EvansMediaUSA

it's your internet,...not your governments,...

CLICK PIC TO LISTEN

and

Click Here Now to Save Internet Music Radio

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Neocon II: Lie Hard

With A Vengeance 

By Matt Taibbi

Call it the Leslie Nielsen effect. Your first attempt at a show-biz career fizzles out and dies, but your failure is so quirky and charming that it wins you a whole second career. Think Robert Goulet, Bill Shatner, even John Travolta. America loves a brave second act, particularly one that doesn’t mind doing a take or two with egg still on his face.

What the Zucker brothers did for actors, the neocons are now doing for politics. In the first six years of the Bush presidency the administration’s ideological nucleus – a tribe of humorless conservative revolutionaries led by Dick Cheney and including the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Elliott Abrams – racked up a startling record in matters of official policy. From their juking of the case for the Iraq War to their Jacobin-esque purges within the government’s intelligence apparatus to their paranoid and sometimes criminal fragging of political enemies great and minor, the neoconservatives working for George Bush botched virtually every important move they made in the last six years.

Moreover, each time they used the presidency’s bully pulpit to make a prediction, be it about the post-invasion spread of democracy in the Middle East, the utility of Iraqi oil revenues in financing the occupation, or the chilling effect our presence in Iraq would have on Palestinian resolve, more or less exactly the opposite ended up taking place.

And yet, despite the walloping defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections that seemed to spell the end of neocon rule in Washington, the clowns are once again spilling out of the Volkswagen. Lately the neocons seem to be all over the public airwaves, and not as the targets of purgative public flogging or tarring ceremonies, but as the subjects of serious interviews, with respected journalists treating them like real human beings with real opinions. Even worse, a few are still in office, and appear to be cooking up a last-minute encore before the curtain finally comes down in ’08.

Richard Perle, the former head of the Defense Policy Board, known in the Beltway as the “Prince of Darkness,” has been on TV a lot lately in a much-publicized public spat with former CIA director George Tenet, who recently accused Perle of targeting Iraq days after 9/11. John Bolton, former UN-hating ambassador to the UN, recently won the Bradley Prize for “outstanding intellectual achievement” – achievement that presumably includes helping make the case for the Iraq disaster and support for a future invasion of Iran. In his acceptance speech, Bolton cheekily credited Tehran, Pyongyang and other rogue nations for his success, thanking them just for “being themselves.” And while Scooter Libby crashed at trial, Doug Feith soft-landed into a tenure track at Georgetown, where he will now teach history, a subject he spent the past five years or so violently misinterpreting.

 In Washington there is no shame  in being wrong; there is only shame in losing.

Matt Taibbi is a contributing editor to Rolling Stone magazine. His book, Smells Like Dead Elephants, is due out next year.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Restoring Habeas Corpus

By Keith Olbermann

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Lies, Sighs and Politics

    By Paul Krugman
   

In Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney completely misrepresented how we ended up in Iraq. Later, Mike Huckabee mistakenly claimed that it was Ronald Reagan's birthday.

Guess which remark The Washington Post identified as the "gaffe of the night"?

Folks, this is serious. If early campaign reporting is any guide, the bad media habits that helped install the worst president ever in the White House haven't changed a bit.

You may not remember the presidential debate of Oct. 3, 2000, or how it was covered, but you should. It was one of the worst moments in an election marked by news media failure as serious, in its way, as the later failure to question Bush administration claims about Iraq.

Throughout that debate, George W. Bush made blatantly misleading statements, including some outright lies - for example, when he declared of his tax cut that "the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." That should have told us, right then and there, that he was not a man to be trusted.

But few news reports pointed out the lie. Instead, many news analysts chose to critique the candidates' acting skills. Al Gore was declared the loser because he sighed and rolled his eyes - failing to conceal his justified disgust at Mr. Bush's dishonesty. And that's how Mr. Bush got within chad-and-butterfly range of the presidency.

Now fast forward to last Tuesday. Asked whether we should have invaded Iraq, Mr. Romney said that war could only have been avoided if Saddam "had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction." He dismissed this as an "unreasonable hypothetical."

