Sunday, July 30, 2006


Click Here - WAS 911 AN INSIDE JOB?

Last night I watched 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda on CSPAN 1. I must tell you it was riveting. The June American Scholars Symposium gave light to so many myths about what really happened on September 11, 2001. I have always felt that we did not get a full account of this horrific happening and even wondered if the whole orchestration of events was possibly planned.

It is so BIZARRE, I can imagine why people want to believe these folks, all scholars at are stark raving mad. They are not insane but I wish they were!

This idea is so thoroughly sad, to think that our government would allow the September 11, 2001 atrocity, a day so brutal that it even dwarfs The Pearl Harbor's day in infamy just to bring their own farfetched ideology into reality.

If you missed last night's showing (July 29, 2006) you will be able to view it tonight Sunday July 30, 2006. Please try not to miss it. It does not answer the question... WAS 911 AN INSIDE JOB? What the panel does is create more questions, many, many more; And it seems our government does not have any answers. In fact, they just want the whole conspiracy theory to be LAUGHED OUT LOUD at. I FOR ONE, AM NOT LAUGHING!!! thinkingblue

9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda on CSPAN 1!
Another breakthrough media moment! This weekend CSPAN 1, the main CSPAN channel, will broadcast a truly powerful panel discussion from the June American Scholars Symposium: "9/11 and the Neocon Agenda," and will air it three times in prime viewing slots.
Click graphic for more details.

This dynamic panel including Professor Steven Jones, Col. Robert Bowman, Professor James Fetzer, Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones, powerfully demolishes the government's official story of what happened on 9/11.

CSPAN's schedule now confirms that the L.A. panel discussion on 9/11 will be broadcast Saturday night, July 29, at 8:00 PM (EDT), 11:00PM (EDT), and Sunday, July 30 at 2:15 PM (EDT) . Pass the word and crank up the VCRs... -- Courtesy of

Saturday, July 29, 2006


CLICK HERE FOR NO, FEEL GOOD WARM FUZZIES to be found...only doom!

Does anyone believe the next sentence to be true? George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons are responsible for THE CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Well there is more than an ounce of truth in it. First of all their lack of diplomacy is not a mistake, it is a premeditated plan. Since Bush and his minions believe themselves to be ruler of the only superpower, this neocon belief transpires into an HALLUCINATORY HUBRIS that they are also ... THE RULERS OF THE WORLD!

What is happening in the Middle East between Israel and Lebanon is the REARING OF A UGLY NEOCON HEAD which Bush and his lot would really
rather hide. The ugly head is their plan to allow wars and killings to
continue (perhaps even sit on the sideline and root as if it were a sports game between two rival teams) and not even attempt a gesture at calling for a cease fire so that international intermediators can calmly look at the whole picture. In fact, they want anything "international" TO STAY OUT OF THE WARS THEY'VE CHEERED ON.

In the meantime, the barbarous killing and maiming continue on and on as if there is some magic number of dead that will have to be reached before one should step in and call a halt! To them, Collateral Damage is only "LAMENTABLE" (as Dubya's spokesman Tony Snow puts it ...follow this link to hear him say it: OR CLICK HERE)

(LAMENTABLE adj. Inspiring or deserving of lament or regret)

Question to G. W. Bush:: How many Iraq citizens have died in this war? G. W. Bush replies: "Umm. I would say 30,000 more or less…"

The sadness is great and the sorrow is felt throughout the whole world as the mayhem continues and Bush's cabal go about their daily routines of breathing, eating, bathing, purging, in other words ... LIVING LIFE IN THEIR IVORY TOWERS WHILE THE WORLD BURNS AND THE CHILDREN DIE!!! thinkingblue

CLICK PICTURE TO GO TO SITEPS: Paul Krugman's article (below) is so very sad but an eye opener...
IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR US...?? When will the human being stop behaving like a child who will listen to lies and believe them??? We have the Internet FOR PETE'S SAKE...!!! Don't listen FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF WHAT LIES AND TRUTHS ARE OUT THERE... But, then again, even with this wonderful asset the "ROSE COLORED GLASSES" BREED will only look for WHAT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD... But one day, there will be no FEEL GOOD WARM FUZZIES to be found...only destructive doom! thinkingblue

The New York Times
July 28, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist
Reign of Error

Amid everything else that's going wrong in the world, here's one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005.

Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.

At one level, this shouldn't be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don't like have been established, whether it's the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.

But it's dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.

Here's how the process works.

First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue of stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Sometimes the officials simply lie. The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality, Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.

Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice's response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.(Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it's still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did
know about it.) But,as she went on, that's a very narrow
definition of what caused Sept. 11.

Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It's hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.

Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980's-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)

Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.

And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources that aren't de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?

The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it's not entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the 'good news' from Iraq and my sense is that this attack did
lead to a temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting, under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the administration's favor.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If
there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that's not at all what happened, I've missed them.

It's all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past, he was thinking of totalitarian states.

Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?>


Subject: Re: Some truth in the rubble
Saturday, July 29th at 8PM (EST)
C-SPAN has confirmed that their coverage of the 9/11 +The Neo-Con Agenda Panel Discussion will air on C-SPAN1 on July 29th at 8PM (EST). The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor StevenJones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF,ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, andTerrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

The appearance of this discussion on the nation’s premiere public affairs cable network is an incredible boon to the 9/11 Truth Movement. None of the 9/11 Truth events that C-SPAN has covered in the past areas hard-hitting as the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agendaprogram. This panel discussion cuts to the heart of the issue and exposes the events of September 11th,2001 as a complex premeditated plot carried out by criminal elements within the U.S. Government as a pretext for launching the endless “War on Terror” in which the globe is currently embroiled. C-SPAN’s coverage of this pivotal information will bring considerable national attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement. It will also lend further credibility to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the premiere organization within the movement for peer-reviewed scientific research on 9/11 issues.

Each member of the panel brought their own particular perspective and expertise to the discussion while each maintained throughout their comments that 9/11 was an“inside job.”

Alex Jones, a progenitor of the 9/11 Truth Movement introduced the panel and acted as moderator. Professor Steven E. Jones, an expert in Physics, re-capped his vital new research which has conclusively proven that demolition incendiaries were used to bring down World Trade Center and could have only been placed there in advance of 9/11.

As a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota and a former Marine Corps officer, James Fetzer cut through the myths surrounding the 9/11 hijackers. Former Air Force Interceptor Pilot Robert Bowman brought up the lack ofair defense on the day of 9/11 and shed light on the slough of drills conducted on 9/11 to distract the military and prevent Flights 11 & 77 from being shotdown.

