60 Minutes Lies About Saddam's WMDs

I'll save the overall argument about Saddam's wmd programs for another time. I'm writing a book about it so I'm not giving out a bunch of free info on the matter. You can always join the over 1,500 people that have taken The Iraq War Test to learn more. Bottom line is that we found BM-21 rockets loaded with sarin and ready to fire during the invasion ... case closed.

The reason I'm focusing on the uranium argument here with 60 Minutes is that the 500 tons of uranium found, and removed from Iraq, is a slam dunk as it is the most reported story of Saddam having banned substances before the invasion. If you don't know the story of the 500 tons of uranium you should ...

1. Recuse yourself from any wmd discussion because you don't know what the hell you're talking about ... and
   
2. You should read on because I will give you more info, and provide you with links to the story.

Now back to 60 Minutes' lying ways.

Before we start in on 60 Minutes it is important to know the highly liberal stance they take. For instance, they did a whole segment on the Appeal for Redress (an anti-war petition from military personnel) a while back, but they refused to provide the same airtime to the Appeal for Courage (a pro-war petition from military personnel) even though the Appeal for Courage has more signatures. I've received the runaround from 60 Minutes about the issue, and I've spoken with LT. Nichols about the matter. For a giggle, you should look at both appeals media page to see the huge distortion in media coverage. LT. Nichols, by the way, is in Iraq.

Last week, 60 Minutes ran this story ...

Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We've known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was "Curve Ball" and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world's elite intelligence agencies?

60 Minutes spent two years, and traveled to nine countries, trying to solve the mystery. We talked to intelligence sources, to people who knew Curve Ball and to people who worked with him. As correspondent Bob Simon reports, Curve Ball's real name has never been made public, nor has any video of him, until now.

A very "unbiased" and "honest" introductory isn't it. Too bad the wmd statements are completely false, but I digress.

We do know that we were fed some bad intel on Iraq's wmd programs ... that is not in dispute. Charles Duelfer said as such in his report, and congressional testimony. He essentially said that Saddam did have the weapons programs, but they were not as advanced as we thought. More on that later.

60 Minutes then went on to out "Curve Ball" as Rafid Ahmed Alwan, and break down how he became an informant. It is important that you know he refused to see any Americans and was interrogated by Germany for a year and a half. Transcripts of what he said were sent to the CIA by Germany. The CIA was actually denied requests to debrief "Curve Ball" before making their case against Iraq to President Bush. 60 Minutes never blames Germany for misleading the US.

60 Minutes also completely ignores that the wmds found before the invasion by the UN. Here's an example, but you have to do the rest of the legwork.

They also ignore that every UN weapons inspector said Saddam was hiding weapons programs before the invasion. Yes I know some of them changed their mind suddenly after years of their own saber rattling. In response to that I would say to check out ex-inspector Richard Butler, and ask yourself why Ritter suddenly went from saying Saddam was hiding weapons to Saddam is a great guy. The answer to that is that Ritter started receiving money funneled out of the oil-for-food scandal, and was essentially paid by Saddam to make an anti-war film. It makes me wonder why other inspectors changed their tune so quickly.

So what did Duelfer really have to say about Saddam's weapons programs? Not what you've heard from your teenage friends on the left-wing blogs ... I guarantee it. Again, the programs were not as advanced as we thought, but he did have them. You can read his congressional testimony here. Listen to this little tidbit that 60 Minutes and others always leave out:

There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by
forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas. However, over time there was decay in the team.

Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made
clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them.

He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear
component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat,
clearly implying matching Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

What? You've never heard Duelfer say that before? Curious.

Here's what Duelfer said about the chemical and biological chapters of his report:

Once inspections began in 1991, Iraq chose to yield most of its weapons and bulk
agent as well as the large facilities that were widely known to exist. As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.

Let's recap so far. At a bare minimum Saddam did not declare and destroy all of his wmds, he committed hundreds of violations with respect to conventional weapons (most notably developing long range missiles), and he retained the infrastructure, knowledge and desire to restart his wmd programs once sanctions ended. All things listed as concerns for the future, and reasons for war.

Wait til you hear what Duelfer had to say about Saddam using the oil-for-food program to increase his wmd capability.

Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance
of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity.

By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two.

Uh huh ... so with the oil-for-food program Saddam was able to buy off at least one UN inspector, and increase his wmd capability. Nice.

Iraq decided to retain the main BW production facility, but under guise of using it to produce singlecell protein for animal feed. These decisions were taken with Saddam’s explicit approval.

Preservation of Iraq’s biological weapons capabilities was simpler than any other
WMD area because of the nature of the material.

What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had
experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding.

Duelfer also highlighted the threat of such knowledge being given to terrorists, which Saddam openly supported.

A risk that has emerged since my previous status report to Congress is the
connection of former regime CW experts with anti-coalition forces. ISG uncovered
evidence of such links and undertook a sizeable effort to track down and prevent any
lash-up between foreign terrorists or anti-coalition forces and either existing CW stocks or experts able to produce such weapons indigenously. I believe we got ahead of this problem through a series of raids throughout the spring and summer. I am convinced we successfully contained a problem before it matured into a major threat. Nevertheless, it points to the problem that the dangerous expertise developed by the previous regime could be transferred to other hands. Certainly there are anti-coalition and terrorist elements seeking such capabilities.

