons have their own publishing houses, radio and TV stations, schools, newspapers, etc. Reformists have very little comparable.

The second handicap is political. Reformists living in a neo-con dominated environment are politically active but they are far from having support, and their posture exposes them to danger. David Duke is an example. Former representative in the Louisiana House, and candidate for U.S. Senate was put in jail for some what he colleagues claim were cooked up charges.[62] They can be accused of treason, taken to court, prevented from writing and working and harassed in various ways.

As long as they are operating as isolated individuals, this is a weakness. But in connection with support and a movement, it becomes an asset, in the sense that—like other liberation and civil rights movements — some individuals are prepared to risk jail, to serve as heroes, role models, and leaders.

The other handicap most of the reformists face in the West that they are lumped together with those who have been telling stories about flying saucers etc and labeled together as “conspiracy theorists” by the so-called mainstream media. This apparently is an easy way to cover up the truth. However 9/11 have given a totally different perspective to the reformists struggle against the ruling elites. They do not base their argument in vague ideas, stories and smoke. They have hard evidence. They don’t do anything except putting the footage taken by CNN and others on slow motion and ask the right questions.


The problem of neo-conic totalitarianism — its manifestations, its underlying causes, and its propensity to meld with other social and political conflicts — makes this an extremely complex issue. There is no one correct approach or response, and there certainly is not one identifiable “fix” particularly in the absence of an alternative model for human governance. Even the reformists have no solid system to offer. Their force is on identifying problem and crimes of the empire and putting guilt of the responsible individuals and organizations in proper perspective. What is called for is a mixed approach that rests on firm and decisive commitment to the fundamental American values of freedom, justice and equality.

This approach seeks to strengthen and foster the development of solid opposition to the creeping tyranny. In the post 9/11 environment, American have the opportunity to forge alliances in the name of public investigations, public hearings, inquiries and other joint forums. It provides them opportunity for interaction and necessary flexibility to deal with different settings appropriately. It reduces the danger of unintended negative effects of their struggle to unearth roots of the parasitic system. The following outline describes what such a strategy might look like:

Ø • Support the reformists first, promoting their research about 9/11 in particular by providing them with a broad platform to articulate and disseminate their findings. 9/11 has become the Achilles’ heel of the overt and covert neo-cons who have been ruling and maintaining the status quo for so long. They, not the covert neo-cons, should be cultivated and publicly presented as the face of contemporary America.

Ø • Support findings of the reformists who are still under the influence of “mainstream media” but support their conclusions on a case-by-case basis.

Ø • Encourage institutions and programs that promote international harmony, respect of others’ way of life and right to live independent live without the influence of a globo-cop.

Ø • Expose hypocrisy and double standards of the “mainstream media” which has already lost its grip due to the force of internet. It would never have aired pictures of Abu Ghraib provided it was confident enough that these evidence of these atrocities would spread like wild fire if it fell in the hands of alternative media.

Ø • Back the alternative media-source, which are fast becoming the real mainstream and keep them viable against the so-called mainstream media. The world still have time to take advantage before the neo-con totalitarians slap some unprecedented kind of restrictions on internet when they see their fig leaves falling apart and the truth going totally out of control to hide.

Ø • Finally, oppose the Zionist-neo-cons alliance energetically by striking at vulnerabilities in their fake claims for human rights, democracy and human right, exposing things that neither the tyro idealists nor the consummate neo-cons can afford to go public: their lies, their deception, their brutality, their ignorance, the bias and manifest errors in their application of foreign policy, and their inability to lead and govern.

Some additional, more-direct activities will be necessary to support this overall approach, such as the following:

Ø • Help break the Zionists and neo-cons monopoly on defining the values for which to kill thousands of Americans and other lives.

Ø • Promote books, other work and web sites by reformists in the US.

Ø • Use popular regional media, such as radio, to introduce research work and thoughts of reformist Americans to broaden the international view of what is actually happening in the US.


