Is Bill Clinton More Comfortable with Bush or Carter?

In 1976, Iowans selected Jimmy Carter to be the Democratic nominee for president. Carter remains extremely popular among Democrats. Carter is an outspoken advocate for peace and human rights, his attempts a solution in the Middle East won him the Nobel Prize, and he is a tireless worker for justice and Democratic values.

Yet, the Clintons seem to snub Carter at every opportunity while saddling up to the Bush dynasty. The Boston Globe declares that Bill Clinton has become a member of the Bush clan. For a Democrat, this must be extremely disturbing. Having the standard bearer of the party carry the torch for one of the least popular Republican presidents in history is curious.

The fact that George W. Bush has never been conciliatory to Democrats makes you wonder what's in it for the Clintons. Are they trying to advance their political interests at the expense of their party? Does Bill Clinton prefer George Bush over Jimmy Carter?

Why Do Top Democrats Join the Media?

Watching George Stephanopoulos go after Hillary Clinton this morning, was a little off-putting. Afterall, it wasn't that long ago that the two were working hand in hand together to get Bill Clinton elected. Did Stephanopoulos' politics change? Doubtful. What it does show is how a key political operative was bought off and made ineffective by the media.

Stephanopoulos is not alone. Chris Mathews and Tim Russert were once hardcore Democratic strartegists. Now, they are more famous for lobbing softballs to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld while going for the jugular against the Howard Dean's and John Kerry's of the world.

One can only imagine what a difference these three would make if they were working for Democrats instead of posing as moderate mainstream reporters without agendas. Afterall, no matter how much Stephanopoulos, Russert and Mathews bend over backwards to give the other side a fair hearing, they will forever be remembered as Democrats and thus taint the media as being liberal.

It's hard to imagine three more talented people who have been suctioned out of real politics and into the "objective" business of journalism. Can you imagine Karl Rove attacking a Republican or giving a fair hearing to Democrats? Of course not. These three were feared by the other side, now they are lap dogs, big and blustery for sure, but completely neutered.

Why Was Ahmad Massoud Assassinated?

We go back to September 9th, 2001. Ahmed Massoud, the military leader of the Taliban-fighting Northern Alliance, was killed by a camera bomb. Other Northern Alliance leaders were hurt or killed in the attack, seemingly designed to cripple the guerrilla movement.

The two assassins were Arabs and it is suspected that Abdul Sayyaf was involved. Some speculate that Pakistan was behind it, but conventional wisdom is that the assassination was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden to strengthen his position with the Taliban two days prior to 9/11.

Who did benefit? Not Pakistan certainly. They were the sponsors of the Taliban and had to absorb the Taliban back into their country. It doesn't make sense that bin Laden was behind it; the action would appear to be a distraction with no real pay-off for him. In the end, it did not advance al Qaeda's interest at all; they lost their safe haven and bin Laden had to flee the country.

The people who benefitted from 9/11 would seem to be the ones who wanted the Taliban
overthrown. That would be the Northern Alliance, which Massoud led, a paradox for sure, and/or those who wanted an American invasion of Afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance was not succeeding. They were running out of time and money, and the Bush administration appeared to be siding with the Taliban. They needed an event to turn things around. Massoud was a Tajik and a moderate who was against religious fanaticism. This contrasts with many around him who had histories with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood
and who were ethnic Pashtun's.

Abdul Sayyaf fits this profile, but he certainly couldn't seriously believe that killing a remote guerilla fighter halfway around the world would merit American involvement. Which leads one to think that he would have known September 11th was coming also.

Sayyaf would have known that America would answer such a terrorist attack and overthrow the Taliban for him. He would have strengthened his position by eliminating Massoud, his prime opposition. Sayyaf was also intimately connected to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Whatever the answer, the one-two punch of Massoud's killing and 9/11 is something that needs to be explored further.

What Do We Know About Abdul Rasul Sayyaf?

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States and Saudi Arabia mounted a huge effort to expel the communist forces. They funneled billions of dollars into the hands of Afghan guerrillas known as the Mujahadeen. These were Islamic revolutionaries and the consequence of this reverberates to this day.

Abdul Rasul Sayyaf is one of Afghanistan's most powerful warlords and religious leaders. He was educated in Egypt where he became a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was financed heavily by Wahabi Saudi's during the war and worked closely with Osama bin Laden. He established a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Afghanistan and an education camp called Dawa'a al-Jihad, which Ramzi Yousef, the Kuwaiti behind the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing, attended.

This relationship with Yousef goes over to the Philippines where the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group is named after him. Terry Nichols, Timothy McVeigh's partner in the Oklahoma City bombing, is suspected of learning bomb-making from this group on his many visits to the Philippines.

After the Soviets withdrew, Sayyaf battled other warlords for control of Kabul, destroying the city and killing tens of thousands of civilians. Sayyaf's militia committed numerous atrocities and the fighting allowed the Taliban to rise to power.