Take the statements above with his previous statements to Congress 7 months earlier, and you start to see the picture that 60 Minutes ignored in their latest report.

Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.

Then there is the dual use chemicals.

With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program.

Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX.

Since many of you out there don't believe chemical and biological weapons are "really" wmds ... here's info on Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.

One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Documents from this project show that the scientists were developing a rail gun designed to achieve speeds of 2-10 kilometers per second. The ostensible purpose for this research was development of an air defense gun, but these speeds are what are necessary to conduct experiments of metals compressing together at high speed as they do in a nuclear detonation. Scientists refer to these experiments as “equation of state” measurements.

Not only were these scientists developing a rail gun, but their laboratory also contained documents describing diagnostic techniques that are important for nuclear weapons experiments, such as flash x-ray radiography, laser velocimetry, and high-speed photography. Other documents found outside the laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety. These fields are certainly not related to air defense.

It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.

No - he - did - not - just - say - that! Oh yes he did. Charles Duelfer, author of the famously misquoted Duelfer Report did just say that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.

Duelfer and Kay also stated that they found:

"Uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

Duelfer also went on to talk about the secret missile program that the UN failed to uncover even though Iraq test fired these missiles right under the UN's nose. Duelfer also stated that foreign assistance was utilized in assisting Iraq in these missile programs in violation of UN sanctions.

What were the three countries that were caught violating UN sanctions by assisting Saddam's weapons programs again? Ah yes, I remember, Russia, France and GERMANY! The same Germany that 60 Minutes fails to criticize for feeding us incorrect information from "Curve Ball."

Since we all now know that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program ... that brings me to the 500 tons of uranium we found in Iraq that so many news agencies choose to ignore these days. Of course, they didn't ignore it when it happened because it was a huge story. How soon we forget eh?

Here's a couple of links for the 500 tons of uranium. Full urls left in place so you know they are separate articles.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/85636.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516235/posts

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10613FA345B0C718EDDAC0894DC404482

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml -- this quotes a NY Times article

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

Yep ... Saddam had 500 tons of uranium (1.8 tons partially enriched), and a clandestine nuclear weapons program. So how many nuclear bombs could this 500 tons of uranium have produced as a result of this clandestine nuclear weapons program? The answer is 142 nuclear bombs.

Too bad 60 Minutes didn't do any show prep before they ran this story. Especially since they said they spent two years on said story.

Just to add salt to the wound ... a friend of mine stationed in al Asad, Iraq sent me several pictures of chemical warheads. I figured I would share one with you today.


Al Asad is where Saddam's air force was found buried under the sand. Coincidently that's where they found this bad boy. When they removed the protective coverings they discovered that it was loaded with sarin bomblets. Notice that this is not an old, harmless weapon. It is modern, and in very good condition.

Below is a reference image of a US sarin warhead with its bomblets. Again, the bottom photo is older, and from an American warhead. It was not found in Iraq. It is only demonstrating what a sarin bomblet is.


Too bad 60 Minutes hasn't paid attention to what is really coming out of Iraq, and no the pictures are not classified.

The Media Is At It Again ... Lying About The Latest Iraq Report

Dismal, stark, not good ... all have been used by the MSM to describe the latest report on Iraq.

The report is almost exactly the same as the last couple of Iraq reports. The Iraqi government is not making much progress ... of that we all agree. However, the citizens of Iraq continue to abandon their sectarian ways, and side with the coalition against terrorists. Violence of all kinds is decreasing in the country as it has done since last December. We are getting more participation from local tribal leaders to track down, and fight the terrorists. We continue to seize record amounts of caches. All of this ignored by the anti-war crowd, Democrats (except the ones who visit Iraq), and the MSM.

So, as I did with the Pentagon's report in June ... I will go over the National Intelligence Estimate with you today. You may download the whole report here.

The report issues an analytic caution before you start reading it to outline that this is only a short term analysis of the last six months, and is not a comprehensive report.

Analytic Caution: Driven largely by the accelerating pace of tribal engagement and the increasing tempo of Coalition operations, developments in Iraq are unfolding more rapidly and with greater complexity today than when we completed our January NIE. Regional variations in security and political circumstances are great and becoming increasingly more distinct––for example, intra-Shia violence in southern Iraq is very different from patterns of violence elsewhere. The intelligence assessments contained in this NIE largely focus on only a short period of the Iraqi conflict—the last six months—and in circumscribed areas—primarily the central provinces, which contain the center of gravity for Iraq’s security prospects and in which we have a greater Coalition presence and therefore more information. The unfolding pace and scope of security and political realities in Iraq, combined with our necessarily limited focus of analysis, contain risks: our uncertainties are greater, and our future projections subject to greater chances of error. These issues, combined with the challenges of acquiring accurate data on trends in violence and continued gaps in our information about levels of violence and political trends in areas of Iraq without a substantial Coalition presence and where Intelligence Community collectors have difficulty operating, heighten our caution. Nonetheless, we stand by these judgments as our best collective assessment of security and political conditions in Iraq today and as likely to unfold during the next six to12 months.

In the key judgments we learn that while violence in Iraq remains high, there is much improvement in reducing violence, and the economy is growing.

