The "Truth" About Osama's "Death"

Straight up, I admit my prediction of Jones' response to bin Laden's reported death was wrong. I thought he would try to convince his listeners that They had to pretend to kill bin Laden at this point in time because Jones had done his job too well; as founder and leader of the 9/11 Truth movement (he's neither, but that's another post), he had convinced the world that 9/11 was an inside job committed by neocons and other New World Order baddies. Thanks to Jones' runaway success, the heat was coming down on Them. They had to put an end to their decade-long charade.

To his credit, though, Jones didn't take the credit. Instead, he hammered at the "fact" that bin Laden died in 2002. He also trotted out former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, the guy who went on CNN in December 2008 to declare that 9/11 was perpetrated by "neocons and Zionists". In my opinion, given Pakistan's shadowy links to 9/11 and international terrorism in general, this is kind of like asking the bank robber for a description of the getaway car. Again, though, that's another post.

Keep in mind that I have some doubts about the story of bin Laden's demise. Like bin Laden's entire life, it is shrouded in mystery and contradictions. Why take his body only to dump it in the Indian ocean? Was it really worth the risk of extracting his corpse, simply to avoid the construction of a shrine? What the hell took so long, anyway? Granted, at least one of bin Laden's children claims to have witnessed his death, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. Only time will tell if this story is accurate.
However, I'm going to show you that Jones' 2002 death claim isn't any more valid than the current government claim. In fact, it's even flimsier. Let's look at Jones' primary sources:

Steve Pieczenik. On his May 2 and May 3 broadcasts, Jones repeatedly referred to Pieczenik as "the number two man next to Kissinger" (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, which was a more elastic title than you might think). I certainly wouldn't brag about that, but never mind. What Jones did not dwell upon is that Pieczenik has collaborated with Tom Clancy. You may recall that Jones has accused Clancy of participating in the New World Order conspiracy, using "predictive programming" in his novels and videogames (see here and here, for example). Dr. Pieczenik was also granted a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship.
I'm surprised that Jones considers him a reliable source. I certainly don't, but not for the reasons stated above. I think the guy uses Wikipedia and his website to exaggerate his achievements, possibly to promote his "nutritional medicine" practice and line of related products.
But let's be generous. Many résumé -padders and shameless self-promoters have given the world valuable inside information. It would be neither fair nor prudent to dismiss Pieczenik's bin Laden revelation just because he has a touch of Walter Mitty syndrome. Let's look at the meat of the matter: What evidence does Dr. P. bring to the table?
None.
Here is what he told Jones in 2002: "I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months agao when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan. Well, he was one of the few that knew he had a kidney problem. That wasn't well known before. Everybody thought he had a heart disease. "

That's it. That's all he had to say. Pieczenik was just repeating what Musharraf had said in a CNN interview in January 2002. Musharraf didn't say bin Laden was dead. He said, "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient. I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan."
Musharraf now believes bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011 (and is desperately trying to convince the world that Pakistan knew nothing about bin Laden's presence in his country). So Pieczenik's sole piece of "evidence" - Musharraf's 2002 opinion that bin Laden could be dead - is null and void. Pieczenik was making a guess based on someone else's guess. And for the record, Pieczenik didn't say anything about bin Laden's body being preserved so officials could "roll it out later". Jones added that bit.

Sometime between April 2002 and this Tuesday, Pieczenik's story changed dramatically. Now he claims that back in '02, he knew from the "intelligence roster" that bin Laden had Marfan Syndrome and had been treated by CIA doctors. He died in late 2001.
This is certainly a lot more specific than Pieczenik's 2002 pronouncement, but Pieczenik still doesn't provide any evidence. It has long been speculated that bin Laden suffered Marfan Syndrome (see here and here), so that's not exactly inside information.
Pieczenik does not claim to have seen bin Laden's corpse, he does not provide any details about the circumstances of his alleged death, and he doesn't or will not give the specifics of bin Laden's alleged treatment by CIA physicians. His story rings every bit as hollow as the CNN reports.