Sayyaf is believed to have helped set-up the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud in 2001. Massoud was the military leader of the Northern Alliance killed two days before 9/11.

According to the 9/11 Commission, Sayyaf was a mentor to Khalid Sheik Mohamed, the Kuwaiti who was the mastermind behind the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Where is Sayyaf today? No, not at Guantanamo Bay or in American custody. He is a powerful member of the Afghanistan legislature, his men are in powerful positions of government, and he has tremendous influence with President Karzai.

As Afghanistan reverts to Sayyaf's religious fanaticism, some want to hold him accountable for past war crimes. Instead, Sayyaf holds demonstrations calling for amnesty for himself and other Mujahadeen leaders. Is there anything else we should know about Abdul Rasul Sayyaf?

Is Asking Questions the Most Controversial Thing a Person Can Do?

Since starting Rakemucker a few weeks ago, strange things have been happening that have never happened before. Two laptops have been disabled, their hard drives erased, my internet hosting service has been hacked into and my passwords stolen, my internet/cable started acting strangely emitting a steady stream of clicks, and on Christmas eve, after business hours, my cable company shut off my service for two days and put a security lock on my cable modem. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Rakemucker, afterall, no one can think that asking questions is a controversial thing to do.

History Channel = Hitler Channel?

Anybody who's turned on their television set over the last thirteen years knows that the place to find Hitler programming has been on the History Channel. Sometimes it seems that half of their programming is devoted to the anti-Semitic Nazi leader. Under the banner of exploring history, Nazi propaganda has been given a new forum on the History Channel. Is it fair that the History Channel has garnered the reputation as the "Hitler channel"?

Displaying Nazi symbols and imagery is generally considered offensive and, in many cases, illegal, and so it is a subject certainly worthy of discussion. The History Channel is a joint venture owned by GE, Disney, Rupert Murdoch and the Hearst Corporation. This group has a dominating hold on shaping views of historical events through this channel and others they control like A & E, Biography, History International, and the Military History channel. Some might argue that these right-wing corporations are sympathetic to the subject at hand for one reason or another.

For example the Hearst Corporation has a long and checkered history with fascist causes. William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951), the Rupert Murdoch of his day, came to embrace fascism and all the dictators that went with it. In the 1930’s, he hired both Mussolini and Hitler to write columns for his newspapers. He used newsreels to pass along unedited Nazi propaganda, he even went over to Germany and personally met with Hitler, and even attended to the Nuremberg rally. It's obvious where the History Channel obtained all their Nazi footage.

The History Channel has expanded all over the globe. It is disturbing to think that there might be people who share Hitler's ideology who spread his beliefs in the guise of historical examination. There can be no doubt that the History Channel is the favorite television station among neo-Nazis who find everything they need to live out their fantasies on almost a daily basis on the supposedly respected media outlet, the History Channel.

Is the John Birch Society Responsible for Spreading Most of the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories?

Just one month after President Kennedy was assassinated, one of the founders of the John Birch Society came out with an article entitled, "Marksmanship in Dallas". Revilo Pendleton Oliver, the man whom JBS figurehead Robert Welch described as, "quite possibly the world's greatest living scholar,” outlines some of the great conspiracy theories that would dominate the JFK assassination debate over the next forty years.

Revilo's article is extremely disturbing and demonstrates how much the far-right hated JFK and how much contempt they had for liberals, blacks and Jews at the time. Revilo asserts that Oswald was a communist and had help communists everywhere, including with the U.S. government. This article would unleash a flood of far-right literature designed to obfuscate the facts of the assassination.

It's no wonder that the Kennedy assassination has become associated with crackpots and nutcases as most of the stories and misleading information were spread by right-wing whack-jobs like the Birchers. Their message always seems to be, don't trust the government or the political left ,while implicating the usual suspects; it's all part of a communist plot, or maybe LBJ was involved with help from the CIA, possibly the Illuminati, and you can bet that the one-worlders in the Council of Foreign Relations were behind it. In all the noise, an American President’s murder becomes a joke and any possible conspirators walk cleanly away.

A careful reading of the record reveals that the major conspiracy authors have a lot in common with the John Birch Society perspective; don't trust the government, the government's out to get you, and the government will lie to you if they can get away with it. In 1969 this was Jim Garrison's case in a nutshell. Few are aware that Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who brought the only case involving the assassination to trial, was also an avowed supporter of right wing extremist Ayn Rand.

Many of the JFK conspiracy propagators share something else; connections with extremist organizations and groups. Mark Lane, author of "Rush to Judgement," ended up working for the ultra-racist Liberty Lobby and defended people like James Earl Ray and holocaust denier Willis Carto. Revilo P. Oliver went on to develop the National Alliance with William Pierce, and then went to work for the Institute for Historical Review in trying to discredit the Holocaust. Victor Marchetti and Fletcher Prouty were others who used the Orange County-based Holocaust denial network to spread their stories.

