The "Manchurian Candidate": Lee Harvey Oswald?

An American soldier is taken behind enemy lines and brainwashed as an unwitting assassin by communists in league with American political figures. This soldier then returns to the States to kill a presidential candidate as part of a political scheme to escalate and exploit Cold War tensions.

Sound familiar? It does if you've seen the classic movie "The Manchurian Candidate."

Now consider this modified scenario: An American soldier is first brainwashed as an assassin and to behave as a communist by agents of his own government, then sent behind enemy lines as a defector, only to return to the States and assassinate an American president.

But this is no movie plot. Years of research have convinced me this is exactly what happened in the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Before you dismiss this as yet another JFK conspiracy theory, look at how much it explains in light of what we've learned about the CIA's skillful use of mind control and fake defectors over years of anti-communist operations.

* In a program known as MKULTRA, the CIA spent billions of dollars secretly perfecting mind control technology. Brutal methods of eliciting confessions from captured enemy agents (electric shock, sensory deprivation, hypnosis and truth drugs such as LSD) were developed on hundreds of unwitting victims. Used operationally for many years, this counterintelligence technology is now coming to light in the Abu Ghraib prison-torture scandal.

* In addition to "defensive" techniques, CIA researchers sought to develop countermeasures against human weaknesses identified by the MKULTRA tests to create "torture-proof" American agents who could be sent into enemy territory on intelligence missions or be used to infiltrate enemy organizations as convincing double-agents and provocateurs.

* But the CIA didn't stop here. They also developed methods to brainwash so-called "involuntary assassins" who would not question orders to kill on command in Cold War operations. According to declassified government documents published by the New York Times, such agents would carry out actions "even against such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation."

Indeed, a CIA memo (NYT, 1978) describing an experiment using "involuntary assassins written before the JFK assassination predicted the details surrounding the crime with eerie precision. According to the declassified memo from the 1950s, as a "trigger mechanism" for a "bigger project" a defector would be manipulated to kill an American official under the influence of CIA mind control and then be "disposed of" after being taken into custody for the crime. Flash forward a few years to 1963. A defector (Oswald) kills an American official (Kennedy) and is then "disposed of" in police custody (by Jack Ruby). The "trigger mechanism" (death of a president) clears the way to a "bigger project": escalation of the Cold War on an unprecedented scale.

The parallels are striking. But is there supporting evidence for the scenario of Oswald being unwittingly manipulated as an intelligence pawn in a similar operation?

Declassified memos and investigative reporting by various sources have taught us a great deal over the past 40 years of how involuntary operatives could be cleverly "programmed" by the CIA as apparent communist sympathizers to infiltrate and disrupt communist organizations. (We now know that during the 1960s scores of phony leftists were used by the CIA and FBI to infiltrate and discredit organizations through violent behavior in infamous programs such as COINTELPRO.) We have also learned how supposed "lone-nut" Lee Harvey Oswald's seemingly irrational behavior actually complemented such espionage programs:

* His defection to the Soviet Union was secretly handled by the CIA as a counterintelligence mission and mirrored an elaborately staged defection involving another low-level American soldier (with a similar background) that began the very same year Oswald's did.

* Following his return to the U.S., Oswald leveraged his defector credentials to play the role of pro-Castro activist while constantly surrounded by anti-communists with links to the intelligence world.

-- His best friend in Dallas was a wealthy White Russian with ties to the CIA and the address of future CIA Director George Bush in his wallet.

-- After moving to New Orleans, Oswald formed an unauthorized chapter of a Castro-friendly group targeted by the CIA and handed out pro-Castro leaflets printed with the office address of an FBI anti-communist expert.

-- Future "lone-nut assassin" and pro-Castro activist Oswald even met with one of the CIA's anti-Castro assassins in New Orleans, while under both CIA and FBI surveillance (NYT, 1993).