Finally Author and Historian Webster Tarpley tied all of the information together to paint a picture of 9/11. He described the drills, Bush’s actions and the blow-by-blow details of that fateful day that revealed what could only be called the horrible truth of a conspiracy fact.

It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards.This is an incredible step in spreading the word about the truth about 9/11.
The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at 8PM EST (7PM CST)on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the WestCoast at 11pm EST (10pm CST).


Also read:
In State's Lebanon Lingo, No 'Evacuees'

Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A17

"Evacuation" apparently is a dirty word at the State Department. We're told
that during deliberations at Foggy Bottom about getting Americans out of
Lebanon, it was decided that "evacuation" was too negative -- and of course
it erroneously implied the notion of ferrying people in a dangerous place to

And let's also probe Bush's unchecked power which play a large part in our world's INSANITY! THINKINGBLUE
Tomgram: David Cole on How the Supreme Court Struck Back

This post can be found at

Last week Attorney General Alberto J. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the President had personally shut down a Justice Department investigation into the domestic eavesdropping program being run by the National Security Agency. According to Neil Lewis of the New York Times,

"Mr. Gonzales made the assertion in response to questioning from Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the committee. Mr.Specter said the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Department had to call off an investigation into the conduct of department lawyers who evaluated the [NSA] surveillance program because the unit was denied clearance to review classified documents.

"'Why wasn't O.P.R. given clearance as so many other lawyers in the Department of Justice were given clearance?' Mr. Specter asked.

"Mr. Gonzales replied, ‘The president of the United States makes decisions about who is ultimately given access," and he added that the president ‘makes the decision because this is such an importantprogram."

It was the first time in its thirty-one year history that investigators fromthe OPR, who regularly conduct
into executive branch programs involving the highest levels of classified information," were blocked from doing so.

An anonymous "senior Justice Department official" offered the following explanation to Lewis: "We had to draw the line somewhere" -- one of those classic descriptions that should have been in the headline, not deep in the piece. For the most secretive dministration in American history, even the anonymity of the source was perfect. The only inaccuracy in the line was that splendidly placed "somewhere." As on every other issue of legal, ethical, or constitutional import, this administration never draws the line "somewhere"; it always draws its line at the same place -- the place, to be exact, which gives the commander-in-chief presidency that is this administration's heart and soul the most possible power and denies power most outrageously to any other branch of, or agency of, government (except, of course, the Pentagon).

Recently, though, one of those branches refused to accept the administration's "somewhere" in the sand and instead drew some rather striking lines of its own. David Cole, law professor and author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism, offers a canny and vivid account of how the Supreme Court drew those lines, challenging an administration that, until recently, brooked no challenge. Thanks to the kindness of the editors of the New York Review of Books in whose most recent issue this piece appears, Cole's essay is now posted here. Tom

Why the Court Said No

By David Cole

[This piece, which appears in the August 10, 2006 issue of the New York Review of Books, is posted here with the kind permission of the editors of that magazine.]

Since the first few days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has taken the view that the President has unilateral, unchecked authority to wage a war, not only against those who attacked us on that day, but against all terrorist organizations of potentially global reach. The administration claims that the President's role as commander in chief of the armed forces grants him exclusive authority to select "the means andmethods of engaging the enemy." And it has interpreted that power in turn to permit the President to take actions many consider illegal.

The Justice Department has maintained that the President can order torture,notwithstanding a criminal statute and an international treaty prohibiting torture under all circumstances. President Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, despite a comprehensive statute that makes such surveillance a crime. He has approved the "disappearance" of al-Qaeda suspects into secret prisons where they are interrogated with tactics that include waterboarding, in which the prisoner is strapped down and made to believe he will drown. He has asserted the right to imprison indefinitely, without hearings, anyone he considers an "enemy combatant," and to try such persons for war crimes in ad hoc military tribunals lacking such essential safeguards as independent judges and the right of the accused to confront the evidence against him.

In advocating these positions, which I will collectively call "the Bush doctrine," the administration has brushed aside legal objections as mere hindrances to the ultimate goal of keeping Americans safe. It has argued that domestic criminal and constitutional law are of little concern because the President's powers as commander in chief override all such laws; that the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties that regulate the treatment of prisoners during war, simply do not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda; and more broadly still, that the President has unilateral authority to defy international law. In short, there is little to distinguish the current administration's view from that famously espoused by President Richard Nixon when asked to justify his authorization of illegal, warrantless wiretapping of Americans during the Vietnam War: "When the President does it,that means that it is not illegal."

If another nation's leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers. But President Bush has largely gotten away with it, at least at home, for at least three reasons. His party holds a decisive majority in Congress, making effective political checks by that branch highly unlikely. The Democratic Party has shied away from directly challenging the President for fear that it will be viewed as soft on terrorism. And the American public has for the most part offered only muted objections.

These realities make the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, issued on the last day of its 2005-2006 term, in equal parts stunning and crucial. Stunning because the Court, unlike Congress, the opposition party, or the American people, actually stood up to the President. Crucial because the Court's decision, while on the surface narrowly focused on whether the military tribunals President Bush created to try foreign suspects for war crimes were consistent with U.S. law, marked, at a deeper level, a dramatic refutation of the administration's entire approach to the "war on terror." CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

David Cole is a Professor of Law at Georgetown and a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. He is the author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism.

This article appears in the August 10, 2006 issue of
the New York Review of Books.
Copyright 2006 David Cole

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

Wednesday, July 26, 2006



I just read Cindy Sheehan's take on all the killings going on in our world and she speaks for us all who live in this
hallucinatory, nightmarish time. All we seemingly can do (that is all who still possess a slight resemblance to a conscience) is helplessly watch the leaders of our world go psychotic and order everyone, man, woman and child to KILL, KILL, KILL or be KILLED!

To think, I use to believe that all the appalling, macabre, morbid acts of the past were coming to an end and the world was, at long last, beginning to make sense ... Silly me. We still live in the kingdom of the depraved. When will we stop being helpless, when will it end?

Probably never, as long as money, greed and power rule the day!

Please click the above theater picture to hear Chris Matthews finally tell some truths.

Question to Matthews: "Hey, Chris did it feel GOOD? I think your purge must have felt WONDERFUL! Keep going, you and the world will be glad you did!" thinkingblue

PS: Please read the heart wrenching message from Cindy Sheehan (below)...

