LEFT FORUM FOLLIES

By

 

Zionists Demolish First Amendment

The Left Forum’s theme at its convention June 2-4, 2017 was:  The Resistance.  That group’s raison d’etre and self-description on its website was:

The Left Forum brings together national and international politics, people, ideas, and activism for a just, equitable, free, sustainable world beyond capitalism. 

Surprisingly, for what happened, the City University of New York (CUNY) helps manage the Forum, using its Graduate Center’s Department of Sociology.

Yet, the Convention proved a colossal failure.  It did not, repeat, not, bring together ideas and activism for any sort of just, free world.  In fact, it blocked ideas and speakers some anti-democrats didn’t like. Taken over by conspiracy-minded Zionists, the Forum canceled panels one Israelite opposed, violating  the most basic tenets of freedom of speech in the United States.  Simply put, “Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”  [U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut.  302 U.S. 319 (1937)] NB:  Cardozo was a Jew.)

What Happened?

CUNY’s creature rejected three panels outright and then canceled one previously-approved  panel on “Thought Crimes”.   Organized under the thematic track of “Deep State”, the panels were:

  • Political Correctness: The Dangers of Thought Crime Police
  • “Terrorism”: Fake Enemies, Fraudulent Wars
  • False Flags: Staged, Scripted, Mass Psy-Op Events
  • 9/11 Truth: Ground Zero for a Resistance Movement

What?  No?  That can’t be!

It happened.  It happened despite speakers’ vigorous denunciations of the Forum’s decision.  It happened despite appeals to the New York City Human Rights Commission.  It happened despite appeals to the New York City Mayor’s Office.

But Why Did It Happen?

It happened because a small-minded, remarkably arrogant Zionist, whose name may really be Spencer Sunshine, objected to some of the speakers.  Of no known address or employment, he wrote a series of scurrilous e-mails and a letter to the Left Forum Board:  Stanley Aronowitz (professor, City University of New York), Maria Carnemolla (Democracy at Work), Samantha Desire (Brooklyn-based organizer), Kristin Lawler (associate professor, College of Mount Saint Vincent), Rob Robinson (formerly homeless and now a member, US Human Rights Network), and Richard D. Wolff (visiting professor, New School University in New York).  Extremism really has strange bedfellows.

What Were Sunshine’s Issues?

He didn’t  like some of the speakers because they were Muslim.  He didn’t like some of the speakers because they were journalists.  He didn’t like some of the speakers because they were performance artists in Times Square. He also claimed many were “Holocaust Deniers”.  (One of the prospective speakers thus branded had apparently caused this by quoting remarks by retired South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an apartheid opponent.  And Israel is an apartheid entity.)  Other speakers which Sunshine had damned with his remarks were university professors.  Some were in fact, Jews themselves.  (Yet, NOT Zionists.)

But, did Sunshine produce any evidence?  Did Sunshine provide any facts?  Nope.  He didn’t have to.  In the United States, in the 21st Century, that’s not required when Zionists, acting on behalf of Israel, America’s oldest enemy and greatest debtor (Hausfrauleaks, December 29, 2015), charge “anti-Semitism” and  “Holocaust Denial”.  In a country with a working Constitution,  such blatant lies, such offensive behavior would be summarily dealt with.  But not in New York City in 2017.  Worse, our Ray of Sunshine got a Zionist newspaper, the Forward, to print more of his offensive lies.  True to type, the journal flatly refused to permit any of the goyim affected to rebut such vilification.

Sunshine himself might well be a Nakba Denier.  (Nakba is the Arabic word for catastrophe, referring to the Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948.)  Sunshine also might well be a libeler.  He certainly didn’t provide any proof or justification for his outrageous, untrue remarks, published without any sort of privilege.

…a libel per se is “any publication which exposes a person to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule, obloquy….or which has a tendency to injure such a person in his office, occupation, or business, or employment…  Briggs v. Brown, 55 Fla. 417, 46 So. 325, 330 (1908).

Someone (the inaptly-named Sunshine or a confederate?) organized a telephone hate campaign as well.  People who protested the Board’s censorship reported phone calls denouncing them as “Holocaust Deniers”.  One even received death threats.  Others were sufficiently intimidated that they spoke via Skype rather than in person.

How Did The Forum Justify This?

However, some might ask, what justification did the Forum’s Board of Directors provide for its banning of free speech?  Did the Board explain its actions?  Well, eventually, Marcus Grätsch, a German co-Director of the operation, asserted that the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, had threatened to pull out of the convention if the panels weren’t canceled.  (The organization is a Teutonic foundation named after the Communist Jew who helped plunge Germany into civil conflict following WWI.  Although headquartered in Berlin and affiliated with what’s left of the East German Communist Party [Die Linke, the Left], it has a New York office claiming to work with North American  progressives in universities, unions, social movements, progressive institutions, and think tanks.)  Yes, that’s correct.  The words come from the foundation’s website The organization also reportedly has ties to the neo-Nazis now ruling the Ukraine .

Miurabile dictu, despite this concatenation of crazies, the show did go on!!!

In a remarkable feat of mis-direction and cleverness, the organizers continued with the banned panels, stating they were running the “Left Out Forum”.  Expending US$1,500 of their own funds, they secretly rented a room at the Left Forum venue plus a backup location to permit Freedom of Speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.  To prevent further trouble by liberty-hating  Zionists, the exact location was embargoed until 9 a.m. June 4, one hour before the first panel took place.  Despite the secrecy and organized opposition, the Left Out Forum panels were well-attended, averaging about 40-70 guests per panel.  This compared well with other events in which this author participated.

The forbidden, prohibited panels also generated a remarkable level of scrutiny.  People at a table selling books dealing with the “Deep State” reported a constant swirl of John Jay College of Law security guards around them.  This writer, while sitting at the stand, was accosted by someone wearing “Gabe” on his name tag.  He asked if the author were a “Holocaust Denier”.  At the “Thought Police” panel in the “Left Out Forum”, a well-dressed man wearing a yarmulke turned up and took a seat.  After some minutes, he disappeared.  This seemed somewhat peculiar.  However, in dealing with Zionists, anything is possible.  They think differently.  In Israel, for example, many roads are reserved for Jews.  Palestinians are not permitted to travel on them.

What?

It’s a fact.  Here’s a quote from B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:

Israel’s restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement in the West Bank are enforced by a system of fixed checkpoints, surprise flying checkpoints, physical obstructions, roads on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel, and gates along the Separation Barrier. The restrictions enable Israel to control Palestinian movement throughout the West Bank as suits its interests, in a sweeping breach of Palestinians’ rights.

What happened to the Left Out Forum is really only a difference in degree from Zionist action in Occupied Palestine.

Now, we all know that New York is a strange place filled with far too many strange people.  And they seem to gravitate towards positions of authority.  But, how should Progressives deal with them?

If This Happens Again?

In this writer’s opinion, the proper option is to strike back at the first attempt by extremists to restrict freedom of speech.  File a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights–and publicize it.  Send copies to newspapers within New York and outside.  Stage a demonstration at the Mayor’s Office.  File a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In doing so, it’s also important to take the Left Forum to task for its blinders.  One banned panelist suggested that the organization increase its focus on more immediate issues.  He gave examples such as false claims of terrorism and support for endless war, handy to divide the opposition and persuade it to accept loss of civil rights in the name of security.  This also justifies attacks on civilians and allows authoritarians to push their agendas.   Think about 16 years of wholesale murder of Muslims by good, practicing Christians.  He noted that the Left Forum wouldn’t or couldn’t focus on Israel’s terrorist actions.

Untouched Speakers

What the Forum did focus on was selective complaints, attacking some but ignoring others.

Our little shaft of Sunshine didn’t object to Miko Peled, the Israeli-American who writes about and speaks out against Israeli discrimination against Palestinians.  Yet, he was a speaker on the Forum’s permitted panel, “A Single Democracy in Palestine”.  Nor did Sunshine spread his rays over Allison Weir, a speaker on the allowed panel “Deep State 2.0:  Against Anti-Semitism But Critical of Zionism”.  Why not?  They’re both people the Israelites love to hate.  However, they have a vast national and international following.  They have websites and go on public speaking tours all over the United States.  The Zios, in this writer’s opinion, knew that Peled and Weir, if attacked, have sharp teeth and could bite hard.  The Left Out Forum organizers were local activists who recruited an international assembly of knowledgeable speakers.  They didn’t have deep pockets, their own far-reaching website, or thousands of followers.  They were easy targets.

And did the Zionists, by their denial of free speech engender greater love for Israel?  Did they demonstrate that they were true Jews who faithfully followed their religion?  According to the BBC:

A religious Jew tries to bring holiness into everything they do, by doing it as an act that praises God, and honours everything God has done. For such a person the whole of their life becomes an act of worship…

Judaism is a faith of action and Jews believe people should be judged not so much by the intellectual content of their beliefs, but by the way they live their faith – by how much they contribute to the overall holiness of the world.

Maybe, it’s all in how you define worship and describe holiness.

SURRENDER, DOROTHY!!!

By

            On Sunday, September 25, we attended a program at American University’s Kay Chapel, held in conjunction with the No War 2016:  Real Security Without Terrorism conference.  The event, the 14th annual Sam Adams Associates Award for Integrity in Intelligence (surely a misprint), went to John to Kiriakou.  He received a candle and candlestick holder for shining his light into dark corners of knowledge.            Kiriakou, best known for being jailed after confirming that the United States used torture as an instrument of foreign policy, recently completed 30 months in prison for telling a known truth.  Most intelligence officers do that only after they are retired and drawing fat pensions.Preface            The speakers were somewhat surreal, in keeping with an earlier event of about 15 rather elderly people, one of whom used a walker.  The group had been planning its arrest at the Pentagon in an upcoming action protesting war.  They were meeting an unknown number of people, sans banners and attorneys, at the end of a bus line.             Those talking at the Sam Adams ceremony included equally odd individuals such as Lawrence B. “Larry” Wilkerson (Col., USA, retired), former chief of staff to former General/Sectary of State Colin Powell and a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy; Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst who later moved to the State Department’s Office of Counter-Terrorism; and Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases.            During our research for the publication Visas for Al Qaeda:  CIA Handouts That Rocked The World, we had contacted the foregoing gentlemen about research for the book.  All professed absolutely no knowledge of American government involvement in recruiting, training, and supporting terrorists (despite numerous articles even in the administration’s house organ, The Washington Post).  After the awards ceremony, we had the opportunity to brace Wilkerson and Johnson, handing each our business card showing Visas for Al Qaeda and its website.  In summarizing the book, we noted, in our conversations, that each had previously told us that they knew nothing about the work’s concept, and that the book’s theme was alien to them.  Again, after being told this, mirabile dictu, they repeated their prior remarks, saying that they knew naught of the subject.THE PROGRAMElizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East (and CIA analyst) organized the event.  All the speakers bashed the United States of America for engaging in murder, war crimes, and human rights violations around the world while attacking those few who dared question such actions. Nearly all forcefully noted that American civil liberties, once guaranteed by the Constitution, have been severely eroded, if not abolished by the “War on Terror”.  The mostly grey-haired audience cheered lustily and gave the honoree, John Kiriakou, a standing ovation.Ray McGovern             Ray McGovern, a retired CIA official turned activist and member of the tightly-knit Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), led off by praising former president John F. Kennedy’s arms control speech at American University.  He noted that Ann Wright, former Colonel, USA, was on the Women’s Boat to Gaza, in an effort to oppose the blockade against the Palestinian people of Gaza.  This brought great applause.              Continuing, McGovern added that many previous Adams awardees had been jailed or exiled.  These included, he said, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden.  Additionally, he told the audience that the first award, delivered at “an undisclosed location”, had gone to Coleen Rowley, at the time an FBI Special Agent.  (She had written a 13-page letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller accusing FBI headquarters of hampering the investigation into the alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. She said officials at FBI headquarters had resisted seeking search warrants and admonished agents who sought help from the CIA.)            Commenting on the current state of affairs, McGovern said that they had intended to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015, but that the American government had preempted them with the 2013 passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDA).  According to McGovern, that Act had stripped U.S. citizens of their civil liberties, replacing them with only those rights which the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces allows.            Introducing the next speaker, Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, McGovern asserted that Murray had said he would rather die than see someone tortured.Craig Murray            The former ambassador, an earlier Adams awardee, had lost his position because of his reporting on torture, inter alia alerting Tony Blair, British prime minister and American president George W. Bush, that U.K. and U.S. counter-terrorist allies in Uzbekistan were boiling dissidents alive.                    Murray, to whom the U.S. State Department had denied a visa waiver, observed that people who question intelligence findings are often severely punished while those who “go with the flow” are rewarded and advance their careers.  He also remarked that the press does not tell the truth, using, as an example, a Guardian story about Julian Assange being “mostly lies”.             As part of the reason for his sacking, the former ambassador opined that the British government had charged him with 18 counts of trading visas for sex and driving a Land Rover down an internal staircase.            In later remarks, Ambassador Murray had said that 16,000 people had signed a petition to get him a visa and, upon his arrival in the U.S., to his great surprise, he had been whisked through the airport, despite his repeatedly saying “No” to U.S. government policy.             Offering more opinions on American actions, he characterized former Brigadier General Janis Karpinski USA as another truth-teller about the Abu Ghraib military prison, noting that her career had essentially ended when George W. Bush had her charged with shoplifting.  He added that Bush had reduced her in rank to colonel after reports surfaced that she, as commander at Abu Ghraib, had followed orders allowing prisoner torture.            Additionally, the former ambassador asserted that no one in charge of any department in the U.K. government had been opposed to the war against Iraq.  He did comment that, yes, it’s an awful situation today but there are people still out there who are beginning to question governmental actions.            [Afterwards, we asked Murray how he eventually got his visa, but he had no answer for us.  He did observe that it would have been something to see him driving a Land Rover down a flight of stairs inside the embassy building.  Given his problems in getting to the United States, Murray wondered if he would have difficulty re-entering the United Kingdom following his U.S. visit.]Thomas Drake            Drake had been a former senior executive at the National Security Agency (NSA) who had questioned illegal activities, waste and mismanagement there.  Consequently, the government  targeted him for prosecution.             Observing that September 11, 2001 was his first day on the job at the NSA, he added that, following that date, “the wheels came off our form of government”.  He said that that administration had transformed itself into one for which he had not sworn an oath to protect and defend.  In fact, he added, he is now opposed to this sort of rule.            Continuing, he opined that, after September 11,  former vice president Dick Cheney had “gone over to the Dark Side” and that Cofer Black, former CIA official and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism, had said “the gloves are coming off”.  This resulted, Drake commented, in secret orders as well as presidential “findings” and directives for mass surveillance and torture.  Drake added that the CIA had offered John Kiriakou torture training but that he had refused it.            Touching on how adherence to the law blights careers, Drake said that those who organized and operated these illegal, unconstitutional agendas were protected and promoted.  However, he noted that Kiriakou who revealed those programs, had been severely prosecuted.  Essentially, Drake commented, a state that cannot expose war crimes becomes a criminal entity itself.            The former government executive added that the NSA’s new Utah facility could listen to all American citizens’ telephone calls for the next 500 years.  (He didn’t say a word about the U.S. government’s inability or unwillingness to find and prosecute the people who violate the Federal Communications Commission’s “Do Not Call List”.  Nor did he touch on the possibility that the NSA itself is the originator of these calls.)Lawrence B. Wilkerson            Opening his remarks, former colonel Wilkerson alleged a split between President Barack H. Obama (D-Ill.) and the armed forces, claiming that the military was more militant than the president in seeking to deal with Syria (a point diametrically opposed to the substantive evidence set forth in Visas for Al Qaeda:  CIA Handouts That Rocked The World).            Wilkerson commented that American policy in Southwest Asia was a disaster.  He observed that there was a displaced Iraqi family in every Jordanian home.  Furthermore, he said, Syrian refugees are now knocking on doors of private houses in the Hashemite Kingdom.            Noting that 53% of the U.S. people support torture, especially when it is presented as a necessity, Wilkerson stated that this concept had been explicitly ruled out when the U.S. government ratified the UN Convention Against Torture.             Jumping to those rewarded for wrong decisions or bad decisions, the former colonel observed that those who did so, particularly those who asserted that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, “turned your stomach”.Larry Johnson            Beginning with comments about American football, the former CIA and State Department official traced the politicization of intelligence back to the Vietnam war.  Then, he said, President Lyndon Johnson (D-Tex.) had wanted to know why those who were reporting on the failure of the war “didn’t get with the program”.  Speaker Johnson explained that he and others didn’t come forward about this because they had good jobs and children in college.  They felt they had too much to lose by standing up to the government.                         Johnson suggested that American college students, in preparation for careers in government or who sought to understand reality, should read Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), Kurt Vonnegut’s bizarre books, and the works of Franz Kafka, the Czech writer who produced The Trial (about a man forced to defend himself in a hopeless court system against a crime that is never revealed to him or to the reader).  The speaker further noted that if you want an account of the real world, don’t look to Washington as a source of information.            Finally, Johnson asserted that John Kiriakou initially did not believe that the system was rigged and that people who supported the law would be rewarded.Philip Giraldi            (Like Wilkerson and Johnson, we had contacted him while researching our book, but he had professed ignorance of any American government support for terrorism.  We did not reach him for comment after the program.)            According to Giraldi, the CIA’s motto is “we do what you want”.  He added that the Agency is an illegal organization that steals and kills.  Furthermore, its members do not worry because what they do is good for their careers.  In fact, he said, some CIA staff never understand what is going on.  Their view, he opined, is “we’re the good guys.”  Giraldi told the group that his personal breaking point had come when agents he had recruited in Asia were executed by their government because of a Washington, D.C. mistake.Elizabeth Murray            The “other” Murray,  a former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council and a retired CIA political analyst, spoke for a few minutes.  The organizer of the event, Murray commented that the CIA had also fired Kiriakou’s wife, Heather, presumably because of guilt by association.  She added that we are all civil servants and under an obligation to tell the truth to the American people.  Unsurprisingly, Murray criticized Barack H. Obama (D-Ill.) for his attacks on truth-tellers.            The ceremony concluded with the award of the candle and candlestick to John Kiriakou, with an expression of praise for Diane Feinstein (D-Cal.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who, it was claimed, had supported the former CIA official.  (The group did not mention Feinstein’s backing the “wrist slap” punishment for retired Army general David Petraeus who had leaked highly-classified material to his mistress.  The group also omitted any discussion of Feinstein’s support for the “no fly, no buy” list, where anyone secretly prevented from flying by a Terrorist Screening Center could not buy firearms.  “Due Process” is evidently not a right guaranteed by Feinstein’s version of the Constitution.)
 

28 PAGES LATER…

By

In 2002, a Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigated U.S. intelligence service failures leading to the September 11, 2001 “terrorist” attacks.  The Congressional report totaled 836 pages, of which the final chapter — 28 pages in length — was and still is completely classified. For over a decade, family members of the 9/11 victims, the co-chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation itself former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), a majority          of the members of the 9/11 Commission and other individuals and organizations have urged declassification of these pages, arguing that what is known about them from members of Congress who have read them and gone public indicates that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and possibly also Israel are named as having been involved in organizing, financing and protecting at least some of the “hijackers” of the September 11 plot.  High level calls for  the declassification and release of the 28 pages took a quantum leap on April 10, 2016, with a special edition of CBS News’ award-winning investigative journalism program 60 Minutes dedicated to the topic as well as Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the longest-serving Democrat on the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, calling for their release in an official statement. However, no American politician wants to bell the cat. And few influential citizens do, either. The cries we hear are for President Barack Obama to “declassify” the 28 Pages, and before leaving for his recent trip to Saudi Arabia he did say that he “favored” their release. Unspoken in this statement, however, are two important facts:1) if the pages from an executive branch document, President Obama himself is the highest declassification authority in the executive branch and could – and should – declassify and release them immediately; but                    2) the pages are part of a Congressional branch document and so are “owned” by Congress, which has the sole authority to declassify and release them, which has been unequivocally stated in writing on CIA letterhead; and as Congress as a body has delegated such decisions to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the very Committees who wrote the report containing the 28 Pages have the sole authority to declassify and release them at any time – and the president, as the head of the executive branch, does not.  The executive and congressional branches are therefore playing a cynical game of ‘good fed, bad fed’ with the 9/11 victims’ family members and the American people. But even if President Obama had the authority to declassify and release the 28 pages, we don’t believe he would do so.  Campaigning on ending the war in Iraq, he has, instead, continued it.  He has also warred against Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and, by Saudi proxy, Yemen.  So, there is little reason to expect that he will let American citizens and the world see how he and the George W. Bush administration have protected countries which have supported international terrorism.BUT … There really is a better way, and one that Congress has used before.           1.  Senators and Representatives can read the contents of the 28 Pages in camera in the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) and then openly recite from memory and discus their contents and meaning on the floor of either House.  In 1971, then-Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) placed 4,100 of the 7,000 pages of The Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, partially by reading from some of them on the Senate Floor and, later, by inserting the remainder through an aide into the record of a meeting of his Senate Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds.  (The Pentagon Papers was the informal name given to a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.)           There is constitutional and legal justification for this.2.  Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.  [emphasis added]              3.  In ­Gravel v. United States, 408 US 606 (1972), the U. S. Supreme Court rejected the executive branch’s argument and those of lower courts that Senator Gravel and his aides     had broken the law.  In upholding the immunity of members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause, the court clearly stated that the clause “… was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer —either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution—for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.”   And, in fact, for almost a year now former Senator Mike Gravel has been calling for just one courageous member of Congress to step forward and become “The Mike Gravel for the 28 Pages.”  He has personally meeting with Representatives and Senators who have already read the pages asking them to step forward and do what he did, and has sent a law review article detailing how Gravel v. United States and the multiple subsequent court rulings upholding it continue to ensure members of Congress near-absolute immunity should they recite from memory what they have read of the 28 pages on the floor of the House or the Senate.It’s time to end the “good fed, bad fed” game that’s been going for almost 15 years over whether to, and who can, declassify the 28 pages of the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the Sept. 11 attacks.  Let’s not hear any more calls to “Let George do it” — for the President to declassify the pages which he doesn’t have the authority to do.  Let’s have Rep. Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Rand Paul or any other member of Congress read the 28 Pages and summarize them from memory on the floor of either House into the Congressional Record. Let’s finally hear some common sense, truth and wisdom from the courageous member of Congress who steps forward to be “The Mike Gravel for the 28 Pages”.  Biographic Note: ***J. Michael Springmann served in the United States government as a diplomat with the State Department’s Foreign Service, with postings in Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. He left federal service and currently practices law in the Washington, DC, area.Springmann has been published in numerous foreign policy publications, including Covert Action Quarterly, Unclassified, Global Outlook, the Public Record, OpEdNews, and Foreign Policy Journal. He holds a JD from American University, in Washington, DC, as well as undergraduate and graduate degrees in international relations from Georgetown University and the Catholic University of America. In 2004, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee recognized Springmann as one of its Pro Bono Attorneys of the Year.***Barbara Honegger is a leading researcher, author and public speaker on the 9/11 Pentagon attack and the anthrax attacks.She has served in high-level positions in the U.S. Federal Government, including White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President.From 2000 to 2011, Ms. Honegger served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the premiere science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense.Ms. Honegger has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree from Stanford University; a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Experimental Psychology from John F. Kennedy University; and Masters level certification in National Security Decision-making from the Naval War College, all in the U.S.

