Impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for violating the Constitution of the United States 

 Translate this Page!

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
The 4th Amendment says police or federal agents must show a magistrate some evidence of wrongdoing before they can obtain a warrant that authorizes them to listen in on phone calls.

David Swanson interview Rep. John Conyers on Bush impeachment!
johnconyers.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)



' Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. '

Philosophy Of Liberty (Flash)

A Time to Impeach
By Doug Ireland, Direland. Posted December 20, 2005.
President Bush may find himself in deep trouble after ordering and defending illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens -- a crime for which Richard Nixon was nearly impeached.
When the U.S. Senate last Friday refused to renew the liberticidal Patriot Act -- with its provisions for spying on Americans' use of libraries and the Internet, among other Constitution-shredding provisions of that iniquitous law -- it was in part because that morning's New York Times had revealed how Bush and his White House had committed a major crime.

By ordering the National Security Agency -- the N.S.A, so secretive that in Washington its initials are said to stand for "No Such Agency" -- to wiretap and eavesdrop on thousands of American citizens without a court order, Bush committed actions specifically forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Passed in 1978 after the Senate's Church Committee documented in detail the Nixon administration's widespread use of U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on the anti-Vietnam war movement and other political dissidents, FISA "expressly made it a crime for government officials 'acting under color of law' to engage in electronic eavesdropping 'other than pursuant to statute.'", as the director of the Center for National Security Studies, Kate Martin, told the Washington Post this past weekend.

And the FISA statute required authorization of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make such domestic spying legal. Bush and his NSA sought no such authorization before invading American citizens' right to privacy -- a blatant flouting of the law that made both wavering Democrats and libertarian Republicans mad enough to vote against extending the hideous Patriot Act, which thankfully will now expire at the end of the year.

Bush not only acknowledged, and defended, this illegal eavesdropping in a Saturday radio address, he went further in a Monday morning press conference, saying he'd "suggested" it. But as Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold -- who, together with conservative Idaho Republican Larry Craig, led the filibuster that defeated the Patriot Act's renewal -- said this weekend, "This is not how our democratic system of government works--the president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow."

But Bush had plenty of bipartisan help from Democratic co-conspirators in keeping knowledge of this illegal spying from reaching the American public. It began in November 2001, in the wake of 9/11, and -- from the very first briefing for Congressional leaders by Dick Cheney until today -- Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were told about it. Those witting and complicit in hiding the crime included Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, former chairman and later ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, former ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. They knew it was a crime -- Rockefeller, for example, warned the administration against it -- and yet did not make it public. They were frightened by polls showing security hysteria at its height.

Worse, the New York Times itself was part of the coverup. When it broke its scoop last Friday, the Times in its article admitted that, "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

In other words, the Times sat on its story until after the 2004 presidential elections, when American voters might have been able to stop this criminal conduct by voting out the criminal. Not content with employing Judith Miller as the megaphone for relaying the Bush administration's lies about Saddam's having weapons of mass destruction, the Times again proved its servility to power by not telling its readers it knew of criminal spying on them for an entire year, until the election cycle was long past. Yet this aspect of the Times' story has gone unremarked in the mass media.

Bush's excuses for the illegal eavesdropping are indeed risible. The Times didn't mention it, but of 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused. Bush claimed again on Monday that this flagrant flouting of the FISA law was necessary because fighting "terrorists" needed to be done "quickly." Yet, as the Times reported, the secret court can grant approval for wiretaps "within hours."

And the excuse Bush offered Monday morning that this illegal subversion of FISA was necessary to prevent 9/11-style terrorism is equally laughable. As the ACLU pointed out in a study of FISA two years ago, "Although the Patriot Act was rushed into law just weeks after 9/11, Congress's later investigation into the attacks did not find that the former limits on FISA powers had contributed to the government's failure to prevent the attacks."

A Zogby poll released Nov. 4 showed that, when asked if they agreed that, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment," Americans answered yes by 53 percent to 42 percent. It is therefore not simply extremist raving to suggest that impeachment of George Bush should be put on the table.