Helplessly Hoping

Day 21, Troops Home Fast

By Cindy Sheehan

t r u t h o u t Perspective

Tuesday 25 July 2006

I have been in such a blue funk of depression and worry since Israel's over-reaction - or "over
action" - in Lebanon in what seems to be insanity escalating out of control. What our media and some world leaders seem to expediently forget is that Israel massacred an entire family on a beach in Lebanon with a rocket and kidnapped two Palestinian citizens before Hezbollah and Hamas kidnapped some Israeli soldiers. Who started the cycle of violence in those countries? Who knows? Who cares! The important question is: who are going to be the courageous ones with integrity, wisdom and compassion who are going to at long last stop the absurdity?

As hard as I may try, I cannot wrap my mind around the fanatical rhetoric coming out of DC and from all over the world and the mindless and seemingly overwhelming support of Israel's right to "defend itself." What Israel is doing in Lebanon by killing hundreds of innocent civilians in a relatively short period of time is like the US defending itself from the tens of thousands of
innocent babies, women and children in Iraq. It is morally reprehensible and just an extension of BushCo's campaign to enrich the voracious war profiteers.

I read yesterday that our State Department approved a new shipment of bombs and rockets to Israel. With the thousands upon thousands of US-made bombs and rockets being dropped on
Lebanon by the IDF it makes one wonder if the expiration dates on the bombs were nearing and the war machine needed to sell and ship more bombs so that the CEOs could fill their Hummers, limos, and jets with gas. Naively, I always presumed that the State Department was there to prevent the use of military force, not support it by authorizing more weapons for more efficient killing! Don't we have a War Department for more killing? I feel like I am living in Bizarro World.

I have been watching a lot of cable news networks and have heard such one-sided phrases as: "Over 50 civilians killed in Lebanon today, but the real story is in the Israeli city of Nazareth, where two Hezbollah rockets landed." Why is that the real story, Tucker Carlson? It is an immensely tragic story, because two harmless children were killed in Nazareth, but how does it trump over 50 civilians being killed in Lebanon? Oh yeah, I forgot! John Bolton said that there is no "moral
" between innocent Arabs being killed and innocent Israelis being killed. It's not immoral for Israel to kill innocent civilians because they are fighting terror with more terror: it's the American Way!

One day I heard another perfectly coiffed and composed talking head say while the fancy war graphics rolled across the TV screen in my hotel room: "This is day 12 of fighting in the Middle East." Day 12! Try selling that idiotic sound bite to the people of Iraq and who are dying by the dozens still every day in increasing violence. Try telling our soldiers who keep on dying over there
that this is "Day 12" … It is more like 2,567 on day 1,200 plus of fighting in Iraq. The war crimes in Israel and Lebanon have so conveniently knocked Iraq completely off the radar screen, which is probably a thing of beauty and a welcome development to the White House and Pentagon.

We are being told that a few hundred people have been killed in Lebanon when we were shown a mass grave on CNN in the ancient city of Tyre that had almost 90 coffins in it being presided over by a distraught mayor, telling us that at least two or three hundred more of his city's residents were buried in the rubble of the barbaric Israeli attacks. Tyre is one city, and we viewed the mass grave days ago. Tyre and the rest of the country are being relentlessly bombed for the sins of a few, which is a crime against humanity.

It seems like we are armchair witnesses to Armageddon and ashamed witnesses to our fool of a President at the G-8: groping women; talking, eating, and swearing with his mouth full; drooling over slicing a pig and generally acting like a drunken and amorous frat boy at a toga party. I would like to ask George Bush a few more questions besides "What noble cause?" Like: "What the
hell is so humorous, you jester in a tailored suit? You told us that you were making the world a safer place because of your War of Terror, and you are decidedly not!" I would also like to ask him if he is proud of himself for the way things are going on the 1200th plus day of fighting in the Middle East. Of course it is not about pride - it is about profit and the Project for a New Amer. Century.

I mourn for the murders of the Israeli people, which are just as tragic (but not more tragic) and done just as barbarically (but not more barbarically) as the murders that Israel is commiting in this needless violence, as much as I mourn the deaths of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the innocents in all Arab countries who are trapped in this insane spiral of bedlam. When is the
world going to realize that bloodshed cannot be stopped, cured or even alleviated by shedding more blood? Killing is a cancer that spreads the more it is fed. This disease is spreading around the world, and instead of passing resolutions to condone the punishment of an innocent civilian population, Congress should be passing resolutions condemning ALL types of violence and
should be supporting Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-Ohio) call for a truce (H.Con.Res 450) so a diplomatic solution can be sought - one that brings ALL sides to the table and one that ALL sides can feel comfortable and safer with. The only way to a "lasting cease-fire" that the weapons broker, Condi, keeps talking about is a negotiated settlement that includes and insists on peaceful co-existence in the region.

Martin Luther King Jr. said it is either "peaceful co-existence or mutual co-annihilation." Our planet is headed on a path of annihilation if we don't all stop and take a deep breath, relax and realize that our brothers and sisters are being killed in the Middle East so that more bombs and rockets can be rushed there (on all sides) and so that our oil companies can have total control of the world's oil resources.

I have felt so helpless in the face of such unwarranted carnage, calamity, and sorrow. I have felt hopeless that anything I do can even alleviate the suffering of one person. I am helplessly hoping that the people of the world will join me and rise up to say a collective: "In God's (Allah's - whatever's) name: enough is more than enough, already!"

One last quote: Dwight David Eisenhower said, "I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." I believe that we the people of Earth should demand that our governments get out of our way and stop being beholden to the war machine and allow us to have peace. Selfishly, I would love to have a world that my
surviving children and their children can peacefully co-exist with peoples of other nations in.

I recognize Israel's right to defend itself as I recognize the US's right to defend ourselves as I recognize Lebanon's and Iraq's right to defend themselves - but I do not, cannot, and will not recognize anyone's right to commit wholesale slaughter on babies and children. I refuse to recognize that right no matter who does it - terrorists or state-sanctioned wars of terror - I refuse to recognize the right to slaughter and, whether it makes a difference or not, I refuse to be silent about it.

It must stop: For my children, your children and their children. They are all our children.


Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, who was KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04. She and thousands of others from around the world are getting ready for another summer of holding BushCo accountable in Crawford, Texas, at Camp Casey. For more information, go to Troops Home Fast.