[1]. The New York Times and its Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Thomas Friedman are the lead promoters of a “war within Islam.”

[2]. Ron Suskind, “Without a Doubt,” the New York Times, October 17, 2004.

[3]. See BBC Poll published April 09, 2004. It shows that 52 per respondents around the world believe the US is a greater threat that the so-called terrorism.( ) Maggie Farley, “World Citizens Use Web to Weigh In on U.S. Foreign Policy Sites give others a voice to help Americans understand how U.S. actions are perceived, “ Los Angeles Times, October 01, 2004. This article shows how the world perceives the US and how a US public, brain washed by the so-called mainstream media perceive the US.,1,2183824,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
[4] Read about the latest status of the US spending on arms spending, etc., and the way the pseudo-media present it as still insufficient. See: Time Weiner, “A Vast Arms Buildup, Yet Not Enough for Wars,” The New York Times, October 01, 2004.

[5]. Heitmeyer, Wilhelm, interview, Tageszeitung, September 24, 2001.

[6]. Eric Margolis, “Why the West is Losing,” Toronto Star, September 12, 2004.

[7]. Bush says the war in Iraq is part of the broader ideological struggle. Covert neo-cons, such as David Brooks feel elated at such pronouncements. See: David Brooks, “Sense and Sensibility,” The New York Times, October 02, 2004. In total contrast read John Kaminski who says “9/11 Was Staged to Defame Muslims,” Published Yemen Times: September 01, 2004.

[8]. See: and

[9]. See: “The enemies of truth,” The Guardian, March 24, 2004.



[12]. See details: Jacob G. Hornberger, “Serfs on the Plantation, Part 1, June 1993.

[13]. The individual and team work done by the Americans to unearth the real culprits is now spread all over the internet. Belittling them as conspiracy theorists is one thing but proving them wrong is absolutely another. No one among the pseudo-mainstream media can hardly dare to call them lairs. The government can hard challenge the facts they unearth or al least take some action if it is merely an allegation that the UG government knowingly and intentionally killed 3000 of its own people on 9/11. Following are, but just a few of the hundreds of web-sites launched by Americans to expose lies of the US government that are leading to wars and occupations abroad and consummation of tyranny at home.

* 9/11 commission failures
* NORAD Lied About 9/11
* Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt Knew·66% Call For New Probe
* Media Silence on 9/11
* US ? democracy
* Sibel Edmonds ·former FBI translator
* foreword
* Flight 77 related links killtown resume
* mikejwilson
* resume2 flash 2.97mb
* pentalawn2000
* skydrifter
* ruppert
* von buelow
* prisonplanet
* Brad M
* xymphora
* eric bart
* D L
* dick eastman
* jp petit
* Steven_banned
* jp desmoulins
* 11syyskuu
* amigaphil
* bcrevolution
* jam
* guardian
* The Power Hour
* Whitewash
* media-criticism
* freedom files
* deprogram
* ulli's welt
* G Holmgren
* pentagate
* 119-questions
* 911research
* physics911
* 911review
* investigate911
* 911uncovered
* 911hoax
* September eleventh
* 911commission
* Kansas companion
* coleccionados
* global research
* wisnewski vs spiegel
* steinbergrecherche vs taz
* konkret
* john lee
* freedom files
* ewing2001
* John Kaminski
* nzaif
* von buelow
* timeline
* underreported
* letsroll911
* rense
* skousen
* wikioulala
* MalcontentX
* asile
* Hunt the Boeing
* geoffmetcalf
* cryptome
* thememoryhole
* freenet
* wing tv
* serendipity
* bosankoe
* lokinazg
* infoguerre
* heather wokusch
* propagandamatrix
* thenewliberator
* ruppert
* Ian Fraser
* apfn
* cyberspaceorbit
* erichufschmid
* coredefense
* unansweredquestions
* indymedia questionsquestions
* Emperors-Clothes
* whatreallyhappened
* enduring-freedoms
* PlaguePuppy's Café
* newsoutpost
* mariani
* loftninjas
* arbeiterfotografie
* hintergrund
* independent
* Virgo
* liberty post
* cartes rv
* American free press
* liberty think
* wotraceafg
* ceiberweiber
* democracy now
* legrandsoir
* feldpolitik
* media channel
* entrefilets
* matttaibbi
* dedefensa