Walter Cronkite. The late Walter Cronkite never stated that bin Laden was dead. Just the opposite, actually. Like Heinz and Albright, he made a cheeky remark about bin Laden being used to boost Bush's approval ratings in the run-up to the 2004 elections. Specifically, he commented on Larry King Live about the bin Laden tape released on October 29, 2004: "I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing." Cronkite believed it was bin Laden on that tape, alive and well. In fact, he conceded the tape could be a "double-edged sword" for Bush, because it presented the threat of further attacks along with evidence that his administration still hadn't bagged their number one enemy.

Prison Planet reported on this at the time, so I don't understand how Jones could so wildly re-interpret Cronkite's words.

Two unnamed "White House sources". Information that comes from anonymous sources is essentially worthless unless it leads to documentable sources. That's not the case here. No one has offered up verifiable evidence that bin Laden is dead.

Madeleine Albright. On December 17, 2003, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was about to be interviewed on the Fox News show Special Report With Brit Hume when she turned to Fox News analyst Morton Kondracke and wondered aloud if the Bush administration could already have a living Osama bin Laden in captivity, and was just waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture. She said nothing about bin Laden being dead. She did not say he was "on ice", as Jones repeatedly stated. Kondracke promptly relayed her comments to the world, and the story was picked up by many news outlets, notably the Washington Times.
If she had accidentally spilled the beans, Albright could have denied the conversation even took place. Instead, she confirmed her comments, but hastily assured the public that her speculation was made in jest. Clearly it was, because Bush did not spring bin Laden's capture as an October Surprise before the '04 elections.
Just like Musharraf, Albright has publicly accepted the report of bin Laden's death.

Theresa Heinz Kerry. I've spent all freaking day trying to find any instance of Teresa Heinz saying bin Laden was dead. Can't. It seems, however, that just like Madeleine Albright she made a catty remark about Bush capturing bin Laden just in time for the 2004 elections. At a fundraiser held in Pheonix, Arizona on September 22, 2004, she said, "I wouldn't be surprised if he [bin Laden] appeared in the next month."
As we've seen, these October Surprise remarks came to naught. Bin Laden did not appear in time for the 2004 elections - yet Bush nabbed a second term, anyway.

Conclusion: For some reason, Jones chose the weakest links to build his Osama-was-already-dead chain. He would have been better off trumpeting the bizarre statement made to David Frost in 2007 by Benazir Bhutto, the assassinated former prime minister of Pakistan. She told Frost on November 2, 2007, that bin Laden had been killed by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, one of the men accused of murdering journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. She offered no details, and Frost didn't ask her to elaborate.
That was probably a wise choice. Nine days later, while under house arrest in Pakistan, Bhutto gave an interview to NPR in which she commented that her guards should be out searching for Osama bin Laden rather than confining her to her house.

On his May 2 broadcast, Jones repeatedly said They announced bin Laden's death at least ten times after September 11. This is a misleading statement. There were many rumours and unsubstantiated reports that bin Laden had been killed or captured at various times and in different places, but the only official government announcement of his death was made on May 1, 2011.

For a more reasoned take on bin Laden's reported death, check out the article Five Surprising Truths About the Killing of Osama Bin Laden by Joseph Fitsanakis at Intelnews.org.

Assange Rap

With Jones harping on Wikileaks' alleged link to The Great Satan (George Soros), and Webster Tarpley calling Julian Assange an "MK-ULTRA zombie" (possibly because his mother's second ex-husband was involved with this when Assange was a child*), this video is well in order. Enjoy, and happiest holidays to everyone. We'll be back in the new year.




* It would be terribly ironic if Webster Tarpley, of all people, criticized anyone for cult involvement.

Still Waiting for That Race War

So it's been 30 days since the release of Machete, and though border violence has not abated, there seems to be no escalation in Mexican-on-American violence thanks to the movie. I saw it, and it's the usual zany, over-the-top Rodriguez fare. There's a political undertone, but it's hard to take seriously with lines like, "The bullet in his head was stopped by another bullet!". Anyone who takes Machete as a call to arms is seriously disturbed, and could just as easily be swayed by secret government messages in the Sunday comics or something.

I can recall many similar manufactured controversies. Years ago, Christians fretted that The Bridges of Madison County could give the green light for housewives to screw every traveling salesmen they met. Didn't happen. Then they worried that their kids might hook up with vagrant artists on cruise ships, because of Titanic. This probably did happen, but who cares? At least they didn't get tanked and fall off the damn boat like that one moron did on his honeymoon. More recently, there have been concerns that Avatar will usher in some kind of global eco-religion, though I really can't picture millions of people modeling themselves after Ferngully Smurfs.
In New Zealand, Reservoir Dogs came under heavy fire after a policeman was tortured and his house burned by a "Satanist". Turned out the guy did it himself, partly to get out of his marriage and partly for the insurance money.
The only movies that did seem to influence some already unbalanced people are Natural Born Killers and River's Edge (allegedly a favourite of the kids who murdered Elyse Pahler, though Slayer got the blame). Both of these films are heavily satirical, but not as zany as Machete. Hence, a few idiotic kids actually took them at face value. But we can't seriously argue that controversial films should be shelved to prevent a handful of dolts from being influenced by them. If we banned every film that could concievably encourage bad behaviour, we'd be left with very few. Maybe The Sound of Music, movies about talking animals, and some PG comedies would squeak by. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

"Treason"

At the end of this month, Arizona's anti-immigration law will take effect. SB1070 requires all immigrants to carry proof of citizenship at all times, and gives Arizona law enforcement officers the right to ask for that ID if they reasonably suspect someone they're dealing with of being an illegal immigrant. Those who don't produce their ID on demand can be detained. Arizona has not yet decided what constitutes reasonable suspicion of illegal immigrant status; the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board is tasked with figuring out that key part of the law. This will be quite tricky, as race is not an accepted criterion for suspicion. But the law is aimed specifically at Mexican illegals. Hmm. Complicated.
The passage of the bill was spurred, in part, by the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz in March. On the day he was shot, Krentz reportedly used a two-way radio to tell his brother he had been seen an "illegal alien" in the area. He did not impart any other information. The attitude of many Arizona citizens seems to be, "We know it was an illegal drug smuggler, we just don't have any evidence of that, or any suspects."

Let me make it clear, for the record, that I have a great deal of sympathy for illegal immigrants from Mexico. If I had a family in one of the poorest parts of that country, I would certainly sneak into a safer, more prosperous country in the hope that my children would have opportunities they could never otherwise have. That's natural. We want the best for our families. So the problem is not with the illegal immigrants themselves. I don't believe, as Jones has stated, that they are "diluting the culture", because the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, anyway. Yes, I know that increased crime rates are being attributed to illegal immigration and/or trans-border drug smuggling - but that's not a situation that needs new laws. It just needs tougher enforcement of existing laws, and/or increased funding for law enforcement in high-crime areas.
The bottom line is, though, that I oppose illegal immigration. As difficult as it is to face, I believe that Mexicans must stay in Mexico until they can enter the U.S. lawfully to live and work. That's just the way it is.

But SB1070 has sparked fears of racial profiling and discrimination, and not without cause. I know that the U.S. doesn't treat even its legal immigrants well. Each new wave of immigrants is put through trial by fire: Racism, discrimination, marginalization, abuse. Hispanic Americans obviously don't relish the idea of being set apart from other citizens.
This is not the first attempt by a state to crack down on illegal immigration with extreme measures. Janet Napolitano, now secretary of Homeland Security, repeatedly vetoed similar legislation when she was governor of Arizona. A far less rigid anti-immigration bill, California's Proposition 187, was shot down in 1994.
An April Rasmussen poll showed that 70% of Arizona voters approved of SB1070.
On the other hand, San Francisco and a few other cities have passed laws protecting illegal immigrants from federal immigration law.

On Tuesday (July 6), the Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix against the state of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer, seeking a court injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. The suit claims SB1070 interferes with existing federal immigration laws, and is therefore invalid.
Attorney General Eric Holder stated that "diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety."

Jones calls this lawsuit "treason", raising the question: Is it legal and Constitutional for the federal government to oppose (via lawsuit) a state law?