* Oswald's supposed pro-communist behavior fit the profile of a hypnotized anti-Communist infiltrator as detailed in declassified documents from his era. Military hypnotist George Estabrooks even bragged of carrying out an operation employing a brainwashed Marine who was hypno-programmed with a pro-communist personality so he could be prematurely discharged from the service as a fake defector and then used in an anti-communist intelligence operation. Further, he claimed his hypnosis technique had been used to create assassins.

The more I study Oswald's infamous career, the more I am struck by how his otherwise puzzling bipolar antics make perfect sense within a now well-established CIA pattern of using counterfeit pro-communists in its anti-Communist operations. But I am also struck by the parallels between the "Manchurian Candidate" hypothesis and Oswald's use within these espionage operations.

As I reveal in The Perfect Assassin, mind control had many fascinating benefits for creating convincing double agents with unquestioning obedience who could be used in dangerous espionage cases where plausible deniability was critical. Estabrooks described the advantages mind control would provide in creating credible double agents to infiltrate communist organizations. "Convinced of their own innocence they would play the 'fifth column' role with utmost sincerity." And even if such an agent was captured, "He could not tell the truth about his life as a spy, because he would not know of it."

Declassified documents from the early '60s detail real-life CIA experiments with this mind control technology that had amazing parallels to incidents in Oswald's life and the events leading up to the Kennedy assassination. And documents show that the CIA was seriously investigating the use mind control for the anti-Castro assassination operations in which Oswald was involved.

But the theory of Oswald's being used as a pawn in ongoing anti-communist operations not only explains his activities leading up to the assassination. It explains the reasons behind the assassination itself and therefore helps solve the riddle of who was ultimately behind the crime.

Put yourself in the mindset of the early '60s, when those entrusted with the nation's security saw communist infiltration in every dissident group, danger lurking in every shadow. To them, we needed to escalate the Cold War, not step back from it. In their eyes, JFK failed them in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Castro's Cuba. And then he actively resisted aggressive plans and ongoing preparations for a second invasion. Kennedy was even considered a pro-communist traitor by extremists within the intelligence community.

If this scenario sounds outlandish in the post-Cold War world, consider the latest declassified documents that have surfaced from the Kennedy-era. These documents detail a major Cold War operation called Operation Northwoods secretly initiated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Memos from this operation, which was rejected by Kennedy, reveal a bold plan to justify a second invasion of Cuba. In one aspect of this plan, the CIA's anti-Castro agents, disguised as pro-Castro militants, would engage in a series of violent actions, including staged assassinations on American soil. Such covert actions by apparent pro-communists were designed to provoke "a helpful wave of indignation" in the American public that could be channeled to support a more overt and militaristic Cold War crusade.

Now consider the convenience of Oswald's actions to the covert warriors who not only had plans in place to kill heads of state (like Castro) but also had even discussed using mind control in these ongoing Cold War-era assassination attempts:

By killing JFK in the guise of a pro-Castro agent, Oswald eliminated a roadblock to the CIA's more militant anti-communist policies (Kennedy had fired the CIA director who oversaw these policies and then served on the Warren Commission), and indeed provided a justification for them!

As the prophetic CIA memo on mind control foreshadowed, JFK's murder served as the "trigger mechanism" for the "bigger project." With Kennedy out of the way, thanks to the actions of a "Manchurian Candidate," the Cold Warriors were free to escalate their mission with unspeakable brutality in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Far-fetched? Not when you sit down and really think about it.

By Jerry Leonard

A Look Ahead to 2008 (Part II)

Last week, I began my look ahead to the 2008 presidential campaign with the potential Republican candidates. Today, I will continue by taking a look at the potential Democratic candidates. Among them are New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, Nevada Senator Harry Reid, and Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

Hillary Clinton would seem to hav e the inside track to the Democratic nomination for 2008. However, she could be seen as a far too polarizing figure whose candidacy in the general election could bring out the evangelicals in droves for the Republicans as John Kerry's did this year. She will probably have to moderate a bit over the next three years in order to prove that she could win a general election. If she can't do this, the Democrats may seek a candidate with broader appeal. Right now, though, the nomination appears to be hers to lose.