Oliver Stone's 1991 movie, JFK, seems to have brought the John Birch Society story to the big screen. While clearing Lee Harvey Oswald, the Yale-trained filmmaker managed to blame the CIA, Naval Intelligence, the Secret Service, the FBI, and Lyndon Johnson! It is odd that a perceived liberal like Stone would saddle up to the same positions as extremists on the far right. It demonstrates, however, how much influence the John Birch Society has had on the death of a Democratic president.

Did John D. Rockefeller Help Bring Joseph Stalin to Power?

One has to wonder how a brutish and uneducated neanderthal like Joseph Stalin rose to become the Supreme leader of the Soviet Union. There is a compelling
argument that he had the support of Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller.

By the turn of the Twentieth century, Rockefeller's Standard Oil, had become a global behemoth. It was a company built through corporate spying and sabotage, a secretive and ruthless organization that sought complete control of oil through compacts and agreements. Russian oil, specifically the Baku oil fields, were the greatest threat to the Rockefeller monopoly.

In the mold of previous thugs that Rockefeller had used to disrupt and hobble his competition, Joseph Stalin emerged from the Baku oil fields to wreak havoc on the Russian oil industry. He became the devious mastermind behind the strikes and demonstrations that beset Standard Oil’s competition.

Baku was the center of revolutionary activity. The socialist ideas of men like Germany’s Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin spread from there to the rest of tsarist Russia. The oil industry’s own distribution system was used to spread propaganda and stir unrest throughout the country. Standard Oil flourished as the Russian economy fell into tatters.

The revolutions in Russia, from the turn of the century until Stalin consolidated power, mirrors the battles being fought over Russian oil. Rockefeller had no love for the Russian tsars who were refusing to cooperate with him, or the Rothschild family who controlled much of the Russian oil industry. It is likely that he took steps to derail their ambitions.

When the Bolsheviks came to power, Standard Oil was the first in with the Communists. American oil took the opportunity to establish companies in Russia. These men weren’t the fierce ideological anti-Communists they played later in life, instead they were looking to make money and they saw Stalin as a dictator they could work with. They applauded when Lenin, Bucharin, and Trotsky were eliminated as political threats, but they turned on Stalin with a vengeance when he nationalized the oil industry.

It's a fascinating question to ponder; was Joseph Stalin a product of the Standard Oil empire? Is John D. Rockeweller responsible for bringing to power one of the worst men in history?

What Was William Pierce Doing in the Last Years of His Life?

"It's still three hours until first light, and all systems are 'go.' I'll use the time to write a few pages- my last diary entry. Then it's a one-way trip to the Pentagon for me. The warhead is strapped into the front seat of the old Stearman and rigged to detonate either on impact or when I flip a switch in the back seat."

With this, William Luther Pierce ends the book “The Turner Diaries,” with the narrator flying a suicide mission into the Pentagon. Sound familiar? It should. Whether Pierce and his neo-Nazi brethren were involved with 9/11 or not is still unclear. However, it should be noted that it must have been a great birthday present for Pierce who was born on September 11th, 1933.

Writing in 1978 under the pseudonym Andrew McDonald, Pierce accurately foretold future terrorist attacks on America, including Timothy McVeigh's truck bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh was a big fan of Pierce and had a copy of "The Turner Diaries" in his possession when he was captured.

It was exactly three months before 9/11, when McVeigh was executed by lethal injection. That must have been a momentus day for William Pierce. He and his die-hard followers must have been furious and ready to wage war. Pierce must have believed that McVeigh’s execution was a direct attack against his neo-Nazi movement by a government he detested. He would have surely thought it was an act that needed to be answered.

It was William Pierce who said in regard to Arab extremists, "We have a common cause: getting the U.S. government off the back of the rest of the world and getting the Jews off the back of the U.S. government. There is ground for joint action."

Pierce died in 2002. His last years were very active ones. He attended a neo-Nazi convention in Germany in 1999, a period in which Mohammed Atta's Hamburg Cell was active. Pierce made a number of trips to Germany during that period, obsessed with the idea that it was necessary for hate groups to collaborate across national borders.

What else do we know about William's Pierce's movements prior to 9/11?

Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Connected to the American Nazi Movement?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is considered the mastermind of 9/11. Most are unaware that he was born in Kuwait and went to college in the United States where he earned an engineering degree from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1986.

North Carolina is home to William Pelley’s pro-Hitler, Silver Legion and once had the highest Klan membership in the country. Race relations were always an issue in the area and KSM and his fellow Arabs had trouble assimilating into the mostly African-American university.