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI) capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas. However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled;

Not glowing, but there is progress. The statements about al Qaeda are cause for optimism.

We assess, to the extent that Coalition forces continue to conduct robust
counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

In other words ... we need to keep the pressure on the enemy, and we will see even more success.

Political and security trajectories in Iraq continue to be driven primarily by Shia insecurity about retaining political dominance, widespread Sunni unwillingness to accept a diminished political status, factional rivalries within the sectarian communities resulting in armed conflict, and the actions of extremists such as AQI and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia that try to fuel sectarian violence.

This is the paragraph that the MSM, and anti-war crowd have focussed on.

We must remember a very simple truth ... security brings a stable government. A stable government doesn't bring security.

As the Iraqi citizens continue to step up, tribal leaders continue to battle insurgents and terrorists, and the coalition continues to make progress ... Iraq will become safer, and more stable. This will allow the government to settle down, and make more progress.

We should all be prepared for this government to be dissolved in favor of a new one, and that would not be a failure at all. Anyone remember the Articles of Confederation? This is the Iraqis first attempt ever at governing themselves, and it should go without saying that there will be difficulty.

The report goes on to cite that Sunnis are turning against al Qaeda, but it is not universal. It also goes into details about the Shia groups fighting each other for power, and there is no leadership in the Sunni community.

Iraqi Security Forces involved in combined operations with Coalition forces have performed adequately, and some units have demonstrated increasing professional competence. However, we judge that the ISF have not improved enough to conduct major operations independent of the Coalition on a sustained basis in multiple locations and that the ISF remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.

This echoes the sentiments of the US military about their Iraqi counterparts. Our forces have been very impressed ... especially with the police. With a little time the Iraqis will continue to take the lead, but it will take time.

I encourage you to read the whole report, and properly inform yourself (it's only 10 pages). The whole report can summed up in three ways:

• The Iraqi government lacks the ability to unify Iraq at this point in time.
• There has been great progress in security for the Iraqi people, and this will continue to improve for the foreseeable future.
• While Iraqi forces have performed well ... they are not quite ready to do the job alone.

Once again we have a report that is positive, but not glowing. Yet the positive is completely ignored. Which is ironic given that the positives are the benchmarks that critics of the war have been calling for all along.

Beauchamp Only Enlisted So He Would Have Something To Write About

That's right ... the soldier who penned columns making up stories of cruelty by our troops, hates the military, and only enlisted so he would have something to write about.

He's a fraud ... two-fold.

PJM:

Just as the world was beginning to wonder if The New Republic had been tricked by a fabricator for the third time in the past decade, the magazine’s staff went to a party.

It was a going-away party for a longtime New Republic senior editor Ryan Lizza, but the staff seemed more interested in discussing the magazine’s immediate future. It was July 20 and the avalanche of questions about a first-person “diarist” piece under the pseudonym “Scott Thomas” –a direct threat to the magazine’s credibility—was starting to tumble down.

Later that night, Robert McGee, a then-assistant to The New Republic’s publisher, went looking for the host. He is curious what Foer thinks about the building scandal. He wants the inside dope.

He finds Foer on the front porch and asks as casually as he can: “So, what’s up with this?”

As McGee recalls the conversation, Foer immediately volunteered the standard answer: conservatives have an ideological grudge to settle because they perceive the magazine to be anti-war, anti-military and so on.

“He sounded almost rehearsed,” McGee said.

What bothered McGee about the conversation was that Foer saw the questions from the bloggers as a completely ideological attack. “Foer wasn’t acknowledging that at least some of the attacks on the [Beauchamp’s] ‘Shock Troops’ piece came from active-duty military members whose skepticism was factually grounded, and not just from stateside political pundits.”

Ok, so we are at a party for the New Republic, and an employee is questioning the articles written by the soldier because of the new media and members of the military exposing them as lies.

I've skipped around a bit for this post ... make sure you read the whole thing. I assure you that you won't be disappointed.

I tracked down Beauchamp’s former fiancée in Schweinfurt, a town near a U.S. Army base in Western Germany. Her name is Priscilla. She didn’t give her last name. She describes herself as “half German, half American.”

Reluctantly and indirectly over a string of emails, Priscilla reveals a recurring pattern: Beauchamp was repeatedly willing to deceive those close to him to reach his goals.

By age 23, he had been engaged three times to three different women whom he did not marry.

Or consider his relationship with the Army. Priscilla writes: “He hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

Oddly he was secretive about his intentions to serve his country. “He didn’t even tell his mom he joined in the army. One day before basic training he left a note on the table for her…”

It is telling that he did not talk to her face-to-face, but simply made his admission and vanished.

He is manipulative. “He is very charming and he can convince people very good and he tries to make his side very clear.”

He is ambitious. “He always wanted to become a writer and he has a huge imagination,” Pricilla writes, without irony.

In another email, she notes: “He always wanted to write for The New Republic and so he thought the ‘Iraqi Diary’ is a good start and he could keep writing for them after that.”

Beauchamp wrote his first “Baghdad Diarist” for The New Republic, in January 2007, while he was still engaged to Priscilla.

Priscilla believes that one of the reasons that Beauchamp was interested in Reeve (and ultimately married her) was her position at The New Republic.