After losing such a close election to George W. Bush in 2000, I believe Al Gore will make another run for the presidency. Those who would summarily dismiss him as no longer being a viable future presidential candidate are ignoring history. Richard Nixon was written off by almost everyone after losing to JFK in 1960 and then losing his California gubernatorial bid to Pat Brown in 1962. He came back six years later to win the presidency and then win re-election four years after that. However, Democrats are ostensibly less tolerant of their former losers than Republicans are. Democrats seem to be constantly looking for a fresh face. Gore would have to convince Democratic primary voters that he's more ''electable'' than their up and coming stars. That could ultimately prove to be a difficult task.

Bill Richardson served 15 years in the House of Representatives before becoming U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and subsequently Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton. Richardson is known as a moderate Democrat and is a member of that wing's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Being the governor of western state could work to his advantage, although New Mexico switched from blue to red in the recent presidential election. He may take a hit politically because of that. Due to his previous ties to the Clinton Administration, he might be viewed as an acceptable alternative to Hillary, should her candidacy not catch on.

Many Democrats may see Evan Bayh as just the candidate they need in the wake of Kerry's recent loss. He is a strong Democrat from a solidly red state, i.e., he was overwhelmingly elected to a second term as senator even as George W. Bush overwhelmingly carried his state in the presidential election (as all Republican candidates have in recent presidential elections). Bayh had previously served two terms as governor of Indiana. He is one of the leaders of the moderate Democrat movement. His father, Birch Bayh, was also a U.S. Senator and ran in the Democratic primaries for president in 1976, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter. Bayh is my dark horse pick to take the nomination. The only negative about him is that he seems to have a smirk on his face all the time and looks like he belongs on a TV show like Saturday Night Live!

In 1998, Tom Vilsack was elected Iowa's first Democratic governor in over 30 years and was re-elected in 2002. He is one of the most well respected and influential governors in the U.S. He is one of the established, but relatively unknown, players in the Democratic Party. Vilsack may be one of the people whom Democrats will look to following Kerry's loss. He refused to take sides prior to January's Iowa Democratic Caucuses, although his endorsement was sought by all the leading candidates. His wife endorsed Kerry and that seemed to help propel him to victory there. As is the case with Bill Richardson in New Mexico, Vilsack might have to explain why Iowa went from blue to red in the last presidential election. Vilsack's candidacy would render the 2008 Iowa Democratic Caucuses meaningless and place all the early emphasis on New Hampshire. A similar thing happened in 1992 when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for president.

Howard Dean will likely make another run for the presidency. However, with a much stronger field, he will find the going tougher this time. Money will be even tighter as the big names will be pulling in most of it. His collections in small amounts might still work, to a certain extent. He will not be able to sneak up on anyone this time and the war in Iraq may no longer be an issue by the time 2008 rolls around. His best chance for the nomination is to play the liberal card while most everyone else will undoubtedly be playing the moderate card this time. At least that strategy might garner him enough delegates to allow him to cut a deal for the vice presidential nomination. Rumors have it that Dean is interested in taking the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. If he does, that would preclude him from running for president or vice president in 2008.

John Edwards will face an uphill climb for the Democratic nomination. Within a couple of months, he will just be a former one-term senator, as he didn't seek re-election this year. However, the biggest obstacle for him will be his status as a vice presidential nominee on a losing ticket. Candidates in both parties who lose in their bid for vice president, without having first won, have great difficulty getting a presidential nomination. For example, Joe Lieberman's campaign crashed and burned after the New Hampshire Primary in January. Before this year, Sargent Shriver (in 1976) and Edmund Muskie (in 1972) were the last failed vice presidential nominees to even seek the Democratic presidential nomination and they were both rejected. On the Republican side, Bob Dole was finally able to capture his party's nomination in 1996 after a failed bid for vice president in 1976. However, even he was turned away in his first two attempts (1980 and 1988). On the positive side for Edwards, he will have more time to campaign than most of his opponents. Only Gore, Dean, and Mark Warner might have similar amounts of free time to campaign.