Today in my yahoo email I spotted this headline...
Rice seeks 'urgent and enduring' peace
(click here to read)

How pathetic is this? They (the whole Bush cabal) started this mess... beginning in Iraq and festering across the Middle East and then this
go flittering around like they are the peace makers... READ THIS STATEMENT FROM BUSH, the self appointed,
agent provocateur
of the Middle East:
"Israel has a right to defend herself," Bush said at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life."

read more of this stunningly unabashed hypocrisy click here



Robert Birnbaum: The American right wing—a phrase I never use—they so
remind me of a character on Leave It to Beaver, Eddie Haskell. They do this
nasty, underhanded stuff and then when someone does something like it, they are
appalled that someone would do some nasty, underhanded stuff. It’s such bad

Hendrik Hertzberg: There is definitely a schoolyard bully aspect to this,
and part of it is to do something mean to the other guy and then to be a
tattletale and go to the teacher when you do it to them. Which, alas they, or I
should say, we do not do it to them nearly enough. But we are learning. Click Here





CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

Monday, July 24, 2006


G.W. Bush appears, in once again, THE THEATER OF THE ABSURD!

click to watch Josh Bolten squirm when questioned on bush veto

It's not just back to the drawing board for medical scientists... It's back to the Dark Ages ...

(Dark Age n. 1. An era of repression and unenlightenment)

Yes, I mean back to the DARK AGES, since Bush vetoed funding for medical stem cell research to help the many human beings... the men, women, children and all the babies who have succumbed to direful fates because of some debilitating disease or accidental physical atrophy.

What is an Embryonic stem cell?

Joel Seligman in an article about VETOING STEM CELL RESEARCH AND HOW IT WILL HURT FAMILIES AND SCIENCE, explains it best:
"Embryonic stem cells have a unique ability to differentiate into any cell in the body and hold great promise for treating conditions affecting millions of Americans, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, cancer, heart disease and many more."

I, in my lifetime, have witnessed numerous family members, suffer and die from these very afflictions. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, all belonging to my particular bloodline (or that of my husband's), have been lost during the different years I've taken breath. Each, up and coming new year, is no longer a time of happiness and hope for me, it's a "I wonder whose turn it will be to get sick and die during this turnover of one year past and a new one's beginning?"

Today, 2006, is my sister Sarah's turn. She, several years ago was diagnosed with Hydrocephalus (water on the brain). A medical team inserted a shunt to allow drainage of the excess fluid from the brain area to her abdomen. After, Sarah's surgery she was quite visibly changed. Her motor movements became faltering and her speech was impeded but, at least, she was alive. So said the doctors: "if Sarah had waited any longer to see a physician she would have perished." It's painful to say, but this dire caveat from men of science denotes no joy.

Since then, she has steadily gone down hill. Now, she is at a point of no return
and must wear adult diapers and be waited on for all her hygienic needs. Not an
easy task for her 84 year old husband who has become her care provider. It is so
sad to see her wasting away in front of our eyes.... This woman who was once a vibrant contributing member of our family, is now reduced to a state of confounding infancy.

I visualize all the Sarah's of our society, ravaged by some disease and gradually declining. Without any hope for treatment, marking the days until death can free them from the misery they are embodied in.

It appears, our leader is more protective of the tiny clumps of cells, frozen and waiting for disposal then he is of existing living souls. It's hard for me to fathom his reasoning on this, it just makes no sense at all!

Mr Bush is also a member of a lineage, I guess it will have to strike him personally before he can see the light of day on his anti-scientific research position to stop funding (our money, by the way) the quests which would without a doubt, help and give hope to so many. The statistics, the Sarahs, who confront and bear the agony of pain and loss of dignity each minute, each hour, each and every day left in their unbearable lives.

I hate to wish anyone ill-will but all we can hope for now, is that one day a Sarah will be present in a G. W. Bush world, creating a "poetic justice" of sorts for his kind. Perhaps, when all cold hearted, illogical thinking is obliterated and replaced by reason, we may one day see an end to disease and the dawn of triumph over all the ills that strike the inhabitants of this Earth.

FROM THE PEN: Today is an important day. Today we can make a difference by telling them, as Gov. Dean has said, "Enough is Enough!" It's up to us.



"Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm
not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will be as one." - John Lennon


The War on Women -- and on Doctors

The South Dakota abortion ban and Bush's indefensible and morally obscene veto of the embryonic stem cell research bill are straight out of the Dark Ages, or worse.

I would have thought it would trouble those who still support Noble Leader's war allegedly fought on behalf of "Western civilization" that Bush and many of the current crop of Republicans are ultimately on the same side as our enemies. Of course, that would only be true if they were capable of coherent thought, and of understanding what the concepts of liberty and personal freedom actually mean.

Since we know they aren't, never mind.

UPDATE: Patrick Cockburn, one of the handful of genuinely superb foreign reporters, shines an unforgiving light on the immoral and sickening contradictions:

Medical researchers believe that stem cell research has the potential to change the face of human disease. A number of current treatments already exist, although the majority of them are not commonly used because they tend to be experimental and not very cost-effective. Medical researchers anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell research to treat cancer, spinal cord injuries, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases, impairments and conditions. However, there still exists a great deal of social and scientific uncertainty surrounding stem cell research, which could possibly be overcome by gaining the acceptance of the public and through years of intensive research.



OH THE HYPOCRISY!!! MORE ABSURDITIES FOR THE THEATER!!! Today in my yahoo email I spotted this headline...
Rice seeks 'urgent and enduring' peace
(click here to read)

How pathetic is this? They (the whole Bush cabal) started this mess... beginning in Iraq and festering across the Middle East and then this machination go flittering around like they are the peace makers... READ THIS STATEMENT FROM BUSH, the self appointed, agent provocateur of the Middle East:
"Israel has a right to defend herself," Bush said at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life." read more of this stunningly unabashed hypocrisy click here

Another good one from our friend Cindy,
Helplessly Hoping
By Cindy Sheehan

Robert Birnbaum: The American right wing—a phrase I never use—they so remind me of a character on Leave It to Beaver, Eddie Haskell. They do this nasty, underhanded stuff and then when someone does something like it, they are appalled that someone would do some nasty, underhanded stuff. It’s such bad form.

Hendrik Hertzberg: There is definitely a schoolyard bully aspect to this, and part of it is to do something mean to the other guy and then to be a tattletale and go to the teacher when you do it to them. Which, alas they, or I should say, we do not do it to them nearly enough. But we are learning. Click Here


CLICK HERE TO READ: July 22, 2006
The Church Lady Party




CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

Thursday, July 20, 2006

BUSH SCIENCE, uses veto power to hurt the sick and dying!



Please go to the crooksandliars website or click the picture above to watch Jon Stewart sprinkle some reality on the outlandish decision by Bush to outlaw federal funds to help bring about cures for the suffering masses. thinkingblue

PS: Message to President W. Bush:

Hey George, you have already told us you don't give a damn about poor people. Now you are, in a sense, fustigating the sick and dying as well. I guess, like Adolf, you would just like to use euthanasia rather than find cures for those deemed "life unworthy of life" ... Please read below, Nazi Euthanasia...
Oops, I forgot, you do not read... HOW SO VERY SAD FOR YOU (AND US)...