Except that Saddam did, in fact, allow inspectors in. Remember Hans Blix? When those inspectors failed to find nonexistent W.M.D., Mr. Bush ordered them out so that he could invade. Mr. Romney's remark should have been the central story in news reports about Tuesday's debate. But it wasn't.

There wasn't anything comparable to Mr. Romney's rewritten history in the Democratic debate two days earlier, which was altogether on a higher plane. Still, someone should have called Hillary Clinton on her declaration that on health care, "we're all talking pretty much about the same things." While the other two leading candidates have come out with plans for universal (John Edwards) or near-universal (Barack Obama) health coverage, Mrs. Clinton has so far evaded the issue. But again, this went unmentioned in most reports.

By the way, one reason I want health care specifics from Mrs. Clinton is that she's received large contributions from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Will that deter her from taking those industries on?

Back to the debate coverage: as far as I can tell, no major news organization did any fact-checking of either debate. And post-debate analyses tended to be horse-race stuff mingled with theater criticism: assessments not of what the candidates said, but of how they "came across."

Thus most analysts declared Mrs. Clinton the winner in her debate, because she did the best job of delivering sound bites - including her Bush-talking-point declaration that we're safer now than we were on 9/11, a claim her advisers later tried to explain away as not meaning what it seemed to mean.

Similarly, many analysts gave the G.O.P. debate to Rudy Giuliani not because he made sense - he didn't - but because he sounded tough saying things like, "It's unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror." (Why?)

Look, debates involving 10 people are, inevitably, short on extended discussion. But news organizations should fight the shallowness of the format by providing the facts - not embrace it by reporting on a presidential race as if it were a high-school popularity contest.

For if there's one thing I hope we've learned from the calamity of the last six and a half years, it's that it matters who becomes president - and that listening to what candidates say about substantive issues offers a much better way to judge potential presidents than superficial character judgments. Mr. Bush's tax lies, not his surface amiability, were the true guide to how he would govern.

And I don't know if this country can survive another four years of Bush-quality leadership.

The New York Times


CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

How Will They Destroy Ron Paul?
 

By Mike Whitney

“Whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism”.

 
Rep. Ron Paul “On Patriotism”

We all know the drill by now. Whenever a politician with character and principles throws his hat in the ring the media descends on him like feral hounds on a pork chop. It’ll be no different with Paul. The only difference is that we should all be aware of what’s really going on.

Did you see the Republican debates?

Paul won hands-down. He stood out in a crowd of colorless toadies and became an overnight sensation on the internet. In fact, an ABC survey showed that Paul won the first debate with an 85% majority; while C-SPAN showed him at 70%. Maybe the stats are just a fluke of internet voting, but it’s sure made the boys in the boardrooms nervous.

You see, it doesn’t matter if Paul wins or not. What matters is that he is delivering a message that is damaging to America’s biggest powerbrokers---and they don’t like it. They would rather he just shut up and go away. They’ve heard enough about the Military Commissions Act, and martial law, and the fraudulent war on terror. They’ve put a lot of energy into the new American police state and they aren’t about to let some “no account” libertarian destroy all their hard work.

Right now, the right wing think tanks are probably buzzing like a hornets nest. They have their work cut out for them. The sleeves are rolled up, the ash trays are full, and America’s best propagandists are working out the details for a full-blown assault on Ron Paul. They want to take him down now, before he can cause any more trouble.

My guess is that they will use a similar strategy to what they used on John Kerry, that is---keep it simple---attack on 3 fronts and repeat the charges from every soapbox in America. In Kerry’s case, the mantra was as follows:

1. Kerry “flip-flops”
2 He’s a Massachusetts liberal.
3 He faked his war injuries to look like a hero.

The effectiveness of this strategy depends on how often the charges are repeated and from how many outlets. The media will have to devise a saturation-campaign similar to the full-blown attack on Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic primary. The infamous “Dean Scream” appeared over 900 times in the major media in the first 72 hours. Technicians isolated Dean’s holler from the background noise of a crowded convention hall, which made him look like he was emotionally unstable.