Barack Obama is seen as a very promising young future star for the Democratic Party. He is a state senator who was just elected in a landslide (and that's an understatement) to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. He was featured as the keynote speaker at the Democratic convention in Boston this summer. However, Obama is still a relatively unknown quantity and he'll have to prove himself in the Senate. He has, by far, the least political experience of all the candidates on this list. There have been many politicians from the past with similar potentials whose careers have fizzled out before they ever really got started. Even if Obama can live up to all the hype surrounding him, he still might not be viewed as presidential timber until 2012. A vice presidential nomination in 2008 might be a better bet for him.

Harry Reid has just been elected to his fourth term in the U.S. Senate and will take over as Minority Leader from Tom Daschle, who was recently defeated. Before coming to the Senate, Reid served as Nevada's Lieutenant Governor and served two terms in the House of Representatives. Since 1999, he has been the Assistant Democratic Leader in the Senate. Should Reid decide to run, the one advantage he'll have over his opponents is that he'll be acting as the official spokesman for the party on many issues and will therefore get plenty of free media exposure.

Mark Warner was elected governor of Virginia in 2001 after losing a closer than expected Senate race to John Warner five years earlier. Virginia law does not permit its governor to succeed himself, so Warner will not be allowed to run for re-election next year. Therefore, he will be able to devote himself to full-time campaigning for president, beginning in January 2006, if he so chooses. The fact that Warner is a Democratic governor in a strong red state will be a positive for him. However, even though the Republican presidential candidate has carried Virginia every time since 1968, a Democratic governor in the state is not unusual. In fact, since 1977, Virginia has elected a Democratic governor every time a Republican is in the White House. The opposite has been true when a Democrat is in the White House. If Warner is nominated by the Democrats and George Allen is nominated by the Republicans, the Mother of Presidents will be guaranteed to have produced our next Chief Executive.

Obviously, not all the candidates on the Republican list I discussed last or this week's Democratic list will actually run for president in 2008. Chances are, only about half on each list will run. At this point, however, no one can really say with a great deal of certainty which ones they will be. In addition, some candidates whom no one is predicting right now will decide to run. At this time in 2000, who would have predicted that Howard Dean would run in 2004? Who outside of Vermont even knew who he was back then? In politics, the only thing you know for sure is that you don't really know anything for sure. Uncertainty and unpredictability are what make politics interesting to me, but it's still fun to try to guess things and match wits with other pundits once in a while.

By Terry Mitchell

Abu Ghraib: Our Surprise is the only Surprise

As pictures and videos surface showing young American soldiers humiliating and dehumanizing Iraqi prisoners, we, as a society, recoil in disgust and disbelief. Friends and family of those charged with such crimes, shake their heads in bewilderment and assure the world that the perpetrators are normal, caring, loving individuals without any prior sadistic or bullying traits.

As the picture of prisoner degradation develops, the only surprise is that we are surprised.

Where have the American people, the Military, the Security Agencies, the Administration, and the Media been hiding for the past 30 years?

Research in Social Psychology is rampant with experiments clearly demonstrating the impact of situational influence on behavior. From Zimbardo's famous prison experiments at Stanford University (1971) and Milgram's extensive body of work on obedience (the administration of electrical shock torture by non-pathological students (1974 and following), the dangers of placing untrained, well-meaning but naïve individuals into a system where the cues of social acceptability have been perverted, has been shown to lead to exactly that behavior which the world has been watching over the past few months.

The killer children of Golding's Lord of the Flies, the torturers of the Inquisition, the Jew killers of Reserve Battalion 101 (Browning, 1993), are not inherently evil people, somehow different from you and I. They ARE us - placed into an intolerable, stress-laden pressure cooker where daily norms no longer apply. Systematically, they are praised and rewarded for aberrant behaviors, pushed on the road to doom with a small first step, taught to dehumanize their victims in an atmosphere where responsibility is diffused, anonymity guaranteed, and the absolute need for obedience to gain the goal (information, safety of other soldiers, National Security) is demanded.