Dear Mr. Bush, Although, I know this plea comes too late for you to THINK and not just react to your base's unknowledgeable, unenlightened, religious desires. I still wish to make my comments known to you. You have already told us you don't care about poor people (remember Katrina). Now you are, in a sense, fustigating the sick and dying as well. You say, you worship LIFE, but in vetoing a bill that would help people to live without pain and suffering, your actions diverge with your WORSHIP OF LIFE position. Thank you,PS, I wonder how many of the wounded troops in Iraq, further embryonic stem cell research would have helped...? I guess that thought never crossed your mind either!

Nazi Euthanasia
In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled.

Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.

A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.
Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or - mark in blue pencil under the term "treatment" on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a 'Children's Specialty Department' for death by injection or gradual starvation
Bush vetoes stem cell bill, to scientists' dismay

13:28 20 July 2006 news service - Roxanne Khamsi

President George W Bush has kept his promise to veto a bill supporting stem cell research, much to the dismay of scientists across the country and prominent
members of his own Republican party.

The bill, which would have loosened restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, had just received approval from the Senate by a vote of 63 to 37 (see Senate passes stem cell Act, but Bush may veto it) on Tuesday.

Following Bush's announcement of a veto, the issue went back to the US House of Representatives. But with 235 to 193 votes in favour of overturning the veto, the House’s vote still fell short of the two-thirds majority needed.

US scientists have argued that the lack of federal funding for studies on new types of stem cells has hindered the development of potentially life-saving therapies. Stem cell research is considered by experts as promising for the
treatment of illnesses such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes.

"Illogical" decision!
The bill, which received initial approval from the House of Representatives in 2005, would have permitted federal researchers to harvest embryonic stem cells from surplus embryos created during in-vitro fertilisation (IVF)

"The veto is illogical, since the additional embryos generated from IVF treatment would be destroyed regardless," says Azim Surani at the Gordon
Institute in Cambridge, UK. "This destruction is morally indefensible if they
can be used to give hope to people with debilitating diseases."

Rules introduced by Bush in 2001 limited federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to just 22 cell lines isolated before early August of that year, many of which have been tainted by mouse material (see

US stem cells tainted by mouse material
). US researchers working on newer stem cell lines must secure private funding to do so.

"The stated reason for President Bush's objection to embryonic stem cell research is that 'murder is wrong'," explains Graeme Laurie at the University of Edinburgh, UK. "Why then, does he not intervene to regulate or ban stem cell research carried out with private funds and which is happening across the United States?"

Stem Cells - Learn more about the promise and the controversy in our cutting edge
special report


Join thinkingblue in protesting this veto ...

Dear Fellow American,
Today George Bush chose political posturing over human life, denying hope to
millions of Americans, their families and loved ones who are affected by
debilitating diseases.

He used his first-ever veto to stop the discovery of new cures for diseases like juvenile diabetes, leukemia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and many others. More than 70% of Americans from every walk of life -- whether in the faith community, the science lab, the hospital or at the bedside of a sick relative -- and majorities in both chambers of Congress disagree, but that didn't stop him.

The bill he vetoed wasn't a sweeping change -- it was a small, practical measure that would have made a big difference for medical research based on
sound science. But the consequences are sweeping: the proposed law would have
allowed research on excess embryos generated during processes like fertility
treatments -- embryos that would otherwise simply be

Now is the time to speak out. Send a message to your representatives letting them know that you support cure discovery now:

If George Bush truly believed his rhetoric about stem cells, he would do something about the processes that create the excess embryos in the first place. But he won't. They will continue to go unused (his spokesman limply calls it a "tragedy"), and cures will continue to be beyond our reach.

Bush may not be willing to choose cure discovery over his right-wing base, but the vast majority of Americans support cure research.

Even after his veto, Democrats in Congress will continue to keep the pressure on to get more votes. If Republicans refuse to join the cause and override
Bush's veto, it will have to be decided at the ballot box in November. Democrats
will continue to fight to keep this hope for the discovery of new cures alive.

The Congress and the rest of the country are paying attention right now, and
we have to seize this moment to build the coalition of support for cure
discovery. Please add your name to the list of supporters and we'll send your
message to your representatives:

Congressional Democrats on Bush's cruel choice

As everyone expected, George W. Bush yesterday took the path even more toward the Religious Right and away from science and enlightenment when he vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which had just passed the Senate on Tuesday after passage in the House of Representatives in 2005.

The bill, H.R. 810, went immediately back to the House, where a vote of 235 to 193, fell 51 short of the two-thirds majority required to override Bush's rejection of the bill that would have expanded embryonic stem-cell research and given hope to millions of Americans suffering life-threatening and crippling illnesses.

"If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos," said Bush. "Crossing this line would be a grave mistake and would
needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do
damage to both and harm our nation as a whole."

I guess to this president, stem cell research is bad for our society, but it's just fine to have taxpayers fund the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens for no reason whatsoever.

Here's some reactions from Congressional Democrats:

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

“I am extremely disappointed in the president’s veto and will do everything I can to make sure this groundbreaking research proposal still becomes law. Only one of the bills we passed Tuesday delivers real promise for a cure to millions of Americans. Yet this is the bill the president vetoed. The federal government should not stand in the way of a cure for some of the most debilitating diseases faced by Americans today.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

“President Bush may have vetoed the stem cell bill today, but he has not vetoed the hopes of millions of Americans. Those families who wake up every morning to face another day with a deadly disease or a disability will not forget this decision by the President to stand in the way of sound science and medical research.

“President Bush’s first veto makes him the first president in the history of the United States to restrict medical research and the efforts of science to reduce suffering from disease and disability. Many of us in Congress, along with the vast majority of American families, will continue to fight until the promise of stem cell research is fully realized.”

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

“I will mince no words about the President’s action. This veto is a shameful display of cruelty and hypocrisy. It is cruel, because it denies hope to millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, ALS, juvenile diabetes, cancer, spinal-cord injuries, and many other diseases and debilitating conditions. Most of all, though, it is simply sad.

“HR 810 would have expanded federal funding to pursue this research. But with
a stroke of his pen today, the President vetoed this bill and vetoed the hopes
of millions of suffering Americans.