[14]. Carol Morello, “Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet,” Washington Post, Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page B01 but there are Americans who have the will and knowledge to stand up and say that all in the so-called mainstream are naked. See for example:

[15]. Alex Jones, “9/11 The Road to Tyranny,” A film. Introduction given at

[16]. Harvey Wasserman & Bob Fitrakis, “Sen Byrd, Media Begin To Cover Bush-Hitler Connection,”
The Scoop, (October 23, 2003)
Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington, “How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power ,”
Guardian, September 25, 2004 The Guardian,,1312484,00.html

[17]. Cynthia McKinney, “thoughts about our war on terrorism,” Counterpunch, Counterpunch, April 13, 2002. and also see how she is criticized for her telling the truth

[18]. See independent and impartial research reports:

[19]. See:

[20]. See. Thomas Friedman’s article repeating the same theme of not enough troops from May 13 2003 to October 03, 2003 column.

[21]. Read David Brooks of the New York Times in the Daily Standard, 02/21/2003.

[22]. Nicholas D. Kristoff, “Calling Bush a Lair,” The New York Times, June 30, 2004.





[27]. Leon Fisher, “De Facto Dictatorship USA,” August 18, 2004

[28]. Ibid. Leon Fisher.

[29]. Ron Fraser, “The Demise of Democracy,” The Trumpet, Philadelphia Church of God, Nov 2002.

[30]. Thomas L. Friedman, “Today's News Quiz,” The New York Times, November 20, 2001

[31]. Thomas L. Friedman, “One man, One wall, One Vote,” New York Times, September 14, 2003.

[32]. Editorial, “Global Democracy Policy,” New York Times, Nov 08, 2003.

[33]. I highly recommend the books "Treason in America," and "Dope Inc." which are rare but can be found through . "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush" (Sr.) is the authentic history of our time and it is on line.

[34]. Lyndon LaRouche quoted by Henry Makow Ph.D. in his article “Too Soon to Give Up On Democracy,” June 06, 2004 .

[35]. Joseph Farah, “The Democracy Ruse,” World Net Daily, May 19, 2003.

[36]. Jacob G. Hornberger, “Is Democracy Freedom?,” Future of Freedom Foundation, November 1999. The author is founder and President of FFF.

[37]. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Democracy's Road to Tyranny,” The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., May 1988, Vol. 38, No. 5.

[38]. Ibid. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn



[41]. See. and

[42]. Quoted on

[43]. Thomas Friedman: “West faces war of ideas with Islamists,” First article in the series of “ War of Ideas,” Jan 08, 2004.

[44]. Ron Fraser, “How Islamic jihad accelerates the new world order,” Trumpet, November 2001.

[45]. Thomas L. Friedman, The humiliation Factor,” The New York Times, Nov 9, 2003.

[46]. Thomas L. Friedman, “The war of Ideas, Part 6,” The New York Times, Jan 25, 2004




[50]. See:

[51]. See:


[53]. Trumpet November 2003

[54]. Trumpet May 2004,

[55]. Trumpet, May 2004

[56]. Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristo, “ Crush the Insurgents in Iraq,” May 23, 2004; Page B07

[57]. Ibid. Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristo

[58]. ,



[61]. See reference given under democracy where some Americans clearly challenge the idea of democracy, pointing out that there is no mention to this term in the original documents and other work of the American founding fathers. This is an invention to keep grip of a minority ruling elite strong on power.

[62]. See:


Please, click here to read :: Part One ::