Remember that, in the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Article 2 of the three Articles of Impeachment dealt with illegal wiretapping of Americans. It said that Nixon committed a crime "by directing or authorizing [intelligence] agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office."

There was no national security justification for Bush's illegal NSA wiretaps -- which could easily have been instituted by following the FISA law's provisions -- and, instead of being related to "enforcement of laws," Bush's eavesdropping was indisputably in contravention of the law of the land.

And when a president commits a crime in violation of his oath of office swearing to uphold the law, it is time to impeach.

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." 12/18/2000.

12/20/05 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
No leader is above nation's laws
To the Editor:

During the impeachment proceedings of President William Clinton, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said, "We are a nation of laws and no one is above the law." And, he stated this numerous times as to why we as a nation should impeach Clinton.

If we hold what Graham said to be true, then we must impeach George W. Bush without any delay or much discussion.

His acts of treason and overstepping his authority relating to the illegal National Security Agency spying must be dealt with swiftly by both Republicans and Democrats.

I call on all Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and all news media to immediately pressure the Congress to impeach Bush. We cannot have a president who feels that he is without question and that he can act as a dictator.

If we as a nation allow this conduct from our president, will all will be victims of terrorism --Bush-style. site down

Subject: "Why Bush's NSA Wire tapping is defeated by VoIP Networks on Google Video
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:33:17 -0700
From: Marc Perkel <>

Here is a link to a Google video that I made of myself explaining a lot of the technical details of Bush's wire tapping program and why it will never work. It explains that terrorists would use private voice over IP networks (Internet phones) that can not be tapped. It is explained in a manner that the average viewer can get a good idea of how it works. Feel free to use this and pass it around. It puts a new light on the whole "we need NSA wiretapping to fight the terrorists" excuse. Show this to as many people as possible.

Marc Perkel
Uber Geek

Your friend,, has sent you the following video from Google Video and included this message:

check this out

Why Bush's NSA Wire tapping is defeated by VoIP Networks

13 min 29 sec - Oct 20, 2006
Description: Bush claims he needs NSA wire tapping to break up terrorist networks but terrorists are not using the phone network Bush is tapping. They are using private voice over IP internet phones (VoIP) that can't be tapped. This video explains how it works.


From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53


Bush says spying will continue
Democrats reject rationale for domestic surveillance, say president has abused his power
Ron Hutcheson
Knight Ridder
December 19, 2005

WASHINGTON — A defiant President Bush said today that he didn’t need explicit permission from Congress or the courts to establish a secret domestic surveillance program to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

At a White House news conference, Bush expressed outrage that the program had become public and vowed to continue it. The president said his constitutional power as commander in chief and the congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force against terrorists gave him the authority to order the eavesdropping.

If anything, his explanation only fueled more anger over the domestic spying, and some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.

“The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law. “When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There’s little enthusiasm for impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress, but few lawmakers have rallied to Bush’s defense. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised a full investigation into the surveillance program early next year.

Two Democratic lawmakers who’d been briefed on the program well before it became public last week accused Bush and his advisers of withholding key details.

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said they had objected to Bush’s plan, but had no way to stop it without exposing classified information.

Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, produced a 2003 letter he wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney listing his objections.

“Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities. ... I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received,” Rockefeller wrote in a note dated July 17, 2003.

Daschle, the top Senate Democrat before he lost a 2004 re-election bid, said the briefing he had received on the surveillance program omitted “some of the more troublesome — and potentially illegal — details.”

Bush went on the offensive against his critics as other administration officials provided new details of the surveillance program and the legal rationale behind it.

“My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war,” Bush said. “The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”

The program, run by the top-secret National Security Agency, targets telephone conversations and e-mails from this country to suspected terrorists overseas. Bush authorized the eavesdropping after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, to bypass a federal law that requires court approval for domestic surveillance.

“We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent,” Bush said. “Do I have the legal authority to do so? The answer is, absolutely.”

Legal experts and congressional Democrats disdained Bush’s legal reasoning.

“I can’t believe anyone sincerely believes these arguments,” Turley said. “This is really beyond the pale.”

“Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?” asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the top Democrat in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Critics challenged Bush’s assertion that the legal framework for domestic surveillance is too cumbersome. The 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act created a special secret court to approve domestic surveillance in cases that can’t be treated as normal criminal investigations. The court rarely rejects requests for such surveillance.

The law, enacted in response to illegal wiretaps during the Nixon administration, includes emergency provisions that let investigators seek court approval up to 72 hours after the surveillance starts.

“He does have to move quickly, at times. And that’s why the FISA law says, `Move first and then notify the court and seek their authority afterwards,”’ Levin said.

At a briefing for reporters before Bush’s news conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy director for national intelligence, said the emergency provisions are inefficient.

Hayden said that any domestic surveillance of suspect terrorist associates has to be approved by a shift supervisor at the NSA.

“What we are talking about here are communications we have every reason to believe are al-Qaida communications, one end of which is in the United States. I don’t think any of us would want any inefficiencies in our coverage of those kinds of communications,” Hayden said. “The whole key here is agility.”

Gonzales, who served as White House legal counsel before moving to head the Justice Department, cited two sources for Bush’s legal authority — the Constitution and the 2001 congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Article II of the Constitution declares that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

The congressional resolution authorized Bush “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks ... “

Skeptics questioned whether either document gave Bush the right to bypass federal laws restricting the government’s use of electronic surveillance.

“Does the resolution or Article II repeal every civil liberties law ever adopted?” asked Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, an authority on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. “The resolution is focused really on enemies abroad. The question is whether that’s carte blanche for surveillance at home.”

It isn’t known how many Americans were targeted by the secret surveillance program, or whether they included scholars, journalists and others who may have had contacts with extremists but no ties to terrorism.

To support his view, Gonzales cited last year’s Supreme Court ruling involving Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who challenged his detention as a terrorist combatant. The court concluded that the resolution authorizing force provided sufficient authority for the detention.

But the justices also declared that Hamdi and other U.S. citizens whom the administration classified as enemy combatants couldn’t be denied access to the courts.

“We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the court majority. “Whatever powers the U.S. Constitution envisions for the executive (branch) ... it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.”

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.

Critics of the war on Iraq have accused the US administration of deliberately encouraging public confusion to generate support for military action.

We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks

President Bush

Bush maintains Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaeda are connected

Looking back at what the administration said

At a time when the credibility of government intelligence and information is under the spotlight, President Bush probably had little choice but to scotch the confusion, says the BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington.

But if the public believes that they were given the wrong impression by the administration, then there may be a political cost involved with the presidential campaign under way, our correspondent says.

Lack of clarity

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.

This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.

As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Jordanian link

On Wednesday, Mr Bush said Mr Cheney was right about suspicions of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda.

The US believes Mr Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad and helped to orchestrate the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan.

And Mr Bush denied there had been any attempt by his administration to try to confuse people about links between Saddam Hussein and 11 September.

"What the vice-president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda.

"And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."

15 Things Learned About Bush&Co.:
An Impeachment List

This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!
Patrick J. Fitzgerald Investigating Bush Administration


Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation
Bush and Cheney keep undermining Democrats' efforts to protect us from a repeat of 9/11.

Shocking The Conscience Of America: Bush And Cheney Call For The Right To Torture And Are Decisively and Correctly Rebuffed by the House
FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean decries the Bush Administration's attempt to block limits on the U.S.'s ability to torture prisoners. Dean details and comments on Senator McCain's proposed provisions relating to torture, and argues that the Administration's position on these proposals is a low point in American history -- comparing it to other much-criticized presidential stances. Dean also takes on the famous "ticking time bomb" argument for torture.

Why Dick Cheney's Secrecy Scheme For Pre-9/11 Information Makes No Sense
by John W. Dean

Impeachment Overview

Bush has misled this nation for too long. His aggressive foreign policies and corporate give-aways threaten the well-being of all Americans and of other people around the globe. We cannot allow the damage from a Bush Presidency to continue any further. His actions are blatantly illegal under International Law and our own Constitution. Now is the time, therefore, to impeach George Bush and high ranking officers in his cabinet.

What is Impeachment?