Indeed, it appears that Beauchamp’s relationship with Reeve shifted into high gear around the time he was first published in the magazine. “He knew Elspeth from college, but they never were a couple. Then she started emailing him in February or so.” That was a few weeks after his first piece appeared in The New Republic. “I really think she supports him with his articles.”

A marriage of convenience perhaps?

There is tons more. It is a real solid account of the whole Beauchamp saga in time line fashion. Well worth the read.

Harvard Destroys Lancet Study

We all knew the Lancet faked the data, and it has already been proven... several times. However, to have Harvard destroy it makes me down right giddy.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wishes She Could Kill George Bush

Even her spin that she didn't really mean it showed that she, well, really meant it.

Dallas News (w/audio):

Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams came from Ireland to Texas to declare that President Bush should be impeached.

In a keynote speech at the International Women's Peace Conference on Wednesday night, Ms. Williams told a crowd of about 1,000 that the Bush administration has been treacherous and wrong and acted unconstitutionally.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said at the Adam's Mark Hotel and Conference Center in Dallas. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that."

She then went on to talk about how the Muslims will never forgive us if we don't punish Bush. As if they forgave us before Bush was in office while they were planning, and executing attacks on our people.

I guess to win a peace prize these days you must advocate violence on people who have reacted to violence ... not the instigator.

Sheehan Announces, & Tells Of Plans To Imprison Neo-Cons

Ah, there's nothing quite like hypocrisy in the early afternoon. The same woman who is mad that we imprison terrorist scum is a-o-k with imprisoning innocent people who are not guilty of a crime. Clearly she has been getting pointers from her buddy Hugo Chavez.

Imprisoning people who exercise their constitutional right to disagree with her ... great.

Imprisoning people who have no constitutional protections, and are trying to murder you ... oh hell no!

Michelle:

Officially announcing her run against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn’t move to impeach Bush by July 23, Sheehan said she relates to the people in her home state and chided Pelosi for keeping troops in danger.

“I know what Californians care about,” said Sheehan, who plans to run as an independent. “They don’t care about the ruling power elite.”

Sorry Cindy ... you don't have the balls to defeat Pelosi in an election. Not to mention that you've already given her a sound bite to beat you over the head with.


It may not be an implication that she hears voices, but you're already providing ammo for the enemy.

Then there is the whole imprison neo-cons thing. I thought it was King George ... not Queen Sheehan.

It is about time us “peasants” (in the eyes of the Fascist Ruling Elite) march on DC with our “pitchforks” of righteous anger and our “torches” of truth to demand the ouster of BushCo. I have a dream of the detention centers that George has built and filled being instead filled with Orange Clad neo-cons and neo-connettes.

She goes on to "quote" Thomas Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson said that we need a Revolution every 20 years, or so, to keep our Republic honest.

Interesting ... Jefferson also said:

"Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and a representative legislature... I consider as the essentials constituting free government, and... the organization of the executive is interesting as it may insure wisdom and integrity in the first place, but next as it may favor or endanger the preservation of these fundamentals." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours.

So what would he say about imprisoning those who disagree with you?

He also said this:

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

Those would be liberal ideals. They want bigger government to make decisions for us.

Jefferson also talked about a need for secret societies. Yet the left attacks Bush for his membership in one.

He also said that war is not the most favorable action. Maybe Sheehan needs to read up on our founding fathers.

Anti-War Fruits Refuse To Pay Taxes

I disagree with their stance on the issue, but the idea that you can refuse to pay taxes to a government that will use your money on programs you don't support is intriguing.

AP:

When the United States invaded Iraq more than four years ago, war opponent David Gross asked his bosses for a radical pay cut, enough so he wouldn't have to pay taxes to support the war.

"I was having a hard time looking at myself in the mirror," Gross said. "I knew the bombs falling were in part paid with my tax dollars. I had to actually do something concrete to remove my complicity."

The San Francisco technical writer was making close to $100,000 a year. He didn't know exactly how big of a pay cut he would need to fall below the federal tax threshold, but later figured out he would have to make less than minimum wage.

In any event, his employer turned him down and he quit. Gross, 38, now works on a contract basis, and last year he refused to pay self-employment taxes.

They even have an organization whose goal is to fight for people's right to refuse to pay taxes.

"Clearly this year we definitely had more people calling, sending e-mails about how they decided to start resisting," said Ruth Benn, coordinator of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee in New York.

Based on the committee's mailing list and reports from numerous groups it works with around the country, Benn estimates 8,000 to 10,000 Americans refuse to pay some or all of their federal taxes over war objections. Internal Revenue Service officials say they don't have figures for that specific category, but earlier this year reported an overall noncompliance rate of 16.3 percent and estimated the annual tax gap at about $345 billion.

Now you all know who has to pick up the slack for the millions of dollars these idiots refuse to pay in violation of the Constitution. Yep, we do.

War protesters have been pushing for a law called the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund that would allow designated conscientious objectors to have their income, estate, or gift taxes used for nonmilitary purposes. After years of efforts, they hope a Congressional hearing will be held on the proposal next year.

Hmmmm ... very interesting. Try to imagine having the power to force the government to NOT FUND programs you don't support. The wheels are spinning in the wheelhouse on this.

If you go to the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee's website, they have a statement about their goals.