The answer is "yes". The federal government cannot repeal or amend state law, not even by executive order. But there's nothing to stop it from challenging the constitutionality of a state law in federal court, which is exactly what the DoJ is doing now. This is made possible by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which basically states that federal law is the law of the land and can not be superseded or negated by state law. The "preemptive doctrine" derived from this clause permits the federal government to challenge any state law that encroaches upon federal regulation, law, interest, etc. But don't go thinking that this doctrine always works in the federal government's favour; it's actually very difficult, in most such cases, for the federal side to prove it has "occupation of the field". One fascinating example is Silkwood v Kerr-Mcgee (1984). After Karen Silkwood died in 1974, her family filed suit against Kerr-Mcgee. They were awarded $10 million in punitive damages, and Kerr -Mcgee fought the judgment by arguing that the federal government (in the form of the Atomic Energy Commission) was responsible for any "irregularities" at the nuclear facility where Silkwood had worked. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that in this case, federal regulation did not supersede state or local regulation and Kerr-Mcgee would have to pay up (they settled out of court instead, for a fraction of the original judgement). In other words, Kerr-Mcgee was held responsible for lax safety at their Oklahoma plant even though it met federal (AEC) standards. The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law has an informative page on these issues.
You might not like it, but the DoJ lawsuit against Arizona is constitutionally sound and perfectly legal. It will be up to a judge to decide if, as legal precedent indicates, naturalization is in the federal domain. If the Arizona law stands, then we may have a problem. Immigration and naturalization could become a state-regulated affair, with each state setting its own standards of citizenship. You could be a legal resident in Vermont but an illegal in New Jersey.

An equally important question: Is SB1070 unconstitutional? The answer, I believe, is "yes". The 14th Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." I'd say that stopping a citizen and demanding to see proof of citizenship is an abridgment of that person's rights. The argument that "he might be an illegal" is moot, because anyone might be an illegal. Now one of the Anonymi who commented on this post (along with many other supporters of SB1070) has pointed out that a driver's license can suffice as proof of citizenship, since you have to present your papers to acquire one. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with an officer asking someone for proof of U.S. citizenship. Jones states, in his special alert video about "Obama's treason", that SB1070 is just a "mirror" of federal immigration law. This is false. Federal law does not require immigrants to carry proof of citizenship at all times. It does require non-citizens ("permanent residents") to carry their green cards, but no citizen is legally required to carry any form of ID at all times.
You can argue that Arizona is struggling to fill in the gaps in federal legislation, but you cannot validly claim that the Arizona law is similar in any way to federal laws already on the books.

Jones also argues that the 11th Amendment, which forbids the federal government or any state from suing a state on behalf of a foreign entity, renders the DoJ suit unconstitutional. He's apparently referring to his belief that "foreign bankers" are taking over the U.S., and that illegal immigration suits their purposes nicely. He also seems to think the 14th Amendment makes the DoJ lawsuit unconstitutional. This is why Alex Jones is not a lawyer, folks.

Ironically, SB1070 could (and by "could" I mean "probably won't be") used as a gateway to the kind of mandatory universal ID cards that Jones & Co. fear. If immigrants must be required to carry proof of citizenship, why not the rest of us? It's interesting that both Jones and former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano criticized the Real ID Act, which contained anti-immigration provisions. Jones did so because he doesn't like the idea of national ID cards; everyone would be required to have one. However, the bulk of the administration of the Real ID system is under state control.

Watch out for those zombie strippers

!su evas su pleh namdam a si poolF

So Jones and pretty much every conservative broadcaster and journalist in America has been freaking out over the upcoming Robert Rodriguez film Machete. They're insisting it's basically a green light for Mexicans to become violent toward Americans, sanctioned and funded by the state of Texas. The kerfuffle began on the sinister occult holiday Cinco de Mayo, when Rodriguez released a joke trailer for the movie (which you can watch on YouTube, if you don't mind some naughty language and violence) that gave the impression it was all about a campaign of violent retribution against anti-immigration officials. It opens with actor Danny Trebejo delivering a message directly to Arizona, days after the infamous "Papers Please" anti-immigration law was passed.
Though Rodriguez quickly assured everyone that violence against Americans isn't really the gist of the movie (which doesn't have an official trailer yet), Jones and company aren't buying it. Jones claims he received phone calls from people who had worked on the film, expressing their opinion that the film really does encourage racial division and could lead to a backlash against Hispanics. He acquired a copy of the script and found that the movie is all about a race war between disgruntled immigrant labourers and white Americans, particularly Minutemen, with many violent confrontation scenes.