It worked like a charm. Dean’s star sunk overnight and the country was “spared” the prospect of an antiwar candidate.

Isn’t that what media is for---to obliterate the enemies of the corporate chieftains who enrich themselves through foreign wars?

My guess is that, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we’ll see a big push by to derail the Paul campaign. Already Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and FOX News have taken a few swipes at him, but they proved they are not up to the task. Its time to wheel out the heavy artillery and pound Paul into rubble.

But what is Paul saying that makes him such a threat to the corporate powerbrokers? Is it just because he stands out in a crowd of plaster-hair phonies--or is it because his campaign is focused on the traditional American values of liberty and non-intervention rather than demagoguery and torture?

This is how Paul summarized 9-11 and our misguided war in Iraq:

“They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? Would we be objecting?

“I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.”

The rest of the Republican candidates support the “official narrative” that Iraq is just a battleground in a larger war against Islamic fanaticism---the prevailing myth which is fueled by the media and assures decades of conflict.

Clearly, the bankers, neocons and weapons manufacturers are not sympathetic to Paul’s analysis nor do they want to pollute the public air-waves with his common sense alternatives.

Here’s what Paul has to say about the maneuverings of the Federal Reserve, the secretive cabal that controls our money:

“Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.”

Do you really think that the board-members of the privately-owned Central Bank want the American people to know about the extortionist racket they’ve been running for the last 90 years in contravention of the US Constitution?

And, what do you think they’ll do to stop further embarrassing exposure?

Paul’s demand that we abolish the Federal Reserve is no different than his ideological ancestor Thomas Jefferson, who said:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing of power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

Isn’t that what is happening right now? Doesn’t the Fed inflate one massive equity bubble after the other so that working class people are lured in by low-interest rates and then lose their shirts when the bubble collapses? This is how the banking elites shift wealth from one class to another. It’s an old scam, but it never fails.

Paul is right. Free people cannot control their own destiny unless they control their own currency. The Federal Reserve must be abolished. And, as Paul says, “The sooner the better”.

He’s also right about deficits when he says:

"The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars”.

The men who own the media don’t want this type of populism on the air-waves. After all, they love deficits. The trade deficits provide cheap capital for the stock market while the budget deficit borrows money from future generations for lavish tax cuts for Bush’s wealthy buddies.

No wonder they hate Paul!

Most of all, Paul is reviled for his defense of liberty and his rejection of Bush’s sweeping changes to the Constitution. He’s been an outspoken critic of the Military Commissions Act, which permits torture and arbitrary detention of American citizens or foreign nationals on the orders of the executive. He has also condemned warrantless wiretaps, presidential signings, extraordinary rendition, the Real ID Act, and the Orwellian-sounding "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act'' which allows Bush to declare martial law at his own discretion.

Ron Paul is a friend of personal freedom which makes him the de facto enemy of the White House brown-shirts. He has watched as our country has continued to slide towards military dictatorship. He has put himself on the firing-line to defend our way of life.

His candidacy is an act of patriotism which is why the Bush Throng will try to destroy him.

In a recent speech on the floor of the House Paul said:

“Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty”.

Thanks for that, Mr. Paul. And, good luck.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

BENDERMAN
TRUTH BE TOLD
TOUR
 

AMERICA'S NEW GENERATION OF LEADERSHIP

Sgt. Kevin Benderman is coming to a city near you!!!

Sgt. Kevin Benderman has begun his TRUTH BE TOLD TOUR  speaking to Americans nationwide.  Benderman is joined by his wife, Monica Benderman, a renowned writer who has been published worldwide.  If your organization would like to host the Bendermans in your city, please act immediately as dates are filling up quickly.   For in-depth information on Sgt. Kevin Benderman and his wife Monica, you can visit the following 3 web sites:

Benderman Timeline

The chronology of events leading to the court-martial of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a ten year Army veteran who filed for Conscientious Objector status having served one tour of duty in Iraq .  This site provides a full array of resources for anyone with questions regarding the military judicial system.