At the time, Greensboro was reeling from one of the worst incidents of neo-Nazi violence in American history. In 1979, members of an anti-Klan parade were marching through the streets of Greensboro when forty or so American Nazis and Klansmen pulled up and started shooting and stabbing them. Thirteen marchers were wounded and five were killed in an attack labeled the Greensboro Massacre.

All the white supremacists were acquitted in two separate trials. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed arrived right in the middle of it all. It was a huge story and it's easy to imagine the conversations that KSM would have had with his Arab friends about it. He would have obviously been sympathetic with the Nazi attackers, hating Jews as much as he does. One has to believe that he was paying close attention to the case, undoubtedly learning from it, getting inspired by it, and possibly even making connections within the local community.

Additonally, the parade was organized by communists, and KSM hated communists. After graduating from college, he went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets with the U.S.-backed Mujahadeen guerrillas. KSM has since confessed his involvement with just about every terrorist attack since the WTC truck bombing in 1993.

Was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed working with American Nazis? It was William Pierce, one of the founders of the American Nazi Party and the author of the "Turner Diaries" who said in regard to Arab extremists, "We have a common cause: getting the U.S. government off the back of the rest of the world and getting the Jews off the back of the U.S. government. There is ground for joint action."

Does Blackwater Employ African-Americans?

Armed Blackwater soldiers patrolling the streets of New Orleans

Blackwater USA is the private security firm, some would say mercenary army, making billions of dollars off government contracts and the Iraq War.

I've never seen any African-Americans in any of the Blackwater footage I've seen, so I'm curious as to whether Blackwater USA employs any African-Americans, and if so, how many and in what positions?

Who is Cofer Black?

If you've never heard of Cofer Black, consider yourself normal. However, if you've never heard of Cofer Black consider yourself disturbingly uninformed. It's a significant fact that Cofer Black has remained as anonymous as he has, afterall, he was head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Division and the man in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Cofer Black was, in fact, the man most responsible for not stopping bin Laden.

Cofer Black's background;

1. Black’s father was a Pan Am pilot who flew routes in Africa. Growing up, Black saw firsthand the unrest in Ghana and Nigeria. This was during the time when the CIA was helping overthrow Ghana's founder and first president, Kwame Nkrumah, in 1966.
2. As a teenager he went to Nigeria where he witnessed the outbreak of the Biafran War firsthand. That was a war which lasted for three years, full of genocide and starvation, and which claimed three million lives.
3. Cofer graduated from USC in 1973.
4. He went back to USC for a graduate degree and then joined the CIA where he requested an assignment in Zambia to keep an eye on the Rhodesian Civil War. He remained there throughout the 1970’s, a period when the CIA was recruiting mercenaries to fight on the side of the white minority during the Rhodesian Bush War.
5. Cofer goes to Somalia during their conflict with Ethiopia in 1978.
6. In the early 80's, goes to South Africa during its "dirty war" against black majority rule.
7. In 1985, Cofer, the Blackwater guys, and some of Ronald Reagan’s men came together to fight communists in the Angolan Civil War, an extremely bloody war that
   killed over 500,000 people. The go ahead was issued to join forces with terrorist leaders in Africa, Afghanistan and Nicaragua to fight "communism".
8. In 1993 Black becomes station chief in Sudan where he watches Osama bin Laden grow into the world’s most dangerous terrorist. Black follows bin Laden to Afghanistan where he recruits Muslims to get close to Bin Laden. Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers were training in-country at the time.
9. Two days after 9/11, Cofer briefs Bush with an already-developed plan to invade Afghanistan. Cofer Black is the person who tells CIA agents to bring Bin Laden’s head back in a box and to put al-Queda leader's heads on pikes, uninterested in bringing any of them back alive. Bin Laden is allowed to escape into Pakistan.
10. Until 2005, Cofer Black runs the extraordinary rendition program utilizing torture and secrecy to keep alleged terrorists in limbo without rights or identities. There would be no chance for outsiders to interview terrorists.
11. Black joins Blackwater USA in 2005 and supervises the deployment of mercenary soldiers into New Orleans after Hurrican Katrina hits which devastates the area's
    African-American communities.
12. Becomes chairman of Total Intelligence Solutions in 2007, a company whose intent is to bring CIA intelligence gathering techniques to the corporate world.
13. Mitt Romney works closely with Cofer Black and selects him as an advisor to his presidential campaign.

Who is Cofer Black? I've tried to make his history as black and white as possible. Hopefully, this has given you a better sense of the mysterious spook who stays out of the public eye. Help fill in the blanks if you can.

Is the Greatest Cover-Up of All-Time Going on Right Before Our Eyes?

Everyone remembers the picture of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. That single gunshot silenced the suspected terrorist and eliminated any chance that he would have his day in court. Oswald's story would never be fully told.