Under such extreme conditions, the behaviors exhibited by the Abu Ghraib MPs should have been completely expected. The Military and Governmental agencies involved have behavioral experts and 30 years of research at their fingertips. To anticipate what might occur, and to plan accordingly - ensuring that supervision was relentless, prohibitions against improper behaviors were clear and unambiguous, training provided, and readily-accessed mechanisms provided for reports of questionable activity - was the job of the Army, the Government, and the Administration, listening to their own psychological experts.

Courts-Martial of individual guards for their unacceptable and abhorrent behaviors are warranted to the extent that the individual always bears ultimate responsibility for their personal actions. However, the primary responsibility must fall on those who directed and developed a system almost guaranteed to produce those actions which have recently appalled all Americans and degraded our National image.

Not knowing the research, not reading long reports, not having the time to focus on a small area of an enormous task, does not excuse nor absolve of guilt. The top commanders are where the buck stops and where accountability truly lies.

By Virginia Bola

A Look Ahead to 2008 (Part I)

Just as everyone has breathed a sigh of relief at the end of 2004 presidential campaign, I would like to take a quick look ahead to 2008. Unless George W. Bush is unable to complete his second term, 2008 will bring the third open presidential election (no incumbent running) in 20 years. Even though that's still four years into the future, the campaign will be unofficially getting underway almost immediately. Therefore, many of the potential candidates can already be identified and there should be no shortage of them on either side.

Today, I will be taking a look at the potential Republican candidates. Among them are Arizona Senator John McCain, Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, Virginia Senator George Allen, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

John McCain is probably in the best position to capture the GOP nomination, should he decide to run. He was beaten by Bush in the 2000 primaries, but he has since been one of the President's most loyal supporters, despite some differences of opinion. McCain is one of the most popular politicians in the U.S. and won re-election to his Senate seat last week with more than 70% of the vote! Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have a history of sometimes awarding their nomination to someone who has waited his turn. A case in point is Bob Dole, who was rejected in his bids for the nomination in 1980 and 1988, only to finally get it in 1996.

Bill Frist is a surgeon is who was first elected to the Senate during the Republican Revolution of 1994. He is now the majority leader of the Senate and should benefit from the GOP's pick-up of four additional seats in this election cycle. Frist seems to be well liked by all factions of the party. He would probably have the inside track to the Republican nomination if McCain decides not to run.

Jeb Bush would like to continue a streak that the Republicans currently have in place. Since 1976, they have featured either a Dole or a Bush on every national ticket. That's eight straight presidential elections! The fact that he was able to help his brother do better than anyone expected in Florida (winning by five percentage points) bodes well for him. That alone should greatly improve his stature within the Republican Party. Having family ties to the White House won't hurt either.

Dick Cheney has said he probably will not run for president (and there are even rumors that he might even resign before the end of Bush's second term). If he doesn't run, or if he does run and subsequently fails to get the nomination, the 2008 election would be the first without the inclusion of a sitting president or vice president since 1952. However, politicians have been known to change their minds. I still think he might ultimately decide to run. If he does, unlike most sitting vice presidents, he will have an uphill battle for the nomination. However, his popularity with the far right wing of the party would play to his advantage and could ultimately give him the edge he would need. There's still a question mark as to how evangelicals within the party would react to his support of his gay daughter.

Rudy Giuliani rebuilt his image with his handling of the 9/11 aftermath. Previously, he had to withdraw from a potential Senate race against Hillary Clinton, because of health problems. That was the official line, but most people believed it was because of a nasty divorce and rumors about extramarital affairs. He is now a very popular politician, but whether he is conservative enough to win the Republican presidential nomination is questionable at best. He will likely be opposed by the evangelical wing of the party.

Before being elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Mitt Romney headed up the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee earlier that same year. He had also made a run for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost. However, he did so much better against Kennedy that most of his previous challengers had done, that his loss actually helped boost his political career. Since being elected governor, he has become one of the bright young stars of the Republican Party. His father, the late George Romney, served as governor of Michigan and sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 but lost to Richard Nixon. His father's remarks made during the nominating process about having been brainwashed about Viet Nam ultimately cost him the nomination. Should Mitt Romney decide to run, he will want to avoid that kind of blunder.