Benderman Defense

The chronicle of a personal journey to Conscientious Objection as experienced by Sgt. Kevin and Monica Benderman. This site provides personal insight into how a soldier's personal experiences can lead him or her to change his beliefs about war

Benderman's Bridge

• Developing projects designed to restore peace at home by reaching out to connect small towns and communities of America with the veterans who fought to defend them. 
• Remembering the values our veterans believed in when they volunteered their service.
• Living by the principles we sent them to fight to defend. Honoring their sacrifice by working toward positive social change within our communities.  

The TRUTH BE TOLD TOUR  features Kevin's past experience with the U.S. Army as a conscience objector to the War On Iraq, and the Bendermans’ unique approach to attaining peace. Highlights of the speaking engagement are the Bendermans’ frank discussion of Kevin’s in-depth beliefs regarding ending war, the relationship between civilians and the military, and their presentation for a solid direction on helping America 's Veterans via their new organization Benderman's Bridge, a part of the Benderman Defense Trust. Kevin Benderman also addresses his position regarding America's current foreign and domestic policies, removing the fear and restoring America, and the future of the America 's Veterans.

More than just a speaking event, every engagement becomes an interactive event as audiences are invited to become involved in discussions. No current speaking event has the impact of the Bendermans’ TRUTH BE TOLD TOUR.  Audiences have left feeling rejuvenated by the wealth of knowledge shared, the inspiration they are given to become involved, and the simplicity of the positive direction provided for America .  Kevin Benderman has been billed as part of America 's New Generation of Leadership and rightfully so.

Kevin and Monica recently attended the premiere of  SOLDIERS OF CONSCIENCE in Atlanta.  SOLDIERS OF CONSCIENCE is a documentary of Conscientious Objection and a discussion of soldiers faced with questions of morality as they actively served in the Iraq war. Benderman’s case served as the inspiration for the project. 

Kevin and Monica Benderman's book Letters from a Ft. Lewis Brig is due out later this year. The book is being published by Lyon ’s Press, a division of Globe Pequot Press.  

The first phase of the Bendermans’ TRUTH BE TOLD TOUR will be covering the west coast in June, the Midwest in July and the East Coast in August.  If you would like to host the Tour in your city contact Benderman Defense Trust at 912-369-4585 or EvansMediaUSA, 865-637-5742.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 Key GOP Group

Endorses Ron Paul

ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.

"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."

In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that:

Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:

· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.

His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:

· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.

Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.

"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

The CIA 

The Terrorist Organization

Agency uses same tactics it claims to be fighting

By Claudia Nelson

The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) can be considered a terrorist organization according to both international and American definitions of terrorism.

Since September 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush announced that he would use all his resources to fight terrorist organizations and declared a war on terror, which he legally cannot do, since according to the United States Constitution only the Congress can declare war, and it must be declared on a specific source.

Terrorism is a general term used to describe violence or other harmful acts carried out for achieving political ends. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to an attack by a "madman"), and deliberately target "non-combatants." According to the United States Federal Criminal Code, Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18, terrorism is defined as

“activities that involve violent ... or life-threatening acts ... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ... (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ... [or] ... (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

The U.S. Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947 with the passing of the National Security Act. The official duty of the Central Intelligence Agency is to serve as an intelligence gathering agency.

The headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency is located in Langley, Virginia, and was designated as the "George Bush Center for Intelligence” by the Clinton Administration. Former President George Herbert Walker Bush was Director of Central Intelligence from Jan. 30 1976 to Jan. 20 1977.

In reality, the CIA does not only gather information but consistently targets and engages in covert operations, psychological operations, and acts of terrorism both domestically and internationally.

CIA past operations and activities

• Operation Phoenix was an assassination program conducted by the CIA during the Vietnam conflict. Its objective was to eliminate Vietnamese who might oppose the U.S but also to terrorize the entire population of South Vietnam and to suppress opposition to the occupying U.S. forces. Over 20,000 Vietnamese were murdered, often at random.
  