It is inconceivable that the same thing is happening today right before our eyes. Like sleepwalkers, the public and the press ignore the most obvious story
out there-- what do the 9/11 conspirators know, what are they saying, and why isn't the American court system prosecuting them for their actions?

Like Jack Ruby, the Bush administration has silenced the debate. They have controlled the story and eliminated the witnesses, shipping them off to secret CIA black sites and sequestering them at the inaccessible and highly secretive Guantanamo Bay. They have kept evidence to themselves, out of the public view, and out of the courtroom. Now, they have destroyed evidence, seemingly, in order to protect themselves.

When it came out that the CIA had destroyed interrogation videos of at least two suspected 9/11 conspirators, everyone jumped to the conclusion that they were destroying incriminating evidence of their use of torture. But are we sure that's why the tapes were destroyed?

Another explanation is that the interrogations were successful and the tapes would have revealed what the suspects confessed to. Obviously, confessions about Bin Laden, al Queda and other possible terrorist conspirators would be a gold mine for the Bush administration. The CIA could easily edit out any security breeches or leads still in progress, so it's unfathomable that they would destroy them, unless...

Unless they implicate the wrong people. Unless people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Abu Zubaydah are saying the "wrong" things. Whatever these "enemy combatants" did confess to, it has since been destroyed by CIA Director Michael Hayden. General Hayden is the man behind the domestic surveillance program and headed the National Security Agency during 9/11.

We are now engaged in an endless war where conventional rules do not apply. There is no guarantee that these suspects will ever see the light of day. It is time for the American public to insist on hearing what the masterminds of 9/11 have to say. Whatever their intelligence value was, it is no longer an excuse to hide away the greatest terrorists in American history.

Though Lee Harvey Oswald was a despicable character, he deserved his day in court and the American people deserved to hear his story. Likewise, the full story of 9/11 needs to be told and the perpetrators should have their story on the record. We were cheated by Jack Ruby, we are being cheated right now. The press and the public need to cut through the canard that has kept the full story of 9/11 from being told.

Will You Have a Merry Capitalistmas?

Fox News and Bill O'Reilly have become even more of a joke with their "War on Christmas" campaign. In order to divide religious people along crass political lines, they pose as defenders of Christianity intent on fighting off imaginary enemies who want to tear down all religious expression. In doing so, they are destroying the holy values of Christmas and replacing them with superficial economic ones.

Whether you're a Christian or not, most of us understand what Christmas is supposed to be; it's when Jesus' birth is celebrated and all his gentle actions and compassionate beliefs are held up as a model. Bill O'Reilly's Christmas is a five year-old's vision of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and brightly wrapped presents. It is only one step removed from Halloween as a time of frivolity and commercialism.

Christmas started early this year. I've watched as the business channels breathlessly await sales results for Black Friday, Cyber Monday, Green Monday, and all the other days of Christmas. You see, the economy depends on you spending money this Christmas season. If the consumer... I mean, if the Christian doesn't spend enough, no one can be joyous. If the shopping bags aren't filled with care, if our hearts aren't jingling at the register, if the malls aren't jammed with revelers spending with abandon, how can Jesus be adored?

O'Reilly and Fox are trying to merge the religious with the capitalist. By extending the season, by bringing holiness to the public square, by joining deep religious meaning with shallow Madison Avenue ad campaigns, they are the ones who are mocking Christmas. You'd have to be a nonbeliever not to partake in the capitalist... I mean, Christian holiday.

I should offer some advice here; be kind to strangers, love your enemy, take care of those around you, and make sure not to measure your Christmas spirit by your credit card bill, but I know that is a message long gone stale. So, instead, I will only offer you the most profound and hearty season greeting I can muster; to one and all I say, have yourself a very Merry Capitalistmas this year!

Is Orange County Home to the Most Anti-Semitic University in America?

May 2006 Los Angeles Times Photo

According to the The Orange County Register, "UCI has earned a national reputation, spread largely by bloggers and pro-Zionist organizations, of being, in one organization words, the most notoriously anti-Semitic campus in America." Some examples;

1. 2001-2007 annual "Zionist Awareness Week" brought anti-Semitic speakers, articles, symbols and marches to the campus.
2. Spring 2003 Destruction of a Holocaust Memorial.
3. January 2004 Rock thrown at Jewish student wearing T-shirt with words "Everyone Loves a Jewish Boy".
4. Feb 2004 "Slaughter the Jews, " and "Dirty Jews" yelled at Sephardic Jewish students.
5. May 2006 Israeli flag in dorm defaced with swastika.
6. Numerous swastikas drawn around campus along with incidents of harassment, intimidation, and threatening emails.

Although the Office of Civil Rights has cleared UCI of any violations of law, the patterns of anti-Semitism at UCI are troubling. The differentiation between anti-Semitism and Zionism that Bush's civil rights division insists upon is as thin as a razor's edge.

UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake's low key approach to dealing with this volatile issue is troubling. His role in the Erwin Chemerinsky fiasco shows him to be not much more than a pawn acting at the wishes of the real power brokers at UCI.

UCI is theoretically part of the University of California system. However, since its founding, it has been the brainchild and dependent of the Irvine Company. That would be Donald Bren's Irvine Company. Bren, one of the richest men in the world has an estimated worth of $15 billion and runs UCI. This is an unhealthy situation for a school that hopes to be taken seriously, but instead, has to shake off the image of the "most anti-Semitic university in America.

Did Hillary Clinton Work for Chuck Colson?

Just before Thanksgiving, Bob Novak reported that "a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had scandalous information about Obama," in an article entitled, Hillary's Nixonian Tactics Against Obama." At the beginning of December on Face the Nation, "Howard Wolfson, Sen. Hillary Clinton's spokesman, accused Obama of running a 'slush fund';" see Hillary's Slush-Fund Attack. Now Bill Shaheen, Clinton's national co-chairman and one of her most trusted advisers, resigned after pushing stories to the Washington Post about Obama's high school drug use.

You'll remember that the Washington Post was used by another Clinton aide who had to resign after spreading stories about Obama's religious background in a widely condemned article that received front page treatment titled, Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him. After Matt Drudge, the Washington Post appears to be Hillary's favorite place to spread rumor and innuendo, and the Post appears only too happy to oblige.

Just who is Hillary Clinton? We know that she was a proud Goldwater Girl, working beyond the call of duty for the far-right Republican candidate for president in 1960 and 1964. In 1965 she was elected president of the Wellesley Young Republicans. Hillary attended the 1968 Republican Convention in Miami, and this is where things get interesting. During this time, she was supposedly a supporter of Eugene McCarthy too.

Chuck Colson, Nixon's political architect, and the teacher of dirty tricks to the likes of Lee Atwater, George W. Bush and Karl Rove, would have been familiar with Hillary Clinton at the time, as he was from the Boston area. One of his and Nixon's favored weapons was trying to bootstrap candidates who could split the opposition. McCarthy's campaign did just that, knocking Lyndon Johnson out of the race and opening up the field so that Nixon could win. Colson and Nixon loved to send out young Republicans to pose as Democrats in order to sabotage them and gather intelligence.

Hillary went on to graduate from law school at Bush's alma mater, Yale. Judging from her campaign's behavior in the last few weeks, she has obviously learned a lot from Nixon. The question is, did she work for Chuck Colson, and if she did, for how long?

What's It Mean to Look Presidential?

"Mitt Romney is seen as someone who looks presidential, " Tim Russert gushes. "You can't get more presidential-looking than Mitt Romney," an overheated Bill O'Reilly exclaims. He finishes with the observation, “I think that means a lot in America.”

What does it mean to look presidential? Maybe it's best to see who doesn't fill the part. Hillary Clinton is an easy one, who's ever heard of a woman running the United States? It's also pretty obvious that Barack Obama lacks the requisite paleness for the title. Obviously, to look presidential excludes people of entire continents; last I checked there haven't been any Asians, Africans or Native Americans.

If history is the judge, to look presidential requires that one, not only have alabaster skin and external genitalia, but be tall like Washington, with a full head of hair like Clinton, square jawed, large-headed, and sculpted-nosed like a proud and pure Anglo-Saxon.

But before you think I'm going to that old standby of saying American presidents are just a bunch of old white guys, hold your horses. Guys who should fit the bill like Rudy Guiliani sure don't get the presidential nod. Ignore the hair thing, and you'll see that there have not
been any Italians behind the desk in the oval office. In fact, there haven't been any Norwegians or Spaniards, Greeks or Russians, Poles or Frenchmen. The Northern European, whiter-the-better-model, only holds true to a narrow subset. A couple have roots in Germany, some from England, while the vast majority come from Scotland by way of Ireland.

To look presidential is to look Scottish. Now we know. Looking presidential doesn't mean having brains or convictions, or standing up for what you believe, having courage or vision, or compassion or passion, it simply means you fit the mold in looks and carriage of a Scottish highlander. Picture Ronald Reagan or Warren G. Harding in kilts chasing sheep and you'll have the man most likely to look presidential.

Is it racist to say someone looks presidential? It is only racist in the fact that judging people by how they look, giving admirable qualities to them based on physical proportions, and promoting certain physical characteristics that elevate one group of people over another are values generally shared by racists.

What's the Inside-Scoop on Paparazzi?

There was a time when I'd hear celebrities complain about how they had no privacy because the paparazzi hounded them wherever they went, and I'd say to myself, "what are they complaining about? That's the price of celebrity, a small price for the privilege of being one of the glamorous people. Celebrities shouldn't complain, they should be thankful for having fame and fortune, and stop being babies about having their picture taken."