“There is an election in November, and we need to know where every candidate stands on embryonic stem cell research. Because we intend to reintroduce this bill in the next Congress. And we intend to prevail.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

"Imagine: the first veto of this President is for a bill that has the miraculous power to cure. The Latin translation of veto means, 'I forbid.' President Bush has said today: 'I forbid allowing the best and brightest minds to pursue the science that they believe has the most promise and potential to cure. I forbid bringing embryonic stem cell research under NIH, ensuring the strict controls and stringent ethical guidelines that only NIH can impose. I forbid giving our scientists the opportunities they need to ensure our nation remains pre-eminent in science.'

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

"Mr. President, we are here to say that as long as there is a need for the hope and help that stem cell research can bring, it will never be forgotten. As long as restrictions based on a narrow ideology block progress to new cures, this issue will never be closed.

"Mr. President, you can veto a bill, but you can't veto hope. We will be back again and again and again until we end the cruel restrictions on lifesaving
research that are denying hope to millions of American patients and their

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

"With his veto, President Bush chose politics over people.

"The Scopes trial took place in 1925. Sadly, President Bush’s veto today shows that we haven’t progressed much since then. The United States cannot enter the 21st Century believing the Earth is flat. We need to celebrate science in this nation – not reject it.

"With a stroke of a pen today, President Bush undermined common sense. The President proved he is captive to ideologues and extremists in his political party. What the President did today was not compassionate, nor even conservative. It was an extreme action and history will hold him accountable.”

Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)

“I am extremely disappointed that President Bush has issued his first veto on
H.R. 810. With his veto, the President has destroyed the hope of millions of
Americans who are suffering from diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes that
could be cured by stem cell research.

“H.R. 810 would have corrected the President’s short-sighted policy by allowing this important research to move forward under ethical constraints. This research holds so much promise to solving diseases that affect more than 110 million Americans. Vetoing this bill is one of the greatest mistakes of his Presidency.

“This research has the support of more than 70% of Americans and the President will suffer the political consequences for vetoing H.R. 810. I promise to keep fighting to expand stem cell research. This important legislation will become law; it’s only a matter of when.”


Bush vetoes stem cell legislation

AM - Thursday, 20 July , 2006 08:18:00

Reporter: Michael Rowland

PETER CAVE: US President George Bush has struck down legislation that increases federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

It's the first time Mr Bush has used his veto power since taking office six-and-a-half years ago.

The President's move flies in the face of overwhelming public support for expanded stem cell research and even puts him at odds with some senior members of his own Republican Party.

Washington Correspondent Michael Rowland reports.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Since taking his seat in the Oval Office, President Bush has
threatened to use his expansive veto powers nearly 150 times.

But he's always backed away, preferring instead to work out his differences
with the Republican-dominated Congress on issues ranging from campaign finance
to the use of torture.

But for a man who wears his deeply held religious convictions on his sleeve,
embryonic stem cell research is something that's simply non-negotiable.

So when the Senate passed a Bill expanding federal funding for an activity Mr
Bush sees as tantamount to murder, the President finally uncapped his veto

GEORGE BUSH: This Bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the
hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that
our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it.

(Sound of applause)

MICHAEL ROWLAND: In vetoing the legislation Mr Bush is going against the
wishes of more than two-thirds of Americans, who opinion polls show support
expanded stem cell research.

He's also at odds with some of the most conservative and pro-life members of
his own Republican Party, such as Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.

ORRIN HATCH: I believe that by using these embryos for medical research we are
in fact promoting life. In fact, I believe we are aiding the living, which is
one of the most pro-life positions you can take.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: The President's move has frustrated medical researchers, who
say existing stem cell lines are insufficient to advance studies into possible
cures for diseases like cancer and diabetes.

Actor Michael J. Fox, visibly shaking from the effects of Parkinson's disease,
says it's a missed opportunity.

MICHAEL J FOX: I find it frustrating that the President will use his first
veto of his time in office to thwart this research. It just seems a shame to me.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Striking down the Bill will clearly please the powerful
religious right, but it runs the risk of upsetting another influential
conservative. Nancy Reagan, the widow of former President Ronald Reagan, is
one of the fiercest advocates of increased stem cell use.

Mrs Reagan believes the expanded research will find help find a cure for the
Alzheimer's disease that killed her husband.

Republican Senator Arlen Specter, a cancer survivor who backed the
legislation, says Mr Bush will now have to deal with the consequences of his

ARLEN SPECTER: And I think he may get another personal call from... or he may
get a personal call from Mrs Reagan.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: There are some things that even Presidents fear.

In Washington this is Michael Rowland reporting for AM.






CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Presidential Grope or BEWARE OF THE BLOB


Well folks, our "perpetual pubescent president, has reached an unprecedented goal as THE UBIQUITOUS OFFICE SEXUAL HARASSER OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. He gives new meaning to the expression "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine"!

The last time some boorish clod tried to give me a back rub in the office, was in 1984 when a snot nosed creep became my boss. On his first day as STUPIDVISOR he came sneaking up on me and put his grubby hands on my back. I turned around and almost swung a fist in his face... When I saw it was THE BOSS, I said, "do you know... when you put your hands on a person who works under you... in essense, you are saying to them... YOU'RE INFERIOR TO ME...!" He looked surprised and said... sorry!

Please read, if you can stomach it, PRESIDENTIAL GROPING, below... AND PLEASE CLICK ON THEATER CURTAIN TO SEE "BEWARE OF THE BLOB!" thinkingblue

Presidential Groping

She sure doesn’t seem to happy about it to me.

Mash: At the G-8 summit, President Bush grabs German Chancellor Angela Merkel from behind and gives her a quick massage before rushing off. Chancellor Merkel is not amused.

This has been an awful trip for Bush to say the least on so many levels. Please list all the problems he has had in the comment section.

Taylor Marsh: This is why Iraq and the Middle East are in flames, and we have no credibility around the world. We have a prepubescent president in charge. It is an outrage.

Lindsay: Every woman will recognize the guy who sidles up and starts "casually" giving you a backrub without even looking at you, because he wants to preserve deniability in case you freak out. Like any practiced groper, Bush stares right past Merkel as she recoils from his touch.


Bush Gropes Germany's Merkel --updated below--President Bush took time out from the G-8 Summit to grope German Chancellor Angela Merkel. I'm not kidding. It boggles the mind.Via Mash (by the way, great get!), we get photos via a friend of his in Germany. Mash debuted his guest post on on North Korea this past Sunday, which will appear every Sunday (focusing on world foreign policy issues). He forwarded links to these pictures.

This is why Iraq and the Middle East are in flames, and we have no credibility around the world. We have a prepubescent president in charge. It is an outrage.

KDinDC offers the German translation, from the comment section: Chancellor Angela Merkel is speaking with Italy's Prime Minister Romano Prodi -- then George W. Bush comes into the hall...