Like Frist, Rick Santorum was first elected to the Senate in 1994. As Conference Chairman, he is now the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate. Santorum is a favorite of the religious right with his strong anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality views. However, pragmatic primary voters might shun him, feeling that he may be a bit too extreme to win a general election. Of course, four years before the 1980 election, many Republicans expressed those same sentiments about Ronald Reagan.

Tom Ridge was a very popular and effective governor of Pennsylvania before taking over Homeland Security. He was in his second term as governor when he resigned to take over that post. Prior to being elected governor, he served several terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ridge is more of a moderate Republican, but unlike Giuliani, seems to have some appeal to the party's conservative base. Whether he has enough remains to be seen. He is pro-choice, so he will get some opposition from the religious right, should he decide to seek the nomination.

George Allen is another rising star within the Republican Party. A former state delegate and son of the late Washington Redskins' coach of the same name, he was elected to Congress in 1990. However, his district was redrawn and he ended up in the same district as another, more established Republican congressman, Tom Bliley, by the end of his first term. He decided not to seek re-election in 1992 and was elected governor of Virginia in 1993 and then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000. He headed up the GOP's Senate Election committee for the last two years. The extra seats that the Republicans picked up in the Senate last week will be a feather in his cap. He has strong conservative credentials but is relatively unknown nationally.

Before taking her current post, Condoleezza Rice had previously served on the National Security Council under President George H. W. Bush. She is not a career politician or lawyer, but comes from an academic background - she has been a member of the Stanford University faculty for over 20 years. She has never held elective office but has sometimes given indications that she has presidential ambitions. She has been a very loyal member of the Bush Administration and that has earned her a great deal of respect throughout the party. Where she stands on social issues is still uncertain. She might ultimately prove to be a better prospect for vice president than president.

Next week I will continue my look ahead to 2008 with the potential Democratic presidential candidates.

By Terry Mitchell

Top 30 Politics Quotations

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs."
-- Albert Einstein



"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce



"Man is by nature a political animal."
-- Aristotle



"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."
-- Charles De Gaulle



"The mistake a lot of politicians make is in forgetting they've been appointed and thinking they've been anointed."
-- Claude D. Pepper



"Politics is made up largely of irrelevancies."
-- Dalton Camp



"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
-- Ernest Benn



"Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important."
-- Eugene McCarthy



"We would all like to vote for the best man but he is never a candidate."
-- Frank McKinney Hubbard



"When the political columnists say 'Every thinking man' they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to 'Every intelligent voter' they mean everybody who is going to vote for them."
-- Franklin P. Adams



"Run for office? No. I've slept with too many women, I've done too many drugs, and I've been to too many parties."
-- George Clooney



"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference."
-- Harry S. Truman



"Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith



"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'."
-- Larry Hardiman



"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
-- Lester B. Pearson



"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
-- Mao Tse-Tung



"Nothing can so alienate a voter from the political system as backing a winning candidate."
-- Mark B. Cohen



"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."
-- Milton Berle



"Politics is the art of the possible."
-- Otto Von Bismarck



"In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte



"Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them."
-- Paul Valery



"Politicians are wonderful people as long as they stay away from things they don't understand, such as working for a living."
-- P. J. ORourke



"In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves."
-- R. A. Butler



"Politics is largely a matter of heart."
-- R. A. Butler



"Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary."
-- Robert Louis Stevenson



"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."
-- Ronald Reagan



"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
-- Ronald Reagan



"A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country."
-- Texas Guinan



"The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority."
-- Will Durant



"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."
-- Will Rogers

By Danielle Hollister

Simple Middle East Peace Plan

I. WARS ARE BASIC CONFLICTS OVER LAND.

II. BOUNDARIES. THE STATE OF ISRAEL SHALL BASICALLY BE HER PRE-1967 BORDERS, EXCEPT FOR THEIR MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN JERUSALEM. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE OF PALESTINE SHALL BE THE WEST BANK AND GAZA. THE BOUNDARIES OF SYRIA SHALL BE HER PRE-1967 BORDERS.