No more. I've come to recognize the unique danger that celebrities are under and why the paparazzi needs to be reigned in. You see, celebrities have a special power, a power that comes from the people. The media can't control them, nor can the government. Once an actor or singer reaches a certain level of fame, they are free to think for themselves and say what they want, and they can have an enormous impact because of this.

There are many out there who don't like what certain celebrities are saying and they have a multitude of options available to derail them. They can slam them in the press, try to get them black-balled, spread rumor and innuendo, or otherwise try to bring them down in any number of ways. And this is why the paparazzi is so dangerous.

Think about it; if someone wants to take a celebrity down, the first thing they'll do is try to gather dirt. Los Angeles is notorious for guys bugging, trailing, and spying on people (just remember Howard Hughes). The paparazzi has become such a part of life that it's easy to establish an identity as a celebrity-stalking photographer hiding in the bushes or peeping through windows to get that one money shot to sell to right-wing rags like the National Enquirer.

Of course, we're not talking about photographs here, we're talking about actual physical harm of the Lady Di-variety. The paparazzi have a unique way of getting close to celebrities and staying close for long periods of time with no accountability. Not only do they harass and annoy their prey, they can be a very serious threat. The paparazzi push many open and sensitive people into terrorized and reclusive captives of their own fame.

The tables should be turned. Instead of having fist fights with the photographers who get in their face, celebrities should hire their own photographers and take pictures of the paparazzi. They might find that those lovable losers trying to make a buck are actually imposters intent on sabotaging careers and destroying lives.

If you know of anyone posing as a paparazzi and whose real intent is something else, or who is working at the behest of someone else, here's your chance to bring them out into the open.

Did ABC's Nightline Deliberately Run CIA Propaganda?

I just finished watching Brian Ross interview an "ex-CIA agent" named John Kiriakou on Disney's entertainment program Nightline; Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture.

There were many incredulous things in this report which gave the whole segment the taint of political propaganda. First off, Kiriakou claimed that Zubayda cracked after a mere 35 seconds of waterboarding. Secondly, it doesn't make sense that Kiriakou would decide to go in front of the cameras and jeopardize every contact he has made there, putting many of his colleagues in danger, and throwing away any future career opportunities with the Agency. A cherubic, soft-spoken, sensitive-type, Kiriakou gave a human face to Bush's barbaric methods and acted as a great spokesman for the administration, but he tripped up on many points.

Calipygian notes, "Now, we have a guy who has actually waterboarded a suspected terrorist calling it "torture". In effect, this guy has admitted to breaking the law, possibly even committing a war crime... Since the leader of the team that conducted the torture has shown his face on ABC now, can we stop pretending that the tapes were destroyed to protect the identities of the perps from vengeful terrorists?"

Kiriakau spoke of his role in the interrogation of Abu Zubayda in a sensitive way reiterating the Bush talking points that the CIA torture techniques have saved innumerable lives. One viewer wrote in, "Out of one side of his mouth he said torture is bad (playing the good cop) and out of the other side of his mouth he says that if torture helps save lives, then torture away-have at it (bad cop). This whole charade was a complete farce. I can't believe ABC aired this piece of propaganda."

Another wrote, "I just watched the Nightline video of this agent. This is propaganda. Nothing rings true about this report."

According to the Los Angeles Times, Kiriakou served as a CIA counter-terrorism official from 1998 to 2004 and now works closely with Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington. That would be Henry Kissinger, one of Bush's most trusted advisers on Middle East issues. It would be very disturbing to find out that ABC News is deliberately running government propaganda. Have they? What else do we know about Kiriakou?

Who Were the Men Behind the 2000 Florida Election Riot?

We know the answer for the most part thanks to a great article by Al Kahen in the Washington Post, Miami 'Riot' Squad: Where Are They Now?

1. Tom Pyle, worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and then went to Koch Industries.
2. Garry Malphrus became deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.
3. Rory Cooper went to the White House Homeland Security Council.
4. Kevin Smith worked as a GOP House aide and at Voter.com (isn't that special?)
5. Steven Brophy was a GOP Senate aide and then went to KPMG.
6. Matt Schlapp worked for the Bush campaign and went on to become White House political director.
7. Roger Morse was a House aide who moved on to the law firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. (Must be a great law firm.)
8. Duane Gibson was an aide on the House Resources Committee and is now with the Livingston Group.
9. Chuck Royal was and still is assistant to South Carolina U.S. Senator Jim DeMint.
10. Layna McConkey Peltier was a Senate and House aide is now at Capital Health Group.

John Lantigua did a nice piece in Salon Magazine a week after the riot. He noted that Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y. helped lead the protest along with Elizabeth Ross, aide to Senator Trent Lott.

Many have mislabeled this as the "preppy riot" or the "angry white man" riot. Besides it being a deliberate and calculated attempt to subvert the American electoral system, and not a riot, it should be known as the Scottish-American siege as almost all the participants have Scottish surnames.