Merkel converses with her neighbor at the table, does not notice how Bush is approaching from the rear ...

... suddenly the US president lays both hands on Merkel's shoulders ...

... begins his Texan one-second massage ...

... the chancellor jerks, startled, raises her hands high, does not know who has
grabbed her from behind ...

... and with an air of innocence the president after the joke navigates to his
place at the conference table. Merkel takes the surprising love attack with
humor, smiles.


Mash just sent me the link below from the LA Times, who offers no pictures and a
false description. Does Merkel look like she smiled? Take another look above.
Baby, that's no smile.

... Entering the meeting room, as relayed by a Russian television camera, Bush headed directly behind the chancellor, reached out and, placing both hands on the collar of her gold jacket, gave her a short massage just below the neck. She smiled...







CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

Monday, July 17, 2006

Hillary & Rupert Making Goggle-Eyes At Each Other?


Tell me it isn't so, MURDOCH AND CLINTON PAIRING OFF? This sounds a bit Karl Rovean to me.

Murdoch, the MATER of all NEOCONS... the one who added, oh so much, to the new NEOCONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT OF IMPERIALISM AND PREEMPTIVE WAR ad infinitum, is backing a Liberal????

What does THIS MONEY GOD-ZILLAclick to go to picture site: take us for, FOOLS?

Yes indeed, we are fools if we think there is no sinister reasoning behind this ploy. I believe it is a plot orchestrated by Rove and his republican shysters to get the NY senator on the ballot as the democratic presidential candidate to run against their republican pick.

With the republicans grasping for air, this will be a shot of oxygen for their evil party. They're banking on the public's Gynophobia (fear of women) especially, women as leaders and I do believe this is alive and active amongst the voting citizenry of the good old U S of A. Yup, another sneaky method to conquer and divide to get their MAN in office and take over the WORLD!

WHO IS RUPERT MURDOCH?Who is Rupert Murdoch?

How one right-wing billionaire uses his business
and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy

July 16, 2004

In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used
the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach
more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye.

Media Manipulator

In 2003, Rupert Murdoch told a congressional panel that his use of "political influence in our newspapers or television" is "nonsense." But a close look at the record shows Murdoch has imparted his far-right agenda throughout his media empire.

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp… In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently
hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now – I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03]

MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE: Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is
particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.C. opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR,

MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He
believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said,
"Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian,

MURDOCH THE INTIMIDATOR: According to Agence France-Press, "Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel threatened to sue the makers of 'The Simpsons' over a parody of the channel's right-wing political stance…In an interview this week with National Public Radio,
Matt Groening recalled how the news channel had considered legal action, despite the fact that 'The Simpsons' is broadcast on sister network, Fox Entertainment. According to Groening, Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines like 'Do Democrats Cause Cancer?'" [Source: Agence France-Press, 10/29/03]

MURDOCH THE NEWS EDITOR: "When The New York Post tore up its front page on Monday night to trumpet an apparent exclusive that Representative Richard A. Gephardt would be Senator John Kerry's running mate, the newspaper based its decision on a very high-ranking source: Rupert Murdoch, the man who controls the company that owns The Post, an
employee said yesterday. The Post employee demanded anonymity, saying senior editors had warned that those who discussed the Gephardt gaffe with other news organizations would lose their jobs." [NY Times, 7/9/04]

Far-Right Partisan

Just as Fox claims to be "fair and balanced," Rupert Murdoch claims to stay out of partisan politics. But he has made his views quite clear – and used his media empire to implement his wishes. As a former News Corp. executive told Fortune Magazine, Murdoch "hungered for the kind of influence in the United States that he had in England and Australia" and that meant "part of our political strategy [in the U.S.] was the New York Post and the creation of Fox News and the Weekly Standard."

MURDOCH THE BUSH SUPPORTER: Murdoch told Newsweek before the war, Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1…One senses he is a man of great character and deep
humility." [Newsweek, 2/17/03]

MURDOCH THE BUSH FAMILY EMPLOYER: As Slate reports, Murdoch "put George W. Bush cousin John Ellis in charge of [Fox's] Election Night vote-counting operation: Ellis made Fox the first network to declare Bush the victor" even as the New Yorker reported that Ellis
spent the evening discussing the election with George W. and Jeb Bush. After the election, Fox bragged that it attracted 6.8 million viewers on Election Night, meaning Ellis was in a key position to tilt the election for President Bush. [Source: Slate, 11/22/00; New Yorker,

MURDOCH THE MIXER OF BUSINESS AND POLITICS: James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly points out that most of Murdoch's actions "are consistent with the use of political influence for corporate advantage." In other words, he uses his publications to advance a
political agenda that will make him money. The New York Times reports that in 2001, for example, The Sun, Britain's most widely read newspaper, followed Murdoch's lead in dropping its traditional conservative affiliation to endorse Tony Blair, the New Labor candidate. News Corp.'s other British papers, The Times of London, The Sunday Times and the tabloid News of the World, all concurred. The papers account for about 35% of the newspaper market in Britain. Blair backed "a communications bill in the British Parliament that would loosen restrictions on foreign media ownership and allow a major newspaper publisher to own a broadcast television station as well a provision its critics call the 'Murdoch clause' because it seems to apply mainly to News Corp." [Atlantic Monthly, 9/03; New York Times, 4/9/03]

MURDOCH THE NEW YORK CITY POLITICAL BOSS: The Columbia Journalism Review reported that during New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's first term "News Corp. received a $20.7 million tax break for the mid-Manhattan office building that houses the Post, Fox News Channel, TV Guide and other operations. During Giuliani's 1997 reelection campaign, News Corp. was also angling for hefty city tax breaks and other incentives to set up a new printing plant in New York City. Most dramatically, Giuliani jumped in to aggressively champion News Corp. when it battled Time Warner over a slot for the Fox News Channel on Time Warner's local cable system…Three years into Giuliani's first term, veteran Village Voice political reporter Wayne Barrett asked Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel if the paper had run a single editorial critical of the administration; Breindel, he says, admitted it had not. According to
Barrett, the paper pulled off a perfect four-year streak" of not one critical editorial. [Columbia Journalism Review, 6/98]

Apologist for Repressive Regimes

Rupert Murdoch thinks of himself as a staunch anti-communist. But a look at the record shows that when his own profits are on the line, he is willing to do favors for the most repressive regimes on the planet.