Jones' primary beef is that Machete might receive funding from the Texas Film Commission, meaning Texas taxpayers could end up footing the bill for a movie they consider pro-immigration and/or racist. Also, this funding is made possible by Governor Rick Perry - a man Jones loathes.
What Jones didn't mention until yesterday is that the Texas Film Commission doesn't directly finance movie production. It just provides 5-15% tax breaks to selected projects, to encourage filming in the state. Film projects are very lucrative for any state.
Though an article at Infowars implied the funding is already in the bag, a Film Commission spokesperson says it isn't. No money has been released to Troublemaker Studios; Rodriguez's application is still pending.

Jones' second-biggest complaint is that if the movie was about white people declaring war on Mexicans, it would never receive government funding. Ignore, please, the umpteen major Hollywood films that have portrayed Hispanics as career criminals, drug pushers, gangsters, or lowlifes. Aside from J-Lo flicks and Rodriguez's movies, it's damn near impossible to find mainstream films that portray Hispanics in a favourable light - and you can't tell me that not one of these films received some government funding.
He's also annoyed that the Texas Film Commission "refused funding" for a big-budget movie about the Waco tragedy. What actually happened is that when commission director Bob Hudgins expressed concerns about the script, the production company decided to withdraw its application.
No one has complained about the Texas Film Commission's support of the Coen brothers' remake of the vigilante cowboy flick True Grit.

"In hindsight, Robert Rodriguez probably oughta thank me for giving this film so much hype, it's been in hundreds of newspapers."

(Alex Jones, May 26th News Alert)

So what is Machete about, anyway? The eponymous character is Machete Cortez (Danny Trejo), who most parents with teens will recognize as the crazy inventor Uncle Machete from the Spy Kids films. In the first film, he and Gregorio (Antonio Banderas) patch up their relationship after Machete helps his niece and nephew defeat an army of kid-bots. Believe me, folks, I know way more about this movie than I want to.

Rodriguez built the Machete character around Trejo back in the early '90s, envisioning him as the Hispanic counterpart to Charles Bronson - famous for a string of vigilante movies.

Machete's next appearance was in one of the fake trailers attached to the 2007 Rodriguez/Tarantino double feature Grindhouse, alongside other imaginary gems like Hobo With a Shotgun and Don't (which I found hilarious). Rodriguez announced at that time that Machete would be getting his own movie.
It's interesting to compare the faux Grindhouse trailer with the Machete joke trailer. It's even more interesting to study the public's reactions to the two trailers. The Grindhouse trailer, being for a non-existent movie, received no negative attention whatsoever. Not one person griped that Rodriguez was encouraging Hispanics to go out and chop up white folks. No one accused him of trying to spark a race war. No one wondered why an inventor had suddenly turned into some kind of vigilante. The same goes for the other trailers; no one worried that homeless people might take up arms and go on shooting sprees, for example.

And why would they? We're not exactly dealing with Oscar-calibre dramatic cinema, here. Rodriguez's work is a wacky blend of action and gore, painstakingly styled after B movies of the '70s (he also likes to plunder the cast of Lost for some reason, but I digress...). Like all Rodriguez films, Machete is high camp. If you're willing to believe it's an earnest attempt to mobilize Mexicans against Americans, then you should also believe that CIA agents are being abducted and transformed into characters on trippy kids' TV shows, or that your weird high school shop teacher really was an alien, or that strippers might eat your face off after sundown.

But then Jones' grasp of film is, um, tenuous. Remember his bizarre review of Watchmen, which he mistook for a New World Order propaganda piece? To make his take on the film even weirder, he somehow got it into his head that the same man who wrote From Hell was a Freemason. Then, months later, he praised V for Vendetta - same writer and some of the same themes as Watchmen, but basically a paean to religious terrorism and violence. WTF?

At any rate, all of this is moot now. Rodriguez has conceded that, yes, his joke trailer was a bit too incendiary, and Jones now says he doesn't want Rodriguez to lose his state funding (even though Austin 360 quotes him as saying, "We need to get the funding at the state level stripped out of the film commission if they do not stop this.").