We oppose militarism and war and refuse to complicitly participate in the tax system which supports such violence. NWTRCC sees poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia, economic exploitation, environmental destruction and militarization of law enforcement as integrally linked with the militarism which we abhor.

Ok, so they are a bunch of pacifist peaceniks, but they do propose an interesting argument. They feel they are being taxed without representation, and to an extent they are right.

We all know the nation will not be able to function if tax exemptions are made for people who don't support certain programs. We all don't support a program the government forces you to pay for. If they are able to succeed in getting the government to only use their taxes for non-war purposes then we need to mobilize quickly for our goals.

For instance, I don't believe my taxes should be used for welfare, meaningless scientific research, benefits for illegals, pay raises for Congress, health care, salaries for the IRS, government subsidies, certain foreign aid, the UN, or anything having to do with global warming (like the millions of dollars that will be given to farmers for allowing our government to "catch" methane produced by cow crap). Not to mention that I sure as hell don't feel I should be paying the government taxes on gasoline.

You just know that many, if not all, of these anti-war tax people support global warming research. Now that Congress has made a move to force the Pentagon to study global warming ... will they still withhold their taxes from the Pentagon? Thereby removing funding for the Pentagon's global warming research.

Anti-War Activist Banned From Performing At Walter Reed

John Mellencamp asked folk singer Joan Baez to perform with him at Walter Reed, but the Army denied her performance. Joan Baez is an anti-war activist who opposed Vietnam as well as the current war.

Military.com:

"I have always been an advocate for nonviolence and I have stood as firmly against the Iraq war as I did the Vietnam War 40 years ago," she wrote. "I realize now that I might have contributed to a better welcome home for those soldiers fresh from Vietnam. Maybe that's why I didn't hesitate to accept the invitation to sing for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, four days before the concert, I was not 'approved' by the Army to take part. Strange irony."

Irony is not the proper word ... more like retribution. To put it in a hippie term you might understand ... the cosmos realigned to bring karma back into balance with the earth.

The Post reported that Walter Reed officials did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday, but that in an e-mailed statement published Monday on RollingStone.com, spokesman Steve Sanderson said the medical center received the request for participation by Baez just two days before the concert.

"These additional requirements were not in the agreement/contract and would have required a modification," Sanderson told the magazine's Web site.

Mellencamp's people didn't respond to this article, but told RollingStone.com:

"They didn't give me a reason why she couldn't come. We asked why and they said, 'She can't fit here, period.' "

I believe Mellencamp is telling the truth. The troops don't take kindly to anti-war activists showing up and singing anti-war folk songs as their buddies are still fighting.

Hillary Flip-Flops On Iraq Again At Debate

Hillary said she would get us out of Iraq last night at the debate, but that isn't what she said last month.

There are several different versions of Hillary out there, but two prominent one are TV Hillary and newspaper Hillary. During the Democrat debate yesterday Hillary said:

"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will."

Oh really?

Perhaps she would like to explain (yeah right) what she means by that, and why her statement yesterday was so different than the one she made last month.

In March Hillary made this statement in the NY Times:

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

So does she want to get out of Iraq, or stay in Iraq and allow ethnic cleansing to happen on her watch?

Harry Reid: The War Is Lost

Isatafactnow!

On Monday I had LT Jason Nichols from AppealForCourage.Org on my program. The LT contacted me after I wrote this, and a buddy of his passed it on to him. He called from Iraq, and I mentioned that a certain presidential candidate had proclaimed the surge was a failure. The LT completely disagreed with that, and gave examples of why the surge was working. He also pointed out that we are only just getting the surge underway, and was emphatic that we WILL win. This is yet another case of my Senator (Reid) being completely detached from our military.

See Reid get ripped by Reno veterans here, and continuing to lie about withdrawal here.

Breitbart:

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

I wonder what those Reno vets would say about Reid's continuing to use the troops as political footballs?

Reid goes on to demonstrate his complete lack of history knowledge.

Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.

"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.

First ... Iraq is a lot more like the British occupation of Ireland than Vietnam.

Second ... we won Vietnam with those extra troops Reid. If you have still been brainwashed by the myth of the loss in Vietnam see Operation Linebacker II. Anytime you bomb your enemy into accepting peace on your terms ... you win.

Reid has also forgot one very important factor in correlating Iraq and Vietnam ... S. Vietnam fell to N. Vietnam two years AFTER the US left the war. We bombed the north into the stone age, and completely destroyed their infrastructure, they accepted our terms for peace, and the Vietnam war came to an end. Two years later the US is not at war with the north, the north has rebuilt its infrastructure, and launches a new war against the south leading to the fall of Saigon. The correlation Reid needs to comprehend is that when you use force you get what you want, but when you leave an ally to fight a stronger enemy on their own ... the ally loses while you are embarrassed.

I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes of all time:

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." - J. Michael Waller

Pro-Terrorist Website Calling It Quits? Maybe.

H/T: LGF

Thanks to the hard work of all of you out there ... AlJazeerah.info is shutting down.

Dear Readers,

Al-Jazeerah.info has been a US independent forum promoting peace between the US and the Arab and Muslim worlds and between Israelis and Palestinians, for the last five years.

Some people apparently neither like peace nor tolerate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They have not stopped attacks on Al-Jazeerah, its editor, its contributors, and authors.