Impeachment is technically just an indictment, an accusation. Following impeachment, there is a trial and perhaps a conviction. Conviction requires removal from office. The accusation, the actual "impeachment", is made by the House of Representatives. Once impeached, the Senate conducts the trial.

Many people use the word "impeachment" to refer to the entire process. But technically it only refers to the formal accusation. Remember Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having "sex" with Monica. He was then tried by the Senate but found not guilty and remained in office.

Grounds for Impeaching Bush - I believe the most compelling reason for impeaching GW Bush is for Violations of International Law relating to his War on Iraq.

Constitutional Basis for Impeachment - The Constitution spells out who can be impeached, what for, and by whom.

Impeachments of Past Presidents - Andrew Johnson and William Clinton

Articles of Impeachment for George W. Bush - Proposed resolution for the House of Representatives.

What are Impeachable Offenses? - Discussion of the meaning of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

How to Impeach Bush - Impeachment is started by the people and finished by Congress.

If we fail to Impeach 

we can look forward to the following:

America:  The Fourth Reich

It should not be denied any longer:  America is hurtling along the road to full-fledged fascism.  To recognize this is the necessary first step in deflecting the juggernaut and creating the possibility of more peaceful tomorrows.  It is legitimate and also necessary to correctly employ the power of naming. 

By Barrie Zwicker,  Global Outlook, Issue No. 6, Winter 2004

Fascism according to the Collins English Dictionary is “any (#1) right wing (#2) nationalist ideology or movement with (#3) an authoritarian and (#4) hierarchical structure that is (#5) fundamentally opposed to democracy and (#6) liberalism”.  Add (#7) racism and (#8) brutality and you have Hitler’s Third Reich in a nutshell. 

By any sober analysis America has become extremely right wing and nationalist.  At the same time I am soulfully aware of the tremendous numbers of Americans ashamed, appalled, afraid and angry about the direction of their government and that of too many of their fellow citizens. 

Signs of growing authoritarianism in the US are evident especially to those outside the self-absorbed cocoon of US culture.  The signs include the supine attitude toward authority of most of the mainstream media. 

Contrary to incessant rhetoric about democracy, the US power structure is considerably hierarchical.  Money power comprises the main rungs of the hierarchy.  According to the New York Times the Republicans were confident of raising at least $170-million for George W. Bush’s 2004 election campaign, redefining what the Times called ‘standards’ for fund-raising.  Both the hierarchy of money and the antagonism to democracy are spelled out in Greg Palast’s The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. 

That the US establishment is opposed to liberalism – no matter how you define liberalism – can hardly be debated.  We already have six grounds for applying the term Fourth Reich.  But consider another 20 parallels between the USA today and Hitler’s Germany:

Concepts like anti-communism, anti-Marxism, anti-socialism stir up visceral reactions.  The core opposition to the regime is from the strong conscious left. 

A fundamentalist faith in capitalism, specifically the systematized form of greed known as monopoly capitalism, is dominant.  Corporations are at the centre of the power structure.  Corruption at the top is endemic. 

The number of people consigned to the grave by military and paramilitary actions in both cases is in the millions.  Backdate the Fourth Reich to the end of the Second World War and the number murdered by US forces equals or outnumbers the toll in the Holocaust – almost three and a half million people in Vietnam alone.  The brutality is a matter of record for those who are willing to look at it.  See William Blum’s Killing Hope for one researcher’s record. 

In both cases the leader was illegally installed into power, Hitler in 1933, George W. Bush in 2000. 

The ambition of world domination.  The Third and Fourth Reich’s invade as many countries as can be gotten away with.  A Blitzkrieg approach is favored.  For Hitler:  Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.  For George W. Bush:  Afghanistan, Iraq and who ever’s next – Syria?  Iran?  Libya?  Cuba? 

Seizure of other countries’ oil.  Grabbing Russia’s Baku oil fields was a major objective of Hitler – the Caspian oil fields and those in Iraq are the same for Bush. 

The ‘pitiful giant’ syndrome is invoked.  “Our enemies are powerful,” it goes, so we must arm endlessly in ‘self-defense.’  Often accompanied with this rhetoric is the high-sounding:  “Our enemies taunt us, and we are patient, but our patience is not endless.”

Pre-emptive or ‘preventive’ war is policy and practice

Highly orchestrated propaganda campaigns are a Reich staple.  Hitler’s stylized mass rallies come to mind.  The propaganda of the Fourth Reich is suited to the TV age:  sophisticated and media-savvy deluxe.  Embedded journalists, for instance.  An example from the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the much-publicized return of petite blonde soldier Private Jessica Lynch to her family, in full uniform.  Props included a hometown band and Blackhawk helicopters. 

Where the media are not sufficiently pro-regime and self-censoring, censorship and intimidation of the media are commonplace.  Brutal intimidation under the second Bush regime includes bombing Al Jazeera television facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter killing an Al Jazeera journalist, thus constituting censorship by assassination. 

Use of religion.  Invocations of God’s approval for the Reich and its works.  William L. Shirer in his classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich quotes the Fuhrer’s minister of church affairs as declaring that the Nazi party “stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism… National Socialism is doing God’s will…” 

An ever-encroaching police state is a sure sign you’re living in a Reich. 

Illegal actions.  International and domestic laws are breached, resisted and undermined, along with rejection or subversion of multilateral agreements and organizations.  Hitler pulled Germany out of the League of  Nations altogether.  In America’s case the United Nations is vilified, sidelined or embraced according to the Empire’s needs at any given time. 

Use of fear is an important tool of a Reich.  Inflated or imagined threats of ‘terrorism’ are drummed into the domestic public’s mind.

Alarms of ‘terrorism’ by a Reich are hypocritical to the nth degree considering the wholesale terrorism a Reich unleashes on others.  Third Reich Stuka dive-bombers over Spain, V-2 rockets into London.  Fourth Reich ‘daisy cutters, cluster bombs, ‘bunker busters,’ DU munitions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.  Skies full of helicopter gunships in a string of countries going back to Vietnam. 

Actual retail terrorism:  the clandestine formation, training, funding and control of functioning terrorists serving as dark pawns of the Reich.  This is one of the lesser-known parallels.  William L. Shirer explains once again:  “For months prior to July 1934 the Austrian Nazis, with weapons and dynamite furnished by Germany, had instituted a reign of terror, blowing up railways, power stations and government buildings and murdering…” 

Both Unholy Wars by British investigative journalist John K. Cooley and War and Globalisation, the Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky, document the close links between the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI (virtually an arm of the CIA), Saudi intelligence and the bin Laden family, and that the CIA was deeply involved in the creation and subsequent operations of AL Qaeda.

A preoccupation with secrecy.  Secrecy is a precondition for deception.  And deception, above all, is the key to everything for a Reich.  The leaders are marinated in a complete obsession with lying an deceiving at every turn.  Deceptions are the regime’s key to mobilizing public opinion.  Deception is needed to fool the citizenry into relinquishing their civil rights and thereby closing many avenues of dissent.  Deception precedes and leads to the police state.  Deception precedes and leads to war.  At every step deception is required for a Reich’s gaining and maintaining power, and carrying out all its other nefarious actions.  Without successful deceptions the Reich agenda simply cannot proceed.  If the deceptions can be unmasked early enough and sufficiently the Reich collapses.  No Reich so far has collapsed this way.  In an information age it might be possible.

The masterpiece deceptions are those so big that ordinary decent honest people cannot or will not comprehend or face that they exist.  The fact is they are a species of what the anarchist Bakunin described as “the propaganda of the act.”  An act such as a bombing or assassination is also a message or propaganda.  A potent version is the fake act, for instance a bombing which the perpetrators make appear to be carried out by others.  The gold standard of these is the election-stealing or war-triggering fake event, especially one involving ‘foreign terrorists.’ 

This makes pivotal the parallel between the Reichstag fire of 1933, on the one hand, and the events of 9/11, on the other.

The Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 was in its day as iconic as were the events of September 11, 2001 in ours.  The Reichstag fire was blamed on a Dutch communist, who was subsequently decapitated.  And by extension, the fire was blamed on all Communists.  The historical evidence is that the Nazis arranged the conflagration.  In the Rise and Fall, Shirer writes:  “… beyond reasonable doubt it was the Nazis who planned the arson an carried it out for their own political ends.”

The idea for the fire writes Shirer, almost certainly originated at the top, with Goebbels and Goring.

Vice-Chandellor von Papen recalled that when he arrived at the blazing parliament buildings Goering was already on the scene shouting, “This is a communist cirme…” 

“Hitler lost no time,” Shirer writes, “in exploiting the Reichstag fire to the limit.”  The very next day he prevailed on the President to sign a decree “for the Protection of the People and the State,” suspending the seven sections of the constitution, which had guaranteed individual and civil liberties.  It was described as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence against the state.”

The parallel with the events of 9/11 is stunning.  The official narrative, introduced with Goring-like speed, emerged within two hours:  the “attack on America” was portrayed as the work of ‘terrorists,’ namely one evil man, Osama bin Laden, and a small group of co-conspirators – the 2001 equivalents of the 1933 Communists.

The number and magnitude of anomalies surrounding 9/11 can point to only one conclusion:  9/11 was a completely made-in-the-USA inside job, a manufactured incident planned and run by some among the top leadership.

To term 9/11 ‘Reichstag 2001,’ then, seems to me highly legitimate.

Besides the parallels past, present and nascent, are the direct links between powerful interests and families in America with actual Nazis.  The bankrolling of Hitler by US corporations is one.  In Trading With the Enemy, Charles Highman’s fulsomely-documented book (the sub-title is “An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot (1933-1949)” points to the collaborations with the Nazi regime, throughout the Second World War, by:  ford, GM, Sterling Drugs, Standard Oil of New Jersey, ITT and other pillars of US capitalism.  To take just one example, Standard Oil provided fuel for German U-boats until 1944. 

The sordid tale includes how Prescott Bush, grandfather of the current occupant of the White House, served as the US Banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942:  (For further details See Wesley C. Tarpley, Bush Family Ties to Nazi Germany, the Legacy of Prescott Herbert Bush, Global Outlook, No. 5, Summer/Fall 2003, p. 54).

Numerous subsequent actions and hints of Hitlerism in the White House are documented.   When George Bush Sr. Was vice-president to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan paid a visit to the Bitburg Cemetery in Germany wearing (the imagery would not be lost on millions) a long black leather coat of the type favoured by the Nazis.  At the cemetery he placed a wreath on the grave of an SS officer, commenting that “the other side” suffered losses too.  It was one of the most bogus and distasteful cases of ‘moral equivalency’ imaginable.

The Bush dynasty is Nazi-oriented.

‘War,’ wrote Randolph Bourne, “is the health of the state.”  War also is the health of monopoly capitalism, the dominant institution of our time.  That institution now is practically merged with the state again, as it was under Hitler.  If anything, the present merger is more complete, closer, more effective. 

Many Americans have told me they’re aware of the possibility of the suspension of the US Constitution (there would be a startling, deceptive, pretext of course) and other goose steps toward a Fuhrership.  Should those steps be taken, it could be too late to prevent an awful an perhaps permanent catastrophe.

Transforming the Fourth Reich and its outposts, including the ones within each of us, is perhaps humanity’s last major challenge.  Understanding and sufficiently dismantling it would probably lead to a period of chaos.  But from that could emerge another world, still imperfect, but one less in imminent danger of Armageddon.  In it we might finally face a reasonably sane future.

Broadcaster and writer Barrie Zwicker has specialized in media criticism since 1970 and has been Vision TV's media critic since the channel's inception in the Fall of 1988. The former Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Province, Sudbury Star and Detroit News writer taught the Media & Society course at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto for seven years.

Remembering the First Fight Against Fascism



George Orwell's 1984

The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death


Media & Mind Control in America
by Steven Jacobson
#1  (5.24MB) 22Min 52 Sec
#2  (4.75MB) 20Min 45 Sec

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by

 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.

American Patriot Friends Network

"...a network of net workers..." 

 APFN Sitemap

APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page


Hit Counter

 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.