III. CITIZENSHIP. JEWISH PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVING IN THE NEW PALESTINIAN STATE SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME JEWISH CITIZENS OF THE NEW PALESTINIAN STATE; PALESTINIAN PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVING IN ISRAEL SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME ISRAELI CITIZENS; JEWISH PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVING IN SYRIA SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BECOME JEWISH CITIZEN'S OF SYRIA.

IV. IMMIGRATION. THE RIGHTS OF JEWISH PERSONS TO TRAVEL AND LIVE IN THE NEW PALESTINIAN STATE AND THE RIGHTS OF PALESTINIAN PERSONS TO TRAVEL AND LIVE IN ISRAEL SHALL BE EQUAL. THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ACTUAL COUNTRY OF IMMIGRATION SHALL SET THE LAWS, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND ACTS GOVERNING TRAVEL AND IMMIGRATION.

V. JERUSALEM. THE RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE TO TRAVEL AND PRAY IN THE WALLED CITY OF JERUSALEM SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED. THE WALLED CITY OF JERUSALEM SHALL BE SACRED LAND WITH EQUAL SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHTS TO ALL RELIGIONS, PEOPLES AND PERSONS WHO HONOR THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM. BOTH ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL CITIZENSHIP WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THE RESIDENTS OF JERUSALEM.

VI. JURISDICTION. THE GOVERNMENT'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY RIGHTS; AND CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CLAIMS AND COMPLAINTS SHALL BE THAT GOVERNMENT'S IN THE ACTUAL LAND OF THE COUNTRY OF USAGE AND OCCURRENCE. PALESTINE, ISRAEL AND SYRIA AGREE TO DROP ANY AND ALL PAST PROPERTY, POLITICAL, CIVIL, CRIMINAL, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CLAIMS AND COMPLAINTS BETWEEN AND AMONG EACH NATIONS, PEOPLES, PERSONS, CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS. ALL NATIONS, PEOPLES, PERSONS, CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS AGREE TO HONOR AND RESPECT THE GOVERNMENT'S SOVEREIGNTY OF NEW LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND ACTIONS. ISRAEL, PALESTINE AND SYRIA AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ANY FINAL APPEAL VOTE.

VII. FOREMOST RIGHTS WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CURRENT USER AND USE.

VIII. CAPITOLS. THE RIGHTS OF ISRAEL TO HAVE THEIR EXISTING CAPITOL BUILDING IN JERUSALEM, AND THE RIGHTS OF PALESTINE TO HAVE THEIR CAPITOL BUILDING IN RAMALLAH SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED.

IX. DEMILITARIZATION. UPON THE PRIME MINISTER'S APPROVAL OF THE PALESTINIAN, ISRAELI AND SYRIAN PEOPLE, THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME OPERATIONAL. ISRAELI DEMILITARIZATION TO HER BASIC BORDERS SHALL BEGIN OCTOBER 31, 2004 AND BE EFFECTIVE BY MAY 1, 2005. THEREAFTER, THE TERRITORIES THAT WERE OCCUPIED SHALL REMAIN DEMILITARIZED BY ISRAEL, PALESTINE AND SYRIA.

X. FINAL APPEAL. ANY FINAL APPEAL OR DETERMINATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY A MAJORITY VOTE BY A THREE PERSON COMMITTEE MADE UP OF A PALESTINIAN, ISRAELI AND AMERICAN MINISTER. A MAJORITY VOTE IS A REQUIREMENT TO HEAR A FINAL APPEAL OR DETERMINATION.

Bush Panders America's Kids to Saudi Pederasts

President Bush and Secretary Powell should hang their heads in shame. The administration professes to value America's children and touts the phrase "No Child Left Behind." Simultaneously, they have abandoned an estimated 16,000 American children abroad.