What's new this time is that those who oppose Al-Jazeerah.info have been orchestrating a campaign* against its Editor, personally.

A letter-writing campaign has been going on since March 22, 2007 targeting officials of the institution he works with, in addition to a continuous smearing internet and media campaign against him, personally.

I have concluded that it's not safe for me any more to continue editing Al-Jazeerah.info in this atmosphere of intimidation, which abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believed that, as an American citizen, I have these sacred rights as a given. I acknowledge now that I was wrong.

Until I'm assured of these Constitutional freedoms and rights, I'll stop editing news reports and opinion editorials about US wars and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, hoping that the campaign against my employer stops.

Readers and contributors, however, are welcome to continue submitting other topics. Let's be creative and try to find other subjects that promote peace in the world and serve humanity.

I promise to resume publication as soon as conditions change to a more peaceful and tolerant discourse.

I'm proud that Al-Jazeerah forum has enabled thousands of Americans to express themselves, warning against wars and promoting peace in their country and the world.

There's every reason for the US and Israel to adopt peaceful resolutions to international conflicts. Wars and excessive military spending have caused the US to sink into an unprecedented national debt of $9 trillion, which will eat up the economic achievements of the American people if it is not addressed as soon as possible.

The Israelis have been living in a continuous state of war for about 60 years, for denying Palestinians their human rights, including their right for self determination and having a state of their own. Military force does not solve problems. Occupation of Arab territories does not give security. Peace does. And this has been the message of Al-Jazeerah.info from Day One.

Peace!

Hassan El-Najjar

Al-Jazeerah Editor

April 7, 2007

Awwww ... poor terrorist supporting scumbag.

You'll notice he talks about the First Amendment in the letter, and on the page the letter is posted he has the text of the First Amendment ... with highlights. He actually isn't protected by the First Amendment at all. See Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. The Constitution does, however, allow for petitions. If he wasn't so focussed on supporting terrorism, and read the Constitution instead, maybe he'd know that.

Also notice that there is an Islamic flag put before the US flag on his page ... a violation of the flag code.

He then goes on to properly identify Rusty at the Jawa Report for the start of the petition campaign. Here's part of Rusty's response:

1) Al Jazeerah is not a 'peace' website, as he claims. Dr. El-Najjar's website openly supports terror organizations. For instance, Shaikh Ahamed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, is called a 'martyr' on it. Hamas is a specially designated terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

2) He claims he is being censored. The Constitution may give him the right to spin all sorts of conspiracy theories (such as one in which he suggests that there is no Muslim on Muslim violence in Iraq, rather it is Coalition forces intentionally killing civilians to make Muslims look bad), but it also give me the right to speak out against him. That same First Amendment guarantees the right of petition, which is exactly what we are doing when we demand that Dalton State College fire this terror supporter.

Further, the First Amendment protects neither sedition nor support for the enemies of the United States. The latter is called treason. And sedition and treason is exactly what Dr. El-Najjar engages in every time he supports the Iraqi 'resistance'.

What may be the most ironic about his crying 'censorship' is that his website explicitly endorses groups such as Hamas which wish to impose Islamic law. Groups which would impose state sanctions on any who would dare criticize Mohammed or who would make it illegal for a Muslim to convert to Buddhism.

They suppport the First Amendment as long as it protects their incitements to violence, but wish to ditch its principles the moment they come to power.

3) While he may not openly discuss his antisemitic conspiracy theories in class, or try to recruit students for suicide-bombings between lectures, when Dr. El-Najjar encourages his students to visit his website (which I am told he does), he has crossed a line. Dalton State College cannot try to distance itself from the fact that they are paying the salary of a man who supports terrorism outside the classroom. He is now using his position as a professor to encourage that terrorism. The state of Georgia is then, de facto, supporting terror!

So, forcing him to stop publicly endorsing terrorism doesn't exactly seem all that draconian to me. Call me sentimental, but I recall a time when those who supported our enemies during a shooting war were put in prison.

Good work Team America, but more work remains.

Well said Rusty ... well said.

Anti-Gun Fruits Protesting Memorial For Navy SEAL

Denver Post

Make sure you visit Michelle Malkin for the full story.

Danny P. Dietz, Gunner's Mate Second Class, United States Navy won the Navy Cross ... posthumously.

Demonstrating exceptional resolve and fully understanding the gravity of the situation and his responsibility to his teammates, Petty Officer Dietz fought valiantly against the numerically superior and positionally advantaged enemy force. Remaining behind in a hailstorm of enemy fire, Petty Officer Dietz was wounded by enemy fire. Despite his injuries, he bravely fought on, valiantly defending his teammates and himself in a harrowing gunfight, until he was mortally wounded.

Ann Levy of Denver, who calls herself a "peacenik," would like to see Dietz's sacrifice honored in a different way.

"They should be putting up a peace dove instead," she said. "The question is do we stand for peace or do we stand for war?"

No dumbass! That's not the question, and there isn't a question being asked. We are honoring a hero who valiantly defended his men, you, me, our loved ones, and your right to be said dumbass.

A dove! Are you f---ing kidding me ... a dove?

Cindy Sheehan Commits Fraud ... No, Real Fraud

Maybe?