Since this will probably be the greatest achievement of these people's opportunistic lives, it is imperative that we recognize their accomplishments. They might never again get the chance to subvert the rule of law and the principles of democracy so let's give these Young Republicans for Fascism their due; who else were involved and what are they doing now?

Why Iowa?

Who cares about Iowa? Apparently, the media does. 24 hour cable news and the national print media can't get enough of the Hawkeye State. They will devote over half of their 2008 presidential election coverage to the two tiny states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Three million people, 97% Caucasian, call Iowa home. This is the state where arch-conservatives like John Wayne and Herbert Hoover were born. It has propelled Republicans like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush into the presidency.

Iowa's record for picking Democrats is dismal to say the least. The people of Iowa have selected president's Edmund Muskie, Walter Mondale, Richard Gephardt, Tom Harkin, Al Gore, John Kerry, and even a fellow called uncommitted. The only time they got it right was in 1996 when they selected Bill Clinton for a second term (he was unopposed).

So why do Democrats need Iowa then? They don't, but that won't stop the national media from stuffing Iowa down their throats. Democrats can be sure of one thing; whichever Democrat wins Iowa, will, almost certainly, not become the next President of the United States.

Yesterday, I watched Oprah Winfrey address a Des Moines rally for Barack Obama. A sea of white faces, all well-meaning I'm sure, filled the Iowa Events Center, and did their best to ignore the issue of race. I'm sure they will try to do the right thing, but who gave them so much power to decide the fate of the nation?

The media repetitiously says that Iowa is important and the candidates, like yellow rows of corn, fall right into line. The message is repeatedly drummed into the nation's consciousness over and over again, the simple idea that Iowa matters. It doesn't.

I live in Orange County, California, home to more Americans than all of Iowa's 99 counties. The candidates rarely address crowds here, they don't come to my door, there are no campaign workers asking for my support, I don't get phone calls, handbills, or political ads in the mail. The election will probably be settled by the time I cast my vote, thanks to the good folks in Iowa. This is somebody else's election, not mine.

Who Were the Twelve Men Behind the John Birch Society?

In 1958, twelve"patriotic and public-spirited" men got together in Indianapolis and put together the ultra-conservative John Birch Society. Are these the twelve?

1. Fred Koch- developed the most profitable private company in the world.
2. Revilo Pendleton Oliver- academic who helped develop the American Nazi Party.
3. Herbert Walker- wealthy Missourian and namesake of two U.S. Presidents.
4. William F. Buckley-Influential conservative who started the National Review.
5. H.L. Hunt: Conservative Texas oil baron.
6. E. Roland Harriman- Head of Southern Pacific Railroad, brother of Averell.
7. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.- Massachusettes Senator, Richard Nixon's running mate in 1960.
8. Robert Lovett- Brown Brothers Harriman partner.
9. Bowman Gray-former head of R.J. Reynold's Tobacco Co.
10. James Hanes- former head of the underwear dynasty.
11. Clarence Gamble- heir to the Proctor & Gamble fortune.
12. J. Paul Getty- oil made him the wealthiest man in the world in 1958.

If Al Gore Doesn't Run for President, Does that Mean Global Warming Isn't a Problem?

It looks like Al Gore won't be running for president; Gore joins Valley's Kleiner Perkins to push green business. Does this mean that he doesn't see global warming as a problem? Afterall, is there a more important job regarding global warming than being President of the United States? His behaviors seems to betray his words. He seems more interested in being a celebrity and in making money than in actually leading a charge against global warming. If his dire predictions are a just few short years away, his choices seem odd, if not perverse. His Tennessee energy-hog mansion and his jet-setting lifestyle are well documented and equally baffling. Is Al Gore affirming that global warming is a hoax?

Was Adolph Hitler in Los Angeles in 1932?

This is an image grab from the official 1932 Los Angeles Olympic movie reel archived at the LA84 Foundation Sports Library. On three separate occasions the cameraman leaves the athletic field and lingers on these two men in the crowd. The camera stays on these men and ignores the action on the field.

The man in the Scottish cap does not appear to be an ordinary spectator as he turns and stares straight at the camera. He bears a striking resemblance to Adolph Hitler. The man standing to his right looks remarkably like Rudolph Hess, Hitler's closest advisor.

The idea is not as strange as it appears at first. Hitler would host host the Berlin Games in 1936, along with three winter Olympics. He was clearly obsessed with the subject and it wouldn't be that surprising for him to show up at the X Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

In 1932 Hitler would be 43 and Hess 38 years old. Hitler was not well-known at this point, but the following year, he would become Chancellor of Germany. If this is Hitler, what could it mean? Whom did he meet with? Why hasn't it been reported before? What facts can you add on this topic?