According to Joel Mowbray's book "Dangerous Diplomacy," the children have been kidnapped by their parents and held in foreign countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Saudis are world class perverts. What is called child molestation in the US is called arranged marriage in Saudi Arabia. What kind of protection of the merican people is that?

Two stories (from many) Mowbray cites from Congressional testimony make the point.

A woman named Monica Stowers married a Saudi named Radwan. They had two children, a boy, Rasheed, and a girl, Amjad. Mowbray states their father abused the children, but not how. In Congressional testimony, Stowers said both children have been raped by their father's relatives.

Under Saudi law, a husband has to give a wife permission to enter or leave the country. Stowers entered Saudi Arabia, collected her children, and fled to the American embassy for help.

At the US embassy, the counsel general, Karla Reed, told Stowers that the embassy was not a hotel. Reed ordered the Marine guards to throw the kids outside. So the Marines dumped the girl on the sidewalk. The mother and son followed.

By the next morning, Amjad was locked up in her father's house. Her mother and brother were hiding. In time, Stowers was jailed, and Rasheed was on the run. The US embassy let Stowers rot in jail, but a Saudi friend bailed her out.

Ultimately, Rasheed paid $20,000 to be smuggled out of the country. He made his way to New York City, and touched the World Trade Center. The same year, Amjad, aged 12, was married off to a Saudi. She escaped and went into hiding with her mother. They lived in an abandoned school.

Amjad's grandmother testified about the situation to Congress in 2002. A Congressional delegation went to Saudi Arabia to get Amjad and fourteen other kids. By that time, Amjad had been married off to another Saudi. She met with a Congressman and was able to get an exit visa.

Amjad tried to leave Saudi Arabia in February, 2003. The Saudis stopped her because she didn't have her husband's permission.

The State Department did nothing to get her out. They continue to do nothing, for Amjad or for others.

Margaret McClain married a Saudi man named Alomari. He abused her for two years. They had a daughter, Heidi, in the third year of their marriage. The abuse worsened, and McClain got a protective order against Alomari. He got unsupervised visitation in the divorce decree, despite being a bigamist.

Alomari allegedly sexually molested his daughter when she was three years old, but the cops couldn't make the case. He kidnapped Heidi and took her to Saudi Arabia. The State Department did nothing.

Through her own investigation, McClain learned where Alomari lived. The State Department dawdled for two years before it arranged for a consular officer to see Heidi in person.

Three years after that, McClain was able to see her daughter in Saudi Arabia. They visited together for three hours at McDonald's in Riyadh. That was in July, 2002.

Both a State of Arkansas and a Federal warrant are outstanding for Alomari's arrest. The State Department has dithered ever since.

Stowers and McClain evidently have testified before Congress.

Secretary of State Powell, formerly an honorable appearing man, and President Bush, a professed Christian, cannot claim ignorance of their cases. They know.

Powell is in charge of State. Bush is in charge of the executive branch. They know.

That they do nothing is shameful.

As Secretary of State, Powell has sullied his honor. He should have stayed a soldier.

As for President Bush?

I cannot understand how a Christian man idles as Christian children are raped.

I cannot understand how a Christian man idles as Christian children are forced to become Moslems.

I cannot understand how American evangelicals regard Bush as God's anointed. He idles as Christian children are defiled in body and soul.

A panderer, according to Webster's dictionary, is a person who provides the means of helping to satisfy the ignoble ambitions or desires, vices, etc. of another.

Inasmuch as President Bush commits the sin of omission, of doing nothing, while Saudis defile Christian children in body and soul, he is a panderer.

Jesus said: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 18: 16-17.

Secretary Powell and President Bush have passports to enter the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But, will they have permission to enter the kingdom of God?

© Copyright David Chananie, 2004. All rights reserved.

This is an intellectual product to use in the fight against terrorism mandated under the provisions of the Homeland Security legislation.

-30-

Electronic redistribution and paper reproduction are allowed provided you don't change the file, or your suggested edits are approved by the author in writing. Approximately 1,000 words.

By Dr. David Chananie