We report ... you decide.

Tacoma Bills Military For Cost Of Anti-War Protest

Now you can protest against the military, and the military will have to pick up the bill?

You can view the video of the protest here. Make sure you pay attention to the protesters shouting "Your Sergeant is a duesh-bag."

Now the city of Tacoma, WA is sending a bill to the military to cover some of the costs of the 12 day protest.

Tacoma police say last month's 12-day anti-war protests cost the city an unbudgeted $500,000 to provide a large-scale law enforcement presence.

The rough estimate covers overtime, regular compensation, equipment and food for hundreds of workers from Tacoma police and other agencies, Assistant Chief Bob Sheehan said.

The city plans to ask the Port of Tacoma and the military to cover some of the costs.

"That's a tremendous hit on our budget -- a half-million dollars of unexpected expense," said Tacoma Mayor Bill Baarsma, adding that the military would get the first invoice.

"I think our request is justifiable," Baarsma said. "I would expect that we would be reimbursed. I would be surprised if we weren't."

You'll notice that no protesters have been sent a bill. There were a couple dozen arrests ... including some for third degree assault. Why don't those arrested get part of the bill?

What about charging the people who applied for, and received the permit to protest? I haven't been able to find out if there was a permit for the protest, but it seems that one was required. According to the Tacoma Municipal Code, Title 11, Section 11.15.030: the only exeption for getting a permit for protesting is lawful picketing on sidewalks. Were the protesters on sidewalks? If they weren't, and they had more than 50 people, a permit was required. If a permit was issued then they should get the bill.

Iran Forces British Sailor To Call For Iraq Withdrawal

Where is the anti-war fruit crowd who always harps on torture with this one?

Surely, if forcing prisoners to listen to bad music, and not letting them get any sleep is torture ... then forcing them to write letter after letter to their family and countrymen contradicting their beliefs should be considered torture as well. Forcing detainees at Gitmo to eat is torture, but a government forcing a prisoner (seized illegally) to write what their captors dictate isn't?

If Bush were to force an al Qaeda detainee to write a letter to bin Laden saying that extremist Islam is wrong, evil, must be stopped, terrorism must cease to exist, and terrorists should never again threaten western civilization ... Rosie and the other torture fruits would call for impeachment because of human rights violations due to torture.

More Soldiers Have Signed The Appeal For Courage Than The Appeal For Redress

UPDATE:

At the time of this article's writing the Appeal for Redress had 1744 signatures, and the Appeal for Courage had 1884. Those numbers have changed in one day.

The Appeal for Redress now stands at 1748 ... an addition of 4.

The Appeal for Courage now stands at 1910 ... an addition of 36.


I have mentioned this several times on my show, and have been proven right.

The Appeal for Redress is a legal petition for military personnel to sign in opposition of the war in Iraq.

It reads:

As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

On February 25, 2007, CBS 60 Minutes did a whole segment on the Appeal for Redress. That may have been the big time in the way of publicity, but the Appeal for Redress has been the baby of the anti-war movement. Veterans for Peace, MarchOnPentagon.org, NY Times, Alternet.org, Noam Chomsky, LA Times, Truthout.org, Associated Press, Washington Post, the Nation and several other media outlets, congressmen, and anti-war fruits have been parading the Appeal for Redress as proof that the military doesn't support the war in Iraq.

I instantly began receiving emails from my anti-war listeners harping on my "lies", and "spin" about the support of the war effort among our troops. All of the letters and audio I provided as proof of our warrior's resolve were dismissed as a talk show host's tricks. After one of my shows I had a Richard Belzer esc moment.

One of my listeners wrote:

"Whether the troops support the mission is irrelevant. They are soldiers, they have given their lives to be ordered, it is up to us to see what laimbrains like you can't see."

This wasn't the first time this particular person had said such things on my program, but you know damn well that he was supportive of the Appeal for Redress. Without a doubt in my mind ... he doesn't believe the troops who signed the Appeal for Redress are irrelevant. He surely touts their support of his opinion, but condemns those who disagree.

My response to all of these people was one thing - do you think the Appeal for Courage will get the same media coverage as the Appeal for Redress? All but one had no idea what I was talking about.

While the Appeal for Redress still baths in mass amounts of media coverage as if it were holy water ... the Appeal for Courage has received little attention. Neil Cavuto on Fox has covered it, and Stars and Stripes has done stories on both appeals, but aside from that there has been no national coverage. To make things worse ... there has been little to no local coverage as well. We don't have to really ask why the Appeal for Courage is not getting the media frenzy that their opponent has received, but the outrage for this hypocrisy is justified.

The Appeal for Courage reads:

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

You'll notice the Appeal for Courage addresses this media bias directly. Truer words have never been stated, but those very same words have condemned the Appeal for Courage to isolation. The media will be damned if they will allow even more troops to expose their agenda, and embarrass them. Do you remember Capt. Sherman Powell? He owned Matt Lauer on the media's disgraceful coverage of the war. Rather than risk a similar situation there seems to be a media blackout of the Appeal for Courage.

Guess what? It isn't working.

In spite of the overwhelming conspiracy to not allow troops in support of the war to be heard ... the Appeal for Courage has more, yes more, signatures than the Appeal for Redress.