• During the 1980s the CIA used  profits from its cocaine smuggling activities  to finance the Contras in Nicaragua who were responsible for the murders of tens of thousands of civilians, and it attempted to disrupt the country's economy, in order to destabilize the legitimate Sandinista government. For this, the U.S. was condemned in the World Court for "unlawful use of force," and it rejected a U.N. security council resolution calling upon it to observe international law. We must note that George Bush Sr. was vice president at the time.

• On Sept. 11, 1973, the CIA planned and organized the military coup d'etat in Chile which overthrew the legitimately elected government of SalvadorAllende and brought to power the regime of General Augusto Pinochet. This regime abducted, tortured and killed thousands of Chilean citizens in an attempt to suppress opposition.

• It appears that Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, was closely involved diplomatically with the Southern Cone governments at the time and well-aware of Operation Condor.  The first cooperation agreements were signed between the CIA and anti-Castro groups, and fascist movements such as the Triple A set up in Argentina by Jose Lopez Rega ("personal secretary" of Juan and Isabel Peron), and Rodolfo Almiron. The post-junta truth commission found that the Argentine military had "disappeared" at least 10,000 Argentines in the so-called "dirty war" against "subversion" and "terrorists" between 1976 and 1983; human rights groups in Argentina put the number at closer to 30,000. We must note that George Bush Sr, was head of the CIA at the time it began and vice president at the time it ended.

• Operation CHAOS was the most vicious aggressive domestic surveillence operation conducted on American antiwar groups and activists like Abbie Hoffman, whose objectives were to:

1. Gather information on their immorality.
2. Show them as scurrilous and depraved.
3. Call attention to their habits and living conditions.
4. Explore every possible embarrassment.
5. Investigate personal conflicts or animosities between them.
6. Send articles to newspapers showing their depravity.
7. Use narcotics and free sex for entrapment.
8. Have members arrested on marijuana charges.
9. Exploit the hostilities between various persons.
10. Use cartoons and photographs to ridicule them.
11. Use disinformation to confuse and disrupt.
12. Get records of their bank accounts.
13. Obtain specimens of handwriting.
14. Provoke target groups into rivalries that resulted in deaths.

• The CIA was allegedly involved in the April 2002, Venezuela failed coup that tried to overthrow President Hugo Chavez, who was democratically elected.

• In 2002 the CIA distorted Iraq data to the media in order to justify George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

• Most recently, former CIA employee, Luis Posada Carriles, who is believed to be the mastermind behind the 1976 Cubana de Aviacion bombing which killed 73 people, walked free from a U.S. court Tuesday following a court ruling for his liberation.

These are only a handful of operations; there have literally been hundreds and many are still classified as secret by the U.S. government For a time-line checkout  here.

It seems to me you cannot claim to fight terrorism or claim to be the beacon of democracy with an organization like the CIA in your ranks.

Americans can no longer claim ignorance of the horrors committed by the CIA. They can not allow this guise of “The War on Terror" to continue, since it was started by the CIA a terrorist organization which engages in unconstitutional and illegal behavior.

The United States Congress has the authority to dismantle the CIA just like it has the authority -- and more than enough evidence -- to impeach the Bush administration on war crimes, illegal wire tapping, and misappropriation of funds.

But does it have the backbone or interest to do so?

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -- Samuel Adams

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

CHEMICAL CLOUD TRAILS
C H E M T R A I L S

The strange-looking streaks in the sky aren't your imagination. They are anti-bacteriological warfare chemicals being tested by the federal government. And the public has been kept in the dark.

The Pentagon [and possibly other federal government entities] is testing anti-biological warfare agents, which produce the mysterious "chemtrails" that are appearing on an irregular basis in the skies over many American cities, towns and rural areas.

An Air Force veteran, who while on active duty was attached to the nation's top secret National Security Agency (NSA), presents compelling evidence that the Pentagon is using regular Air Force and Air Force National Guard aircraft to release anti-bacteriological warfare chemicals into the skies.