MURDOCH THE DEFENDER OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES: The last governor of Hong Kong before it was handed back to China, Chris Patten, signed a contract to write his memoirs with Murdoch's publishing company, HarperCollins. But according to the Evening Standard, when "Murdoch heard that the book, East and West, would say unflattering things about the
Chinese leadership, with whom he was doing satellite TV business, the contract was cancelled. It caused a furor in the press - except, of course, in the Murdoch papers, which barely mentioned the story." According to BusinessWeek, internal memos surfaced suggesting the canceling of the contract was motivated by "corporate worries about friction with China, where HarperCollins' boss, Rupert Murdoch, has many business interests." [Evening Standard, 8/13/03; BusinessWeek, 9/15/98]

MURDOCH THE APOLOGIST FOR DICTATORSHIPS: Time Magazine reported that while Murdoch is supposedly "a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist" he "became bewitched by China in the early '90s." In an effort to persuade Chinese dictators that he would never challenge their behavior, Murdoch "threw the BBC off Star TV" (his satellite network
operating in China) after BBC aired reports about Chinese human rights violations. Murdoch argued the BBC "was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again." In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Source: Time Magazine, 10/25/99]

MURDOCH THE PROPAGANDIST FOR DICTATORS: While Murdoch justifies his global media empire as a threat to "totalitarian regimes everywhere," according to Time Magazine, Murdoch actually pays the salary of a top TV consultant working to improve the Chinese government's communist state-run television CCTV. As Time notes, "nowadays, News Corp.
and CCTV International are partners of sorts," exchanging agreements to air each other's content, even though CCTV is "a key propaganda arm of the Communist Party." [Source: Time Magazine, 7/6/04]

MURDOCH THE ENABLER OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS: According to the LA Times, Murdoch had his son James, now in charge of News Corp.'s China initiative, attack the Falun Gong, the spiritual movement banned by the Chinese government after 10,000 of its followers protested in Tiananmen Square. With Rupert in attendance, James Murdoch
called the movement a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" and lambasted the Western press for its negative portrayal of China's awful human rights record. Murdoch "startled even China's supporters with his zealous defense of that government's harsh crackdown on Falun Gong and criticism of Hong Kong democracy supporters." Murdoch also "said Hong Kong democracy
advocates should accept the reality of life under a strong-willed 'absolutist' government." It "appeared to some to be a blatant effort to curry favor" with the China's repressive government. [LA Times, 3/23/01]

MURDOCH THE HIDER OF MONEY IN COMMUNIST CUBA: Despite a U.S. embargo of communist Cuba, the Washington Post reports, "News Corp.'s organizational chart consists of no less than 789 business units incorporated in 52 countries, including Mauritius, Fiji and even Cuba." [Washington Post, 12/7/97]

Shady Wheeler-Dealer

From union busting to tax evading, Rupert Murdoch has established a shady business record that raises serious questions about his corporate ethics.

MURDOCH THE UNION BUSTER: The Economist reported that in 1986 Murdoch "helped smash the British print unions by transferring the production of his newspapers to a non-union plant at Wapping in East London." The move "proved to be a turning-point in Britain's dreadful
industrial relations." AP reported Murdoch specifically "slashed employment levels" at the union plant and said he would "dismiss the 6,000 striking workers" who were trying to force concessions out of the media baron. The London Evening Standard called the tactics "the biggest union-busting operation in history." [Sources: The Economist, 4/18/98; AP, 1/27/86; Evening Standard, 11/12/98]

MURDOCH THE CORPORATE TAX EVADER: The BBC reported that "Mr. Murdoch's die-hard loyalty to the tax loophole has drawn wide criticism" after a report found that in the four years prior to June 30, 1998, "Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only $325
million in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the $5.4 billion consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period…By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp. operates -
Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr. Murdoch's main British holding company, News Corp. Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated
pre-tax profits of nearly $3 billion." [Source: BBC, 3/25/99]

MURDOCH THE LOVER OF OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS: When a congressional panel asked if he was hiding money in tax havens, including communist Cuba, Murdoch responded "we might have in the past, I'm not denying that." The Washington Post reports, "through the deft use of international accounting loopholes and offshore tax havens, Murdoch has paid corporate income taxes at one-fifth the rate of his chief U.S. rivals throughout the 1990s, according to corporate documents and company officials." Murdoch "has mastered the use of the offshore tax haven." His company "reduces its annual tax bill by channeling profits through dozens of subsidiaries in low-tax or no-tax places such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The overseas profits from movies made by 20th Century Fox, for instance, flow into a News Corp.-controlled company in the Caymans, where they are not taxed." [Source: Congressional Testimony, 5/8/03; Washington Post, 12/7/97]

MURDOCH THE ABUSER OF TAX LOOPHOLES: Even though Murdoch changed his citizenship in order to comply with U.S. media ownership rules, many of his companies have remained Australian, allowing them "to utilize arcane accounting rules that have pumped up reported profits and greatly aided Murdoch's periodic acquisition sprees." IRS officials point out that "U.S.-based companies face U.S. taxes on their offshore subsidiaries in the Caymans and elsewhere if more than 50 percent of the subsidiary is controlled by American shareholders. But that doesn't apply to News Corp., an Australian company." [Source: Congressional
Testimony, 5/8/03; Washington Post, 12/7/97]


David Sirota
Hillary Clinton's "Mating Ritual" With Rupert Murdoch

There's a lot of talk from the media and the pundit class about "red and blue America," supposedly increased political "polarization" - but as my new book, Hostile Takeover details, that narrative is a deliberate farce designed to hide the very tightly-knit, bipartisan consensus in the Establishment that makes sure Big Money interests and the power structure are protected. Think that sounds like a conspiracy theory?
Think that sounds crazy? Think again - and check out the front page of CBS News's website today.

There you will find an article headlined "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton." The story notes:

"Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host
a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports. The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch."

The brazenness of this move is almost too much to stomach, even in a story about Hillary Clinton. Here you have a leading Democratic U.S. Senator engaging in a "mating ritual" with the head of the news network that has overtly worked to systematically destroy both the Democratic Party and her own husband's administration.

Here you have a top member of the American government shaking down cash from a guy whose record is chock full of union-busting, tax-evading, local media crushing, war mongering and all sorts of other disgusting behavior - behavior permitted by Congress without question, thanks to America's system of legalized bribery, as epitomized in the Clinton-Murdoch fundraiser.

Here you have, in short, proof that the hostile takeover of our government runs far deeper than we ever imagined, in a far more bipartisan way than we wanted to admit. Thank you, Sen. Clinton - in bragging about the fundraiser you are holding with the right-wing billionaire who has worked to destroy your party and your husband, at least you are (albeit inadvertently) acknowledging how far-reaching the hostile takeover of our government really is.
Posted by David Sirota at May 9, 2006 09:08 AM








CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!