This stunning, yet not surprising, state of affairs is sure to further prove the shriveling significance of the main stream media. In a gritty grassroots campaign, led by the likes of Michelle Malkin and others, bloggers worked hard to get the word out to our troops that they can express their support for the mission. As American warriors always do ... they showed up for the fight with their heads held high, and they are winning.

According to the Appeal for Redress website ... they have 1744 signatures.

According to the Appeal for Courage website ... they have 1884 signatures.

The Appeal for Redress was established in October 2006. While the appeal for Courage was established in February 2007. Even though the Appeal for Courage is several months younger than the Appeal for Redress they have more signatures, and have much more momentum. MoveOn.org is directly tied to the Appeal for Redress, but has not been able to throw enough money at it to make it more successful than their rival.

I encourage you to visit the media section of both websites to see the disparity between the coverage of the two appeals. It is truly telling to see the great disadvantage the Appeal for Courage has faced.

The Appeal for Courage is going up against the behemoths of MoveOn.org and the main stream media. Yet they have managed to succeed with the same tenacity and determination of the warriors they represent.

Bye, Bye GI ... In Iraq You're Gonna Die

That was one of the chant's at the Oregon effigy in which a representation of a US soldier was burned by anti-war fruits, dirty hippie scum, and mask wearing jihadi wannabes. Also chanted was:

It's not just Bush it's the soldiers too. Fascist war is nothing new.

For more photos and to find out what Abe Lincoln has to do with this ... go here.

Anti-War Fruits Burn US Soldier In Effigy

Effigy - A crude representation of someone disliked, used for purposes of ridicule.

Just so we're clear on the definition of effigy since the dictionary is becoming a little used/respected relic these days.

The protest was in Portland, OR, and you can see the full stock of photos of the event here.

This is how it all got started.





The initial lighting ... notice that this is a training day for future anti-war fruits.





What would an anti-war protest be without an upside down burning flag, and masked jihadi wannabes?





Abe Lincoln wants peace huh? I'm sure he's real happy you're defacing his monument.

This last picture I actually find to be the most laughable of them all. Again ... Please note the kids here. Aside from the fact that we have yet another protest in which publicly funded monuments are desecrated ... they have no idea what Abe would really want, but I do.

Lincoln went after anti-war fruits like those above. He suspended habeas corpus, and imprisoned 18,000 Confederate sympathizers without trial. Many of them were Copperheads (anti-war Democrats). You see ... Lincoln would not tolerate actions such as this, or the actions of Murtha. Dissent is fine ... supporting the enemy is not.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

- Abraham Lincoln

Somehow I doubt Abe would support your anti-war fruit effigy.

Congressman's Office Vandalized By Anti-War Fruits

Yep ... the anti-war fruits have been in full force this weekend. They are back at their old ways of vandalizing public/private property. This is Congressman Mike Rogers' office.

Nothing to see here ... move along folks.

For a bunch of pacifists ... they sure know their way around violent activity. Have you ever noticed that pro-war supporters don't engage in this kind of activity? Superior people have superior actions as well I guess.

Eliminate Republicans And The Communist Agenda

Hat tip = Hotair.

Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D. works in the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. He also wants to make the Republican party illegal, and arrest most Republicans. At least he only wants to arrest us, and not execute us like others would.

Here is his 10 point plan to accomplish those two goals, and others. Below I've posted a part of the Congressional Record from 1963 stating the goals of Communism. There is an eerie resemblance.

10-Point Plan for Rebuilding the United States after Bush's Destruction

Bush has blown up the world. Now the onus is on Democrats to say how they would put it back together. Nice move.

I say, resist and tell it like it is. The war and the domestic crisis are the messes that Georgie made. Here are the steps I suggest to remedy this terrible situation.

1. Tell the people that George Bush and his friends are killers, liars, and thieves and that not only shouldn't they listen to him and them, but that they all belong in jail.
2. Get George and his friends out of the way -impeach, or if no time, wait till election-then put them in prison where they belong. No more reason to be afraid of what they say, calling opposition 'cut-and-run' Democrats. Let them say it from prison and see if they can 'cut-and-run' from behind bars.
3. Get the people he deployed to the disaster out of the disaster.
4. Rebuild the US first. Rebuild the schools, roads, infrastructure, housing, education system, medical insurance and other needs neglected by the Republicans over the last eight years, as they went on their killing spree and spent all of our money.
5. After cooling the Republicans by arresting most of them and shutting their stupid mouths forever, start working on reversing Global Warming.
6. Revoke all the tax cuts made by the criminal Bush clan.
7. Remove all the "Justices" put in place by the Bush clan, including on the Supreme Court.
8. Abolish all the bullshit programs put in place by Bush clan, including Medicaid "reform" and the provisions attached to the 'no-child-left-behind' scam. Surely Bush was left behind.
9. Consider the possibility that the Republican ideology contravenes the Constitution because its policies and beliefs endanger the well-being of the people. Consider making the Republican Party illegal.
10. Start a party that opposes the Democratic Party from the left of the Democratic Party and makes the Republican Party a detestable relic of the past akin to the slave-holding Southern rebels.

Dr. Rec, The Rec Report
Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D.

Permanent URL for this article here.

It's scary to see how close comments like this resemble the Communist agenda.

Communist Goals (1963)

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.