Unlike True Contrails

If you closely watched the trails over an extended period of time, you can tell they are unlike regular aircraft contrails. The chemtrails do not rapidly disperse. Instead they gradually spread out in a lacy pattern, ultimately forming what appear to be banks of clouds

Even after fanning out, the chemtrails can be readily spotted because the banks of clouds are in straight lines across the sky as they mesh together. Sometimes they turn an otherwise sunny day into one that is overcast.
 
The former researcher said he believes he has tracked the chemical spraying to the "unconventional pathogen countermeasures program" of the top secret Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The agency has funded laboratory studies and tests conducted by scientists at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

DARPA Director Lawrence H. Dubois claims the agency is "not doing any large-scale or outdoor testing" and he knows of "no evidence that [the chemical substance] is being sprayed from aircraft by any agency of the federal government."

Extensive Research

"After talking to friends in Congress, government and medicine, I have been referred to the University of Michigan and Dr. James Baker Jr., his nanotechnology oil-water liquid-the same liquid developed by Dr. Craig Wright, a scientist at Novavax Inc. in Columbia, Md.," the researcher said. "I speak for thousands of American citizens who are being sprayed by military aircraft and haven't a clue why the government is spraying and lying to them. They are very concerned in light of the present   administration."

The researcher said the government is planning for a biological attack against the United States. Government officials have referred to such an attack as "not if, but when."

A number of Third World countries hostile to the United States as well as Russia and Red China are involved in massive chemical and biological warfare development programs.

The government and its scientists claim that the chemicals being tested are harmless to humans. This researcher disagrees.

"Certain illnesses including pneumonia tracked the spraying effort across America but the American people have not been told about the project," the researcher said. "In fact, government agencies have deliberately lied to the citizens again and again.

"These aircraft trails appear below 10,000 feet and do not act like ice crystals. Spray from aircraft are observed cutting on and off as you would throw a switch on the aircraft control panel. Grid patterns are painted in the sky with 'X' and circles are also painted."

According to one investigator, the oil in the substance being sprayed is responsible for "rainbow-like" colorations that appear frequently during the formation of the chemtrails. The "X" found in an area being sprayed probably marks the areas for satellite study of the dispersal patterns.

Attack

Government officials are concerned about a biological attack against the United States involving the use of the deadly disease anthrax, which several countries, including Iraq and North Korea, are developing as a biological weapon.

Government officials also are concerned about the development of a pandemic outbreak of a deadly flu, similar to the so-called Spanish flu that killed tens of millions worldwide in 1918.

Recent outbreaks of a new flu strain in Hong Kong, which appears to be transmitted by chickens, has given rise to fears about a pandemic outbreak developing and quickly sweeping across the globe.

As it turns out, the chemical substance is being tested at the University of Michigan under Baker's direction. Baker, a professor of internal medicine, serves as director of the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology at the university's medical school, which is effective at countering flu viruses and anthrax spores.

The substance, called BCTP, is a milky-white emulsion of tiny lipid drop lets suspended in solvent developed by Wright, chief research scientist at Novavax. Wright is also president of Novavax Biologics Division. Novavax is a bio pharmaceuticals company.

BCTP is made of water, soybean oil, Triton X 100 detergent and the solvent tri-n-butyl phosphate. BCTP envelops the viruses and spores, causing them to explode and thus destroying them upon contact.

Sources believe BCTP is being used as a countermeasure against anthrax, deadly influenza and other potential biological killers. If, for example, the government instituted a full-scale anthrax vaccination program, the public would panic, a researcher noted. This is particularly true in the wake of a mandatory anthrax vaccination program instituted by the military, he said.

Many critics are convinced the military is using an unsafe vaccine. "I believe the government is undertaking experiments with BCTP, a means of countering an anthrax or other biological attack without anyone being at war," another researcher said. "It is, I think, a case of 'what they don't know won't hurt them-it may help them.'

"But the point is, you don't experiment on the public without their knowledge and consent, or at least that is the way it's supposed to be,... in a democracy" he added.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK