Monthly Archives: April 2019

Globalism And Sovereignty: A Short History Of The Bricker Amendment

download (56)

Supranational Commissions Seek Veto Power Over American Policy.

Monday, April 01, 1996
fee.org
By Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Mr. Woods, an Intercollegiate Studies Institute Richard M. Weaver Fellow, is a doctoral candidate in history at Columbia University.

Historically, conservatives and libertarians have always maintained a suspicion of supranational governing bodies. Their central fear has been that foreign bodies may serve to compromise self-government and American liberties in favor of egalitarian and universalist political goals.

Closely related to this fear were misgivings about the steady accretion of power in our own executive branch. American conservatives maintained that socialist projects dreamed up by global bureaucrats would be held at bay if Congress, the branch of government closest and most accountable to the people, made a determined stand for American independence. If too much control over the direction of foreign affairs were concentrated in the executive, questions of such grave import might be placed beyond the reach of popular opinion.

The coupling of executive power with an internationalist political agenda became a force on the American political scene soon after the ratification of the United Nations treaty. It quickly became clear that President Harry Truman favored a strong executive. His 1952 seizure of U.S. steel mills and his actions in Korea seemed to justify conservative apprehensions.[1] In the latter case, Truman argued repeatedly that the United Nations Charter was a treaty he had the duty to execute, and whose authority obviated the need to consult Congress for a declaration of war. If Truman could invoke the Charter to justify a measure as serious as the deployment of American troops abroad, many conservatives wondered, might he not appeal to the same authority to implement wide-ranging initiatives of social reconstruction?

Acutely aware of such concerns, the American Bar Association (ABA) and its president, Frank S. Holman, laid the intellectual groundwork in the late 1940s and 1950s for what would become the Bricker Amendment. Holman, an early opponent of the New Deal and an outspoken champion of states’ rights, viewed supranational institutions with distrust. In 1948, he ordered the ABA’s Committee on Peace and Law through the United Nations to assemble reports on several UN-proposed treaties—the Statute of the World Court, the Genocide Convention, the Freedom of Information Covenant, the News Gathering Convention, and the Covenant of Human Rights—with respect to their potential impact on American sovereignty. Alarmed by the results, the ABA in 1952 endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment that would safeguard the Constitution from erosion by international treaty.[2]

Missouri v. Holland

Many of the concerns shared by the ABA and other proponents of what would become the Bricker Amendment can be traced to the obscure and seemingly innocuous case of Missouri v. Holland in 1920. Its rulings on state regulation of the treatment of certain species of migratory birds were ripe with significance for the future conduct of American foreign relations.

The dispute dated back to 1913, when Congress passed a measure establishing federal regulations over the killing, capturing, or selling of such birds. At the time, federal courts ruled it a usurpation of rights reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. But when President Woodrow Wilson codified these regulations in a 1916 treaty with Great Britain, the Supreme Court upheld them by citing the so-called supremacy clause of the Constitution. The Court concluded that if “the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute . . . as a necessary and proper means to execute the power of the Government.”[3]

The decision was a fateful one, for it would be cited in several subsequent cases that served to expand the power of the central government.[4]Decades later, in the wake of U.S. ratification of the United Nations Charter, the precedent set in Missouri and subsequently elaborated in United States v. Pink (1942) took on a profound significance. The Charter had been ratified with the explicit assurance that it authorized no UN interference in the domestic concerns of the United States, or of any other member nation. There can be little doubt that the United States would never have lent its support had the document not contained such a stipulation. These Court decisions, however, raised difficult questions regarding that portion of American sovereignty that UN membership may have forced the United States to relinquish.

It would not be long before these precedents would be invoked by American social reformers to justify progressive legislation or the abolition of state and local infringements on what the UN considered “human rights.” Only a year after the ratification of the Charter the left-wing National Lawyers Guild, citing Missouri v. Holland, concluded that lynching fell under federal jurisdiction and hence anti-lynching legislation within federal authority, on the grounds that such legislation would serve to satisfy America’s human-rights obligations under the United Nations Charter.[5] Nor were such arguments limited to left-wing groups. In 1948, four Supreme Court justices offering concurring opinions in the case of Oyama v. California cited the UN Charter as a rationale for the abolition of a California law that restricted land ownership among aliens ineligible for citizenship, since in practice it applied only to Japanese aliens. Two years later, the companion case of Sei Fujii v. California yielded a similar outcome.[6]

A conservative backlash against such developments was not long in coming. The constitutional ruminations of the National Lawyers Guild and some of the legal reasoning employed in Oyama and Fujii may well have been isolated cases, but they were rich enough with implications for state autonomy to alarm right-wing congressmen who were notoriously protective of local liberties.

Senator Bricker’s Efforts to Safeguard American Sovereignty

One such legislator was the fiery Senator John Bricker of Ohio. For several months, Bricker had closely followed the discussions in the American Bar Association Journal regarding the ambiguity of the supremacy clause of the Constitution.[7] If any senator could have been expected to act on such concerns, it was John Bricker. In 1951, he had introduced Senate Resolution 177 in opposition to the proposed International Covenant on Human Rights, which the UN had unsuccessfully attempted to draft since 1949. The attempt to foist a legally binding covenant on the nations of the world, Bricker maintained, demonstrated beyond any doubt that the United Nations was attempting to establish itself as a world government. The Covenant, he insisted, “would be more appropriately entitled as a Covenant on Human Slavery or subservience to government. . . . [T]hose who drafted the Covenant on Human Rights repudiated the underlying theory of the Bill of Rights—freedom to be let alone.”[8] Significantly, Bricker cited the Fujii case as evidence of the ominous potential of UN authority over American domestic policy.[9]

In early 1952, Bricker decided that the rights of the states and the people were sufficiently imperiled to warrant the otherwise extreme recourse of introducing a constitutional amendment to safeguard them. In his view, the jurisprudential trends exemplified in Oyama and Fujii gravely jeopardized the integrity of “existing laws which are in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, thereby forcing unacceptable theories and practices upon the citizens of the United States of America.”[10] For this reason, he warned, a constitutional amendment was critical to the long-term health, independence, and sovereignty of the American republic.

The Bricker Amendment contained several crucial provisions. First, any provision of a treaty that conflicted with the letter of the Constitution would be rendered null and void. Second, a treaty would become effective as internal law only with the passage of appropriate legislation by Congress; that is, treaties would not be self-executing. Finally, the Amendment would rein in the executive with the requirement that all executive agreements between the President and any international organization or foreign power “be made only in the manner and to the extent to be prescribed by law.” Such agreements “shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties.” This stipulation would ensure that the executive could not evade the requirements for treaties merely by signing executive agreements instead.[11]

The Amendment’s supporters hoped that these provisions would clear up the ambiguity in the Constitution over the exact implications of the claim in Article VI that “[t]his Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” In the pages of The Freeman, Frank Holman described the Amendment as necessary to preserve “our basic rights as protected by our own Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”[12]

The Amendment would obviously strike a forceful blow against members of Congress who may have wished to cite the Charter when drafting civil-rights measures.[13] In hearings held to discuss the Amendment, Eberhard Deutsch, a member of the ABA’s Committee on Peace and Law, cited the dangers of the Fujii case and suggested that without passage of the Bricker Amendment, the American Left could well hold “that the entire civil rights program has already effectively been imposed on the United States through the United Nations Charter itself, without the need for any congressional action whatever.”[14]

While the Bricker Amendment earned the contempt of influential members of the Washington Establishment, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett recognized its populist origins. What was really at stake, Garrett insisted, was the people’s ability to have a voice in the kind of international agreements that would be binding on them, and the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights from the whims of executive fiat. “The people are told they know not what they do,” he wrote. “They would weaken American leadership in the world and perhaps destroy mankind’s hope of peace. But all they wanted was simply to be let alone.”[15]

The editors of the conservative weekly Human Events agreed with Garrett, gratified by the outpouring of support for the Amendment by ordinary Americans. Early in 1954 the editors exulted in the success of “The Vigilant Women of the Bricker Amendment,” who had established regional coordinators in 39 states and whose officers succeeded in bringing 500,000 signatures to Washington.[16]

Ultimately, the George Amendment, a watered-down version of Senator Bricker’s original proposal, failed by one vote to receive the necessary two-thirds majority of the Senate.

A good many Republicans, upon learning of the Eisenhower Administration’s staunch opposition to the Amendment, withdrew their support out of loyalty to the President. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the most liberal senators in each party—whom the Old Right Chicago Tribune contemptuously described as “all the New Dealers”—also voted against it.

Positive Effects of the Bricker Amendment

Some conservatives maintained that all was not necessarily lost. Indeed, the Bricker fight may itself have had some positive effects on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. John Foster Dulles, for example, hoped that the State Department’s refusal to ask for ratification of the Genocide Convention and its decision to end the U.S. role in securing a universal human rights covenant would help to mollify supporters of the Bricker Amendment.[17]President Eisenhower, moreover, proved himself reasonably trustworthy in his handling of foreign affairs, consulting Congress during crises in Indochina in 1954, the Far East in 1955, and the Middle East in 1957—perhaps in part as a consequence of John Bricker’s efforts and the popular support they received.

Free-market economist Henry Hazlitt even remained cautiously optimistic of future victory. One way to carry on the struggle, he proposed, would be to introduce a new amendment by which the House of Representatives, as “the body that most directly represents the people,” would be given a voice in treaty ratification. Since House members, more than their colleagues in the Senate or in the other two branches of government, were subject to swift removal by an angry populace, Hazlitt believed that they would be less likely to compromise American sovereignty. By shifting some of the authority over ratification to the House, the people would have much greater recourse if they believed their rights had been threatened by international treaties.[18]

Others were less sanguine. The editors of The Freeman lamented that the defeat symbolized the ascendancy of the Cold War notion that old-fashioned republican, constitutional government had grown outmoded and even dangerous for the United States, and that the President needed “great freedom of action” in foreign affairs. “Freedom from what?” asked the editors. “Well, freedom from the slow and meddlesome restraints of Congress, freedom from the bickerings of partisanship, freedom from a too narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and, above all, freedom from the anti-cries of the people.”[19]

The story of the Bricker Amendment is more than a historical curiosity. The 1990s have witnessed a renewed assault on American sovereignty. We have seen the ratification of trade agreements whose supranational commissions seek to exercise a kind of veto power over American trade, labor, and environmental policy. Just last year, the UN met to determine the “rights” of women and children around the globe. Before that, global functionaries were busy with plans to dictate the environmental policies of every nation on the planet.

Today the treaty power poses as grave a threat to self-government as ever before. The voices that speak for American independence are few and far between. As the twentieth century comes to a close, post-Cold War America awaits its John Bricker.

Failure To Pass The Bricker Amendment In 1953 Shows The United States Is Just Another Vassal Nation Of The United Nations.

The U.S. Constitution Has One Big Flaw.

SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 2009

vincentgioiasblog.blogspot.com

It is agreed among most of us that the creators of the U.S. Constitution did an amazingly competent job to protect individual rights and limit the national government’s role in our lives. Of course for at least the last 50 years or so socialists parading as liberals have managed to thwart the original intent of the Constitution throughout all three branches of government but that doesn’t detract from the generally fine work of our country’s founders.

However since man is fallible and not immune to error, the Constitution contains one glaring error which enables opponents of freedom, liberty and individual rights to impose their philosophy on all of us; this mistake is in the constitutional language that makes treaties entered into by the United States the supreme law of the land; overruling all other federal and state laws and judicial decisions to the contrary.

It is harmless enough to say as it does in Article II, Section 2 that The President “shall have power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur … “; but it was undoubtedly not envisioned that the President and the Senate would be composed of people who would want to rewrite the Constitution and diminish the rights and freedoms built into the original language of the Constitution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The problem and grievous mistake is what is written in Article VI which states in part:

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United states, shall be the Supreme law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In other words, all provisions in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and all state laws can be obliterated in one fell swoop by a treaty signed by the president and approved by two thirds of the senate. With a president like Obama and an essentially veto-proof senate (including the renegade Republicans who have already demonstrated disregard of the Constitution) treaties formulated by the United Nations in direct opposition to our constitutional rights can become de facto and de jure amendments to the Constitution.

There are many, many horrendous treaties proposed by the United Nations and signed onto by countries around the world but until now some of the most intrusive have not been approved by the U.S. Senate even though a president has signed them. Recent treaties of this sort that come to mind are treaties signed by President Clinton such as Kyoto, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. As the UN became more and more dominated by anti-American countries a plethora of treaties antagonistic to our Constitution have been produced.

220px-John_W._Bricker_cph.3b31299
But One Man Tried To Fix The Flaw In The U.S. Constitution In 1953. Senator John Bricker From Ohio.

Source: ohiohistorycentral.org

Although never adopted, the Bricker Amendment would have reduced the president’s ability to negotiate agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval.

In 1953, John Bricker, a United States senator from Ohio, introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution. It became known as the Bricker Amendment. Bricker was upset by the United States’ involvement in the Korean War. He objected to President Harry Truman’s actions in the conflict, namely sending United States soldiers to Korea under the authority of the United Nations without prior approval of the United States Congress.

The amendment read as follows:

Section 1.A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
Section 2.A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.
Section 3.Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
Section 4.The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The United States Senate defeated the amendment twice, first by eight votes and then, on a second vote, by a single tally. “And that single vote was from former President Lyndon Johnson who was Senate Minority Leader at the time.” Michael Difensore. While numerous groups, including anti-war groups, various women’s organizations, and veterans’ groups, supported the amendment, staunch opposition from President Dwight David Eisenhower resulted in the proposal’s defeat.

Bricker,_John_W._(2)
John William Bricker was born on September 6, 1893, near Mt. Sterling, Ohio. He attended public schools in Madison County and The Ohio State University. He graduated from Ohio State with an undergraduate degree in 1916. Bricker attempted to enlist in the United States Army during World War I, but the military refused to accept him because of a low pulse rate. Disappointed, Bricker did succeed in gaining entry to the Army Chaplain Corps. Upon the war’s conclusion, Bricker enrolled in the law school at The Ohio State University, graduating in 1920.

Bricker began to practice law in Columbus, Ohio, in 1920, but he also quickly pursued a political career. From 1920 to 1928, he served as the city solicitor for Grandview Heights, Ohio. From 1923 to 1927, he also worked as one of Ohio’s assistant attorney generals. In 1932, Bricker became the attorney general of Ohio, only to leave this position in 1939, following winning election as the state’s governor, a position that he had first sought unsuccessfully in 1936. As governor, Bricker had to deal with the end of the Great Depression and World War II. He succeeded in eliminating the state’s deficit and also increased funding for Ohio’s schools. He served three terms, from 1939 to 1945.

In 1944, Bricker, a Republican, had unsuccessfully run for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Upon ending his third term as governor, Bricker proceeded to win election to the United States Senate. He served two terms, from 1947 to 1959. He was unsuccessful in 1958 when he sought a third term. Bricker’s most famous act while a senator was his sponsorship of the Bricker Amendment. This act would have limited the president’s ability to enter into agreements with foreign nations. It lost by a single vote in the Senate and was never enacted. Following his defeat for reelection, Bricker returned to his law practice in Columbus. He died on March 22, 1986.

Source: antiwar.com By Justin Raimondo

The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. The conservative movement of the early 1950’s, which looked on the United Nations with extreme suspicion, was particularly sensitive to this threat — and they hit upon a solution: The Bricker Amendment.

Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the “Bricker Amendment” to the Constitution read as follows:

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mobilizing to support Bricker, conservatives built a grand coalition which included all the major veterans groups, the Kiwanis Clubs, the American Association of Small Business, many women’s groups, as well as the conservative activist organizations of the time, such as the Freedom Clubs and the Committee for Constitutional Government. The conservative press joined in the campaign; writing in Human Events, Frank Chodorov said that

The proposed amendment arises from a rather odd situation. A nation is threatened by invasion, not by a foreign army, but by its own legal entanglements. Not soldiers, but theoreticians and visionaries attack its independence and aim to bring its people under the rule of an agglomeration of foreign governments. This is something new in history. There have been occasions when a weak nation sought security by placing itself under the yoke of a strong one. But, here we have the richest nation in the world, and apparently the strongest, flirting with the liquidation of its independence. Nothing like that has ever happened before.

The breach in our defenses, said Chodorov, is in Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that “… All Treaties …shall be the supreme Law of the Land… any Thing in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.” At the time of the Founders, the division between foreign and domestic policy was clear enough; there was never any intention, as Jefferson wrote, to enable the President and the Senate to “do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

But as the concept of limited government was eroded — and under pressure from the endless stream of pacts, covenants, and executive agreements issuing forth from the United Nations and its American enthusiasts — the chink in our constitutional armor widened. Just as the growth of administrative law had threatened to overthrow the old Republic during the darkest days of the New Deal, so under Truman and Eisenhower the burgeoning body of treaty law threatened to overthrow U.S. sovereignty. Executive agreements had created administrative law of a new type; treaties which sought to regulate domestic economic and social behavior to a degree never achieved by the Brain Trusters. If the New Deal had failed to completely socialize America, to conservatives it often seemed as if the United Nations seemed determined to finish the job. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, human beings were endowed with all sorts of “rights,” including the right to a job and the right to “security.” There were, however, certain significant omissions, chief among them the right to own and maintain private property. Another equally glaring omission was the unqualified right to a free press, the regulation of which is left up to member nations. When three Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, cited the UN Charter and the NATO treaty in support of their argument that Truman had the right to seize the steel mills, conservatives went into action — and the fight for the Bricker Amendment began in earnest.

The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment. Leading the opposition was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. This was the same John Foster Dulles who had said, two years previous, that “The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse,” and warned that “Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights.” Hammered with this quote by Clarence Manion, Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, and a leading proponent of the Bricker Amendment, Dulles could only take refuge in the argument that this President would never compromise U.S. sovereignty.

Although the Bricker Amendment started out with fifty-six co- sponsors, it eventually went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate, 42-50, with 4 not voting. (A watered-down version, the “George proposal,” lost by a single vote.) The defection of Senators William Knowland and Alexander Wiley from conservative Republican ranks on this occasion was particularly significant, and marked the beginning not only of Wiley’s chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but also the decline of the movement to put and keep America first.

As Frank E. Holman, president of the American Bar Association, and the sparkplug of the Bricker Amendment movement, wrote:

In the destiny of human affairs a great issue like a righteous cause does not die. It lives on and arises again and again until rightly won. However long the fight for an adequate Constitutional Amendment on treaties and other international agreements, it will and must be won. This will be the history of the Bricker Amendment as it has been the history of all other great issues and causes.

Holman’s comments were published in 1954 as Story of the Bricker Amendment, (The First Phase) — a title which one can only hope is prophetic.

Hollywood and 9/11: The Movies And TV Dramas Predicting The September 11, 2001 Attacks.

download (53)
Source: 911blogger.com

“It represents capitalism. It represents freedom. It represents everything America is
about. And to bring those two buildings down would bring America to its knees.”

– Line from Nosebleed, a movie originally set to start being
filmed at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

A significant number of movies and television dramas were being produced at the time of the 9/11 attacks, which had storylines with some remarkable similarities to the events of September 11, 2001. These storylines featured incidents such as terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, terrorists hijacking a commercial aircraft, and terrorists causing a jumbo jet to crash in New York.

The movies and TV shows would have featured some famous actors, and were being made for major companies, such as CBS and 20th Century Fox. Furthermore, employees of the military and other U.S. government agencies are known to have assisted in developing the storylines of some of these productions. Unsurprisingly, after September 11, the movies and TV shows were either canceled or significantly rewritten so as to remove any resemblance to the 9/11 attacks.

The existence of these movies and TV dramas, at the very least, disproves claims that the 9/11 attacks could not have been foreseen. It is worth considering, however, whether these productions served a more sinister purpose in relation to 9/11, albeit unknown to most of the people working on them.

This article examines seven movies and television dramas that were in production at the time of the 9/11 attacks, which all had notable similarities to aspects of what happened on September 11. These proposed movies and TV shows received some attention after September 11 because of their resemblance to the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. Newsweek even commented that the amount of movies and TV shows about terrorism being made at that time “makes you wonder if this [i.e. terrorism] wasn’t an obsessive theme in the culture even before September 11.” [1] However, no one suggested that there might have been a more sinister reason for there being so many productions about terrorism. Instead, their existence was treated like a simple coincidence.

ACTION MOVIE FEATURED TERRORIST PLOT TO BLOW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

A number of movies and TV shows that were being produced at the time of the 9/11 attacks are notable because they featured acts of terrorism in New York or, specifically, at the World Trade Center.

A movie that is particularly striking is Nosebleed, which would have been about a terrorist plot to bomb the Twin Towers. [2] It was going to feature the well-known martial artist and actor Jackie Chan as a window washer at the World Trade Center who uncovers the plot and tries to thwart the terrorists. [3]

The script for Nosebleed was initially written in 1999 by Stu Zicherman and Raven Metzner, and developed after that. Zicherman and Metzner had also come up with the film’s storyline. [4]

A line reportedly in the script indicates that the fictitious terrorists intended to cause the Twin Towers to collapse–like what actually happened on September 11. A terrorist would say of the WTC: “It represents capitalism. It represents freedom. It represents everything America is about. And to bring those two buildings down would bring America to its knees.” [5]

Nosebleed would have been a major film. It would have cost $50 million to $60 million to make, according to Variety magazine. [6] In May 2000, it was reported that Renny Harlin, who previously directed action movies such as Die Hard 2 and The Long Kiss Goodnight, was in talks to direct it, although whether he was subsequently taken on as director is unclear. [7]

FILMING WAS SET TO TAKE PLACE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON SEPTEMBER 11

Not only did the plot of Nosebleed have similarities to the 9/11 attacks, but a scene for the movie was scheduled to be filmed at the top of one of the Twin Towers at 7:00 a.m. on September 11. [8] The filming would have taken place at Windows on the World, the restaurant at the top of the North Tower, according to Jackie Chan, but it was canceled. So instead of being at the WTC, Chan was in Toronto working on another movie, The Tuxedo, on September 11. [9]

Had the filming gone ahead as originally scheduled, Chan and the other people involved would likely have died, since everyone who was in Windows on the World when American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. on September 11 was trapped and subsequently died. [10] Chan told one newspaper, “I would probably have died if the shooting went ahead as planned.” [11] He said that on September 11, after he learned about the attacks on the WTC, he was “like a walking dead man” for the rest of the day. [12]

It is unclear why the filming at the WTC was canceled. According to some reports, it was because the script for the scene there was late. [13] According to the Orlando Sentinel, it was because Chan “didn’t want to make Nosebleed without a finished script.” “The action was good, but, somehow, the script not ready,” he commented. [14] But Chan gave a different explanation to the Boston Phoenix, saying: “The studio didn’t really like the script of Nosebleed because it was not perfect yet. So my manager said: ‘Don’t worry. If you do not like this film, we can do Tuxedo. You will meet with [Steven] Spielberg to see if you like it or not.’ Then I met with Spielberg and I say I will do Tuxedo, because I trust Spielberg.” [15]

Unsurprisingly, work on Nosebleed was put on hold after 9/11 and the movie has never been made. [16]

COMEDY MOVIE WOULD HAVE INCLUDED ‘A BIG WORLD TRADE CENTER SCENE WITH TERRORISTS’

Another movie was, like Nosebleed, notable because–as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel described–its plot featured “New York, the World Trade Center, and terrorists.” [17] Till Death Do Us Part would have been a comedy starring the well-known actors Billy Crystal and Michael Douglas. Its storyline, according to Newsday, was “about two fathers, soon to be related by their children’s marriage,” who have to take on “a terrorist bent on creating havoc in New York City.” The movie would have included “a significant scene that was to take place at the Windows on the World restaurant” at the top of the North Tower. [18] It featured “a big World Trade Center scene with terrorists,” according to Crystal, who added, “Funny, but the whole story was about that.” [19]

Till Death Do Us Part was being made by Warner Brothers and Franchise Pictures, and was written in 2000 by Nat Mauldin, whose previous work included writing Dr. Dolittle, the 1998 comedy starring Eddie Murphy. [20] Filming was set to begin on November 17, 2001. [21] The movie was put on hold after September 11, but it was subsequently rewritten and was released in May 2003, renamed The In-Laws and with Crystal no longer starring in it. [22]

NBC PLANNED A DRAMA SERIES ABOUT AL-QAEDA ATTACKS IN NEW YORK

A big-budget television drama was being developed at the time of the 9/11 attacks, which, like these movies, centered on terrorism in New York. NBC was working on a five-hour miniseries, called Terror, about a series of al-Qaeda attacks in the city. The show would have been a crossover between the network’s three Law & Order series (the original show, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and Law & Order: Criminal Intent) and was going to be broadcast in May 2002. [23]

Terror would have followed an Osama bin Laden devotee who goes from an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan to New York. There, he detonates explosives in the subway under Times Square, killing over 1,000 New Yorkers. [24] Investigators then discover a terrorist release of anthrax, and the storyline would subsequently include the threat of a release of smallpox. [25]

Dick Wolf, the creator of Law & Order, put forward the idea for the show. When he was asked, early in 2001, if he had any suggestions for a miniseries, Wolf answered, “Terrorism in New York City.” This, according to Los Angeles magazine, was a story he had “long wanted to do.” When Wolf told Neal Baer, one of Law & Order’s executive producers, about the miniseries, Baer said the show should specifically be about bioterrorism.

By June 2001, Wolf had written a 40-page outline for Terror. [26] By August, Wolf and his colleagues were “deeply involved in the story,” according to Baer. [27] Filming was set to begin on September 24, less than two weeks after 9/11. [28]

On September 11, before the attacks took place in New York, Baer and some of his colleagues were at a facility only a couple of miles from the World Trade Center doing “preproduction planning” for the show. [29] Terror was canceled a week later, in light of the 9/11 attacks. [30]

WRITER AND MILITARY OFFICIALS CONSIDERED 9/11-STYLE SCENARIO FOR SERIES ABOUT TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE U.S.

Other movies and television shows being produced at the time of the 9/11 attacks stand out because their storylines featured terrorist events that resembled specific aspects of 9/11: an aircraft hijacking, a plane crash, and an attack in the U.S. that leads to a wider conflict, like the actual “war on terror.”

One of these was a TV miniseries called World War III, which would have been about “how an act of terrorism on United States soil expanded into global conflict,” according to the Dallas Observer. Bryce Zabel, a longtime television writer and producer, who was elected as chairman of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences in August 2001, was working on this show. He was scheduled to meet with executives at the cable channel USA Network on September 13, 2001, to present the details of his miniseries to them.

Zabel consulted the U.S. military while working on the storyline for World War III and apparently considered scenarios resembling the 9/11 attacks. He has recalled: “My partner and I had worked carefully with the Air Force and some Pentagon war planners to figure out the possible scenarios by which such a conflict [i.e. a world war] could come into being. The irony is that we had sort of rejected something as radical as what just happened [on September 11] as being a little too much.”

Zabel has not said what kind of terrorist attack he eventually decided to incorporate into his storyline. But he noted a similarity between what his show envisioned and what happened on September 11, saying the 9/11 attacks meant that “the cautionary tale we hoped to tell in fiction ended up becoming a cautionary tale told on the evening news.” [31]

Zabel’s miniseries was canceled in response to the 9/11 attacks. But, possibly referring to the similarity between its storyline and the “global war on terrorism” that began after 9/11, Zabel said, two weeks after September 11, that World War III would have “reflected exactly what’s going on in the world right now.” [32]

PLANNED MOVIE FEATURED CYBER-TERRORISTS CAUSING A JUMBO JET TO CRASH IN NEW YORK

One movie that was in the pipeline on September 11, called WW3.com, would have involved cyber-terrorists causing a Boeing 767–the type of plane that hit the Twin Towers–to crash just a few miles from the World Trade Center.

Hollywood studio 20th Century Fox had been working on WW3.com since 1998. The movie, according to Variety, would have featured “a high-concept, special effects-laden storyline involving cyber-terrorists who have declared war on the United States.” [33] It was written by David Marconi, who previously wrote Enemy of the State, a 1998 thriller starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman.

Marconi said his screenplay for WW3.com was “incredibly prescient about the events of September 11.” He described the storyline as “a blueprint for disaster.” Notably, the movie’s climax would have featured a Boeing 767 crashing into a Simon and Garfunkel concert in New York’s Central Park.

Marconi was assisted by experts from the National Security Agency (NSA) while he was working on the screenplay. He has recalled that these experts were “more than helpful in laying out situations not dissimilar from what happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon” on September 11. On the day of 9/11, one of them even phoned Marconi and said to him: “Turn on the TV. It’s happening.” Marconi has not said whether the scenario of a 767 crashing into Central Park was suggested to him by someone at the NSA. [34]

In August 2000, it was reported that WW3.com would be produced by Luc Besson, the well-known French film writer, director, and producer. [35] The film was shelved after 9/11, but the script was rewritten and made into the fourth Die Hard movie, Live Free or Die Hard, which was released in 2007. [36]

‘TOP-SECRET’ MOVIE FEATURED A PLANE HIJACKING

20th Century Fox also worked on Deadline, a movie that would have involved an aircraft hijacking. Few details are known about this film. It was, according to the Los Angeles Times, “in top-secret development” before September 11. All that has been reported of its storyline is that it featured terrorists hijacking a commercial aircraft.

Deadline was reportedly being produced by James Cameron, the renowned director of movies such as Titanic and The Terminator. It was written by brothers Peter and David Griffiths, who also wrote Collateral Damage, a movie about terrorism starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that was released in 2002. [37]

Deadline was put on hold after 9/11. [38] It was revived in 2008, with the new name Nagasaki Deadline. At that time, Variety reported that the storyline “centered on an emotionally damaged FBI agent who must decipher historic events in a desperate race to avert a terrorist plot.” It is unclear if this was the original storyline of the movie or if the plot was changed after September 11. [39] Five years later, the movie has still not been made.

TV MOVIE WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATION OF A PLANE CRASH POSSIBLY CAUSED BY BIN LADEN

One production is notable because, although it did not feature a terrorist attack, its storyline centered on the investigation of a plane crash, just as the 9/11 attacks led to the investigations of plane crashes. Furthermore, Osama bin Laden would have been mentioned in it.

Fall From the Sky was to have been a TV movie for CBS. Although being made for television rather than cinema, it had a large budget, of $7.2 million. [40] It was written by Nicholas Meyer–who previously wrote several of the Star Trek movies–and Brian Rehak, and would have starred Forest Whitaker, the award-winning actor of such movies as Bird and The Last King of Scotland.

Fall From the Sky would have told the story of the crash of a new type of passenger aircraft in which hundreds of people die, and the investigation that follows. Whitaker was to have played the National Transportation Safety Board official who leads the investigation. [41]

The storyline, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, looked at “the meticulous process of gathering scientific evidence after the tragedy.” [42] It also “dealt a lot with the [Federal Aviation Administration] and issues of concealment,” Whitaker said. [43] The TV movie, according to Meyer, would show “the political pressures brought to bear on the investigation.” [44]

Furthermore, the storyline included investigators examining the theory that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crash. [45] According to Meyer, it would transpire that terrorists were not to blame.

Filming was scheduled to begin in Winnipeg, Canada, around the start of October 2001 and the TV movie was in preproduction in September that year. [46] However, CBS canceled Fall From the Sky shortly after 9/11. [47]

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

The fact that these movies and television shows were in production at the time of the 9/11 attacks, at the very least, disproves official claims that no one could have predicted what happened on September 11. What we know of the storylines of these productions shows that some scriptwriters, and people working for government agencies who assisted them, did indeed envision scenarios resembling the 9/11 attacks. The storylines are also evidence that some individuals may have had foreknowledge of the attacks–a possibility that should certainly be investigated.

It is also plausible that these movies and TV shows served a more disturbing purpose. Might, for example, rogue individuals working for U.S. government agencies have used a particular film or television show as a cover, to help them prepare the 9/11 attacks?

When considering this possibility, it is worth noting that there has been a long history of collaboration between government agencies and the entertainment industry. Former CIA officer Robert Baer described this relationship, saying, “All these people that run [film] studios, they go to Washington, they hang around with senators, they hang around with CIA directors, and everybody’s on board.” [48]

Furthermore, government agencies have, for many years, employed entertainment liaison officers to influence the image of them portrayed in the media. The FBI set up an office in the 1930s to improve its image in movies, radio programs, and television shows. The Department of Defense established a similar office in 1947.

The CIA was the last major government agency to establish a formal relationship with the movie industry. It set up a basic entertainment program in the early 1990s and employed its first entertainment liaison officer in 1996. Other agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service, similarly have motion picture and television offices or employ official assistants to the media. [49]

The CIA and the military have cooperated on numerous Hollywood productions. The Pentagon provided its “full cooperation” for movies such as Top Gun (1986), True Lies (1994), Air Force One (1997), Transformers (2007), and Iron Man (2008). [50] And the CIA helped shape such movies as Enemy of the State (1998), Bad Company (2002), The Sum of All Fears (2002), and The Recruit (2003). [51]

THE CIA’S ‘VERY ACTIVE’ NETWORK IN HOLLYWOOD

Although it only employed its first liaison to the entertainment industry in 1996, the CIA has been working with Hollywood since the 1950s. [52] Jerry Naylor, a country singer and veteran of the entertainment business, revealed that he was first recruited by the agency in 1968, and subsequently “used his international fame as cover to work as a secret agent for the CIA” on more than 100 occasions. Naylor believes other celebrities must have similarly been employed by the agency. “I think using celebrities from Los Angeles and Hollywood for covert operations is probably something that the CIA liked to do,” he said. “I doubt I was the only one.” [53]

Furthermore, retired CIA intelligence officer Antonio Mendez (who was played by Ben Affleck in the movie Argo) wrote that when he was head of the agency’s disguise section, between 1974 and 1979, he “engaged the services of many consultants in the entertainment industry.” These included makeup artist John Chambers, who won an honorary Academy Award for his work on the 1968 movie Planet of the Apes. [54]

John Rizzo, a senior CIA lawyer, stated in 2007 that the CIA has “a very active” network of people in Hollywood, helping “in whatever way they can to give back.” [55]

WHAT PURPOSE MIGHT 9/11-STYLE TV SHOWS AND MOVIES HAVE SERVED?

It is also worth noting that movies had, long before 2001, been used as a cover for covert operations, so if this tactic was utilized by those who planned 9/11, it would not have been the first time a movie served such a purpose. For example, from 1978 to 1982, Jerry Naylor worked on the research and production of a movie called The Bounty Hunter, which, Naylor has claimed, was a cover for monitoring terrorists in the Lebanon. [56]

A better known example of the tactic was the subject of the Oscar-winning movie Argo. On that occasion, the CIA helped rescue six American embassy workers who were trapped in Iran during the 1979 to 1981 hostage crisis by disguising them as a Canadian film crew that was supposedly scouting the country for shooting locations.

The team running the operation set up a fake production company called Studio Six Productions, with offices in a suite on the old Columbia Studio lot in Hollywood. The company soon announced its first supposed production–a science-fiction movie called Argo–and arranged for full-page adverts in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter to publicize it. Using the cover of the Hollywood production company and the movie, the CIA was then able to get the six embassy workers out of Iran.

Studio Six Productions appeared so convincing that by the time it closed, several weeks after the rescue, it had received 26 scripts, one of which was from Steven Spielberg. The Hollywood community only learned about the deception behind the company and its planned movie 17 years later, when the CIA decided to go public with the story. [57]

WERE 9/11-STYLE MOVIES AND TV SHOWS USED AS A COVER?

Seeing how movies had previously been successfully used as a cover for covert operations, we can imagine how films and television shows with plots resembling the events of September 11 might have served as a cover for some of the preparations for the 9/11 attacks. For example, a person working on one of these productions could have used their position to obtain information that would otherwise have been unavailable to them and might have been beneficial for planning 9/11.

Jackie Chan has revealed how his involvement in the movie Nosebleed, about a terrorist plot to blow up the Twin Towers, enabled him to learn about the World Trade Center buildings. “We had visited the location before September 11,” he said. “The producer. My manager. We had dinner upstairs. We were getting all kinds of information. I was going to play a window washer, so they were telling me things like how many windows the building had.” [58] In his preparation for the movie, according to the Orlando Sentinel, Chan learned the “secrets” of the Twin Towers, such as “how air pressure was regulated with doors that might be useful as gags in one of his trademark fights,” and “which sides of the buildings one could work on to avoid the wind.” [59]

Considering the opportunities the movie thus provided, might Nosebleed have been used by someone who, while working on the film, was secretly involved in planning 9/11 and using their work on the movie as a cover, in order to find out information about the Twin Towers? This person might, for example, have been able to learn about security at the World Trade Center and the layout of the towers, which would have been useful information for anyone who wanted to plant explosives, so as to cause the buildings to collapse on September 11.

Since the movie Till Death Do Us Part, like Nosebleed, would have featured “New York, the World Trade Center, and terrorists,” it seems plausible that a person involved in its production could similarly have used their position to obtain information about the WTC.

A production like the TV movie Fall From the Sky could have provided different opportunities for a person who was secretly helping to plan the 9/11 attacks. Since Fall From the Sky would have been about a National Transportation Safety Board official and the investigation of a plane crash, a person working on it might have been able to obtain information that would be useful for covering up the truth of what happened on September 11 in the aftermath of the attacks.

They might have learned what kinds of investigations would follow the plane crashes on September 11 and how the National Transportation Safety Board would respond. Such information could have helped the group planning 9/11 determine how to obstruct the investigations that would follow the attacks.

PRODUCTION TEAM LEARNED ‘A LOT OF THINGS MOST PEOPLE DIDN’T KNOW’

The experiences of those who worked on NBC’s miniseries Terror, about a series of al-Qaeda attacks in New York, illustrate the many opportunities a television show or movie about terrorism could create for someone who wanted to gather information on the subject.

Those working on Terror did a lot of research, particularly on bioterrorism, for the miniseries. They talked to “top law enforcement people on the state, federal, and local levels” about the subject, according to Dick Wolf. [60] Neil Baer talked to experts at the Rand Corporation think tank and hired a consultant from Stanford University in California. [61]

Those involved with the miniseries also consulted experts at the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Georgia. At one point, Baer said, the FBI talked to them, because their “accumulation of so much information raised a red flag.” Baer said that as a result of their research, “We knew a lot of things most people didn’t know, because we spoke with so many experts all over the country.” [62]

It is worth noting, however, that it would surely only require a small number of complicit individuals for a movie or television series to be used to help with planning the 9/11 attacks. In her book The CIA in Hollywood, Tricia Jenkins noted that when the CIA wants to influence a particular production, its involvement with that production is “shadowy and difficult to trace, especially since its interactions often take place only between two well-placed individuals, either in person or over the phone.” [63]

If a movie or TV show was serving as a cover for those planning the 9/11 attacks, most people involved with it would therefore, presumably, have been unaware that they were being used by individuals with murderous intentions, and would have just thought they were working on a normal production.

9/11-STYLE MOVIES AND TV SHOWS NEED FURTHER INVESTIGATION

The fact that numerous movies and television dramas with storylines resembling the events of September 11 were in production at the time of the 9/11 attacks is surely something that requires closer examination, especially in light of the history of cooperation between government agencies and the entertainment industry. And yet, after receiving some attention in the aftermath of the attacks, these productions have been largely forgotten.

There are numerous questions that could be considered as part of a new investigation of 9/11. For example, which individuals came up with the scenarios resembling aspects of the 9/11 attacks for the storylines of these movies and TV shows? Some of the writers have said that scenarios similar to what happened on September 11 were suggested to them by employees of the NSA and the military. So who were those employees and what exactly did they suggest?

Investigators could presumably discover more details of the plots of the TV shows and movies, and obtain copies of the scripts. And it would surely be worth researching whether other productions with storylines resembling the 9/11 attacks were being worked on in September 2001.

Inquiries may well reveal a different story behind the terrorist attacks of September 11 than the official account we were led to believe.

X-Files Spin Off Show The Lone Gunman Pilot Episode Predicts September 11, 2001 Attacks Six Months Before It Happens.

download (54)

X-Files spin-off show ‘predicted hijacked plane hitting Twin Towers’ 6 months before 9/11.

THE 9/11 terror attacks in New York were played out months BEFORE the tragedy – on millions of TV screens around the world.

dailystar.co.uk

By Harry Kemble / Published 9th September 2016

A little-known X-Files spin-off series showed a hijacked passenger plane flying towards the World Trade Center in its pilot episode.

The eerie scenes of The Lone Gunmen – first shown in the US on March 4, 2001 – were witnessed by TV viewers across the world.

The Lone Gunmen uncovered the plot and managed to avert disaster as the passenger plane flies over the Twin Towers at the last minute.

But 15 years on what has really fuelled conspiracy theories linking the The Lone Gunmen to the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers is the pilot episode’s deeper plot.

The powerful group behind the secret plan wanted the wider world to blame foreign dictators

One of the most popular conspiracy theories surrounding the terror attack which changed the world forever is George Bush’s government knew about the 9/11 attacks and the US government wanted it to happen.

A government insider has sensationally claimed since the terrorists involved had help from the inside before the attack.

Following the deadly al-Qaida terror attacks on US soil, journalist Christopher Bollyn said: “Rather than being discussed in the media as a warning for a possibility of such an attack, the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen series seems to have been quietly forgotten.”

However crackpot theory websites are awash with speculation at how The Lone Gunmen predicted the 9/11 catastrophe.

Even those behind The Lone Gunmen find it bizarre no one has made the connection between the series pilot episode and the real-life terror attack.

Executive producer of The Lone Gunmen, Frank Spotnitz said: “I woke up on September 11 and saw it on TV and the first thing I thought of was The Lone Gunmen.

“But then in the weeks and months that followed, almost no one noticed the connection.

“What’s disturbing about it to me is, you think as a fiction writer that if you can imagine this scenario, then the people in power in the government who are there to imagine disaster scenarios can imagine it too.”

World Government Summit? What You’re Not Supposed to See.

1a9f9f32d7447b0663f10bba58b581b9_M

April 4, 2019

Written by William F. Jasper

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” the fearsome electronic image of the Wizard of Oz bellowed at Dorothy. That command, of course, was aimed at directing her attention away from the real “wizard,” who was pulling the levers behind the curtain. Something similar has occurred (again) regarding the recent World Government Summit. Yes, that is the official name of the event, an annual confab of high-powered movers and shakers: “the great and the good” of globalist affairs in national governments, the United Nations, NGOs, media, academia, philanthropy, and entertainment. Since 2013, the World Government Summit (WGS), a three-day event, has drawn dictators, presidents, prime ministers, kings, emirs, sheikhs, central bankers, Nobel laureates, movie stars, corporate CEOs, and more, to Dubai, the gleaming jewel of the United Arab Emirates.

More than 4,000 high-profile notables swarmed to this year’s WGS (February 10-12), among whom were actor Harrison Ford, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, UNICEF boss Henrietta Fore, UN General Assembly President Maria Espinoza, left-wing news maven Arianna Huffington, former Obama official and Big Brother advocate Cass Sunstein, left-wing economist and New York Times opinionator Paul Krugman, motivational guru Tony Robbins, New York University law professor Arthur R. Miller, and Columbia University professor and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs. Opening the global affair was none other than Pope Francis, who blessed the conferees and their mission in a pre-recorded video message.

The WGS has become the desert version of the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) shindigs in Davos, Switzerland, featuring many of the same celebrities, moguls, and “public servant” VIPs, most of whom fly into the ultra-extravagant UAE on private jets (naturally) to lecture humanity on the need to “reduce, reuse, recycle” — all in the interest of reducing carbon footprints, of course. In fact, a keynote speaker at WSG 2019 was Professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, who presides over the Davos gatherings. His lecture this year to his esteemed World Government Summit confreres was “Globilisation 4.0.” These assembled worthies, whom the WSG describes as “world leaders, international organizations’ representatives, thinkers, and experts from over 150 countries,” weighed in on a host of heavy topics, as they discussed “shaping the future of the world.” Indeed, according to the WSG website, the organization sees itself as “a global platform dedicated to shaping the future of governments worldwide.” “Each year,” it says, “the Summit sets the agenda for the next generation of governments.”

With all the glitter, glamour, and glory on display, and with the momentous, world-affecting agenda they advocate, one might think that the star-studded WGS soirée would be a top news event, yes? But no, barely a word in the “mainstream” news, other than snippets that could pass for PR releases. Hmm. What’s happening here? Did the WGS folks forget to inform the world media organizations about the summit? Are those desert sheiks relying on incompetent Bedouin camel drivers to run their public relations department? Did Big Media not get the memo? No, no, and no, to the last three questions. Turns out Big Media did know all about the event. In fact, many of them were official partners of the conference. The WGS website lists CNN, Sky News, the New York Times, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and CNBC among its “media partners.” And as noted above, Arianna Huffington, founder of the online Huffington Post and Thrive Global, was a featured speaker, as was CNN presenter Becky Anderson. Many of the other luminaries gracing the WGS stage are also regularly featured as “experts” on the establishment media news programs and talking-head news analysis shows.

However, chances are, unless you were reading The New American online, you probably saw or heard nary a word about this august gathering. Over the past several years, we have provided one of the few portholes regularly allowing inquiring minds worldwide to get a glimpse into this program of global engineers who are planning our future. On February 22, we published Alex Newman’s overview of WGS 2019 entitled “At ‘World Government Summit,’ Globalists Push UN Agenda 2030.” Aside from Newman’s incisive analysis, there was very scant reportage on this remarkable event. As his title suggests, a considerable focus of the summit was the promotion of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, more formally known as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN formally unveiled this master plan for humanity, comprised of 17 SDGs and 169 specific “targets,” in September 2015, with the publication of its manifesto entitled Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (For more information about this planned transformation to global governance using sustainability as a pretext, see Alex Newman’s article online at TheNewAmerican.com.)

As to be expected, the globalist choir, including the supposed watchdogs of the Fourth Estate, generally greeted the proposed Agenda 2030/SDG program with hearty huzzahs and applause. No negative words for an agenda of global central planning and micromanagement by bureaucrats. No media protests against the fact that this scheme was confected by the UN with the help of blood-drenched communist and Islamist regimes, along with oppressive authoritarian governments and anti-freedom NGOs.

Photo credit: AP Images

This article appears in the April 8, 2019, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.

Communist Professor Charged With Attempting To Torch St. Patrick’s Cathedral In New York City.

12416150-6934767-St_Patrick_s_Cathedral_which_was_built_in_1878_has_installed_a_s-a-69_1555608334828

After Notre-Dame, Professor Charged With Attempting to Torch St. Patrick’s Cathedral

thenewamerican.com

Written by Selwyn Duke

April 19, 2019

In yet another episode of academics behaving badly, a college professor walked into New York City’s iconic St. Patrick’s Cathedral while carrying gasoline, lighter fluid, and lighters — in an apparent arson attempt — just two days after the shocking fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris.

“Marc Lamparello, 37, of New Jersey, entered the historic Midtown church about 8 p.m. [Wednesday] with the flammable paraphernalia, but was quickly intercepted by church security, law enforcement sources said,” reports the New York Post. “He turned around, but spilled some gas in the process, prompting the guards to alert counter-terrorism cops stationed outside the church.”

The paper continued, “When questioned, Lamparello claimed he was simply cutting through the church to get to Madison Avenue because his van, which was parked outside on Fifth Avenue, ran out of gas, NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller said at a press conference outside St. Pat’s Wednesday night.”

Of course, this claim is problematic when your vehicle isn’t actually out of fuel, which Lamparello’s mini-van wasn’t. Moreover, his “‘answers were inconsistent and evasive, although he remained conversational with them [the authorities] and cooperative,’ Miller said,” the Post further reports.

Miller also stated, writes the paper, “I think the totality of circumstances of [an] individual walking into an iconic location like St. Patrick’s Cathedral carrying over four gallons of gasoline, two bottles of lighter fluid and lighters is something that we would have great concern over.” Yes, well, unless he was just trying to ensure his votive candle’s successful lighting, I’d say so.

Lamparello was arrested and charged with attempted arson and reckless endangerment. Miller explained that “surveillance camera footage showed Lamparello circling St. Patrick’s several times in a minivan well over an hour before he parked outside the cathedral on Fifth Avenue, walked around the area, returned to his vehicle, and retrieved the gasoline and lighter fluid,” Fox News informs.

It also emerged that he was just arrested Monday at a different church, the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, New Jersey, for refusing to leave after a late Mass.

What will surprise some but not others is that Lamparello is a college professor, having worked part-time as an online instructor at Lehman College in the Bronx and as an adjunct instructor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey. He also was teaching a class at Brooklyn College as part of his requirement as a Ph.D. student.

Given the level of competency Lamparello displayed at St. Patrick’s, it’s no surprise learning that his field of study isn’t criminology, but philosophy (and Aquinas he’s not). Unfortunately, his intent also won’t surprise astute observers, as misbehaving academics are legion. Here’s a short list:

• Professor Melissa Click was fired by the University of Missouri in 2015 after a student journalist pressed assault charges. Among other things, she told a mob that she needed some “muscle” to help her strong-arm the journalist. Don’t feel too sorry for her, though — she was hired to teach the next year by Washington’s Gonzaga University.

• College of Southern Nevada sociology professor Mark Bird was brought up on multiple charges last year after bringing a gun on campus and shooting himself to protest President Trump. It sounds like the sociologist needs a psychologist.

• That is, unless it’s Millikin University psychology Professor James St. James, former head of the institution’s Behavioral Science Department. It was revealed in 2013 that the pony-tailed academic had murdered his entire family in 1967, but spent only six years in a mental asylum after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Apparently, though, he was still sane enough for academia.

• University of Alabama professor Amy Bishop, who had a history of volatile behavior, shot six colleagues in 2010. She, too, had a unique way of settling family squabbles: She’d shot her 18-year-old brother to death in 1986.

• Charles Johnston, a psychology professor at Harper College in Palatine, Illinois, was charged with attempted murder last year after shooting at truck drivers and police in Iowa.

The above just scratches the surface. Then there’s the endless list of academics who utter comments (usually on Twitter) such as:

• It’s “a privilege to teach future dead cops”;

• “Hurricane Harvey was karmic payback for Republican-voting Texans”;

• “Trump must hang”;

• The president should be shot;

• The late Barbara Bush was an “amazing racist who…raised a war criminal” (posted just after Mrs. Bush’s death);

• “F— your life!” (shouted at a student);

• Some “white people may have to die for black communities to be made whole”; and

• “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”

None of this will surprise an ex-Ivy League professor-turned-editor I know — he once told me that academics are “wretched” people (I believe it’s one of the reasons he left academia).

What’s the explanation? Well, note that a 2016 study confirmed what most already knew: Academia is a leftist bastion in which liberals outnumber conservatives almost 12 to 1 — and this imbalance is getting worse, too.

This is relevant because, as the Daily Mail reported in a 2008 article, “Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.” This thesis can be informally tested here, by the way. Just try to determine how many of the misbehaving academics are not leftists. Wanna’ bet the number is smaller than 1 in 12?

Anyway, defending her actions, Melissa “Muscle” Click stated in 2016 that there “was no reason to think I was doing something that wasn’t sanctioned by the university.” This is absolutely believable and is why we shouldn’t assume that Marc Lamparello won’t yet get the chance to mold young minds. After all, attempted arson may not be actual murder, but they both appear to be résumé enhancers on today’s college campus.

Twelve French Churches Attacked, Vandalized In One Week In France. But Notre Dame Fire Just A Accident?

12346716-0-image-m-23_1555424083828

Saint-Sulpice church in Paris on fire on March 17. Alice Weidel linked this blaze to the Notre Dame fire despite investigators believing the latest incident was an accident

breitbart.com
THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.

20 Mar 2019

A dozen Catholic churches have been desecrated across France over the period of one week in an egregious case of anti-Christian vandalism.

The recent spate of church profanations has puzzled both police and ecclesiastical leaders, who have mostly remained silent as the violations have spread up and down France.

Last Sunday, marauders set fire to the church of Saint-Sulpice — one of Paris’ largest and most important churches — shortly after the twelve-o’clock Mass.

Police have concluded that the fire was the result of arson and are now looking for possible suspects. The restoration of the church from the damage caused by the fire will reportedly cost several hundred million euros.

In Nimes (department of the Gard), near the border with Spain, the church of Notre-Dame des Enfants was desecrated in a particularly odious way, with vandals painting a cross with human excrement, looting the main altar and the tabernacle, and stealing the consecrated hosts, which were discovered later among piles of garbage.

Likewise, the church of Notre-Dame in Dijon, in the east of the country, suffered the sacking of the high altar and the hosts were also taken from the tabernacle, scattered on the ground, and trampled.

In Lavaur, in the southern department of the Tarn, the village church was assaulted by young men, who twisted one arm of a representation of the crucified Christ to make it appear that he was making an obscene gesture.

In the peripheries of Paris, in the department of Yvelines, several churches have suffered profanations of varying importance, in Maisons-Laffitte and in Houilles.

Although commentators have been reluctant to attach a particular religious or cultural origin to the profanations, they all share an evident anti-Christian character.

In recent months, anti-Semitic gangs have desecrated Jewish cemeteries, signing their actions with swastikas. In the case of the desecration of Catholic churches, the vandalism has spoken for itself: ridicule of the figure of Christ on the cross and desecration of major altars.

The Catholic hierarchy has kept silent about the episodes, limited themselves to highlighting that anti-Christian threat and expressing hope that politicians and police will get to the bottom of the crimes.

Reports indicate that 80 percent of the desecration of places of worship in France concerns Christian churches and in the year 2018 this meant the profanation of an average of two Christian churches per day in France, even though these actions rarely make the headlines.

In 2018, the Ministry of the Interior recorded 541 anti-Semitic acts, 100 anti-Muslim acts, and 1063 anti-Christian acts.

« Older Entries