TURKEY: ONCE A HOLIDAY MEAL, NOW A TERRORIST STATE

By

About 1990, when I was assigned to the CIA’s Jeddah consulate, I visited Istanbul.  Always on the lookout for a new, interesting post, I stopped by the American consulate general there, and spoke briefly with the Economic/Commercial Officer.  She told me that Turkey was on the verge of Europe, on the verge of industrialization, and on the verge of democracy.

Now, things have changed radically, even though Turkey is still on the verge.  But the verge, this time, encompasses terrorism, fanaticism, and repression–not to mention delusions of grandeur, all thanks to its President, Recep Ergdoğan.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is turning into the King Lear of the Near East. In his 1,000-room White Palace he rants against his enemies while his realm, living through Lear’s “dark and comfortless times”, tears itself apart with war, strife and recrimination. Easy to forget that five years ago Barack Obama described Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey as “a great Islamic democracy” and later viewed it as a model for countries struggling to emerge from the Arab Spring. (Roger Boyes, The Times (of London); “Sick man of Europe could infect the West”; October 14, 2015.)

But, Erdoğan seems centered on becoming a regional partner of the United States and its President, Barack Obama. His goal is rebuilding the former Ottoman empire through murder, war crimes, and human rights violations, not to mention brinkmanship threatening general war.  In the past:

The Ottoman state had reached its zenith in the 16th century with its territories spanning three continents stretching from Hungary to the Persian Gulf and from North Africa to the Caucasus; but by the late 19th century it had weakened considerably, as attempts to transform the empire into a modern state, similar to the European ones, were doomed to failure. (http://www.turkeyswar.com/prelude/sickmanofeurope.html).

That country’s inability to adapt and progress led the Russian Tsar, Nicholas, to comment that Turkey was “sick”.

The “sick man of Europe” is still sick, especially internally.

According to Cultural Survival (https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/turkey/kurdish-repression-turkey), “Since World War I, Kurds in Turkey have been the victims of persistent assaults on their ethnic, cultural, religious identity and economic and political status by successive Turkish governments. Nowhere is their future more threatened than in Turkey where Kurds are one quarter of the population.”

Yet, when Turks seek to redress this repression, the highly-undemocratic government strikes back.  This is especially true of Recep Erdoğan’s authoritarianism.  As the Gatestone Institute noted February 14, 2016:

On January 11, 2016, a group of academics and researchers from Turkey and abroad called “Academics for Peace” signed and issued a declaration entitled, “We will not be a party to this crime.” In it, they criticized the Turkish government for its recent curfews and massacres in Kurdish districts, and demanded an end to violence against Kurds and a return to peace talks.

“We declare that we will not be a party to this massacre by remaining silent and demand an immediate end to the violence perpetrated by the state,” the declaration said.

In total, 2212 academics and researchers from Turkey, and 2279 from abroad, signed their names onto the declaration.

Erdoğan’s response?

Unfortunately, those fake intellectuals say that the state is carrying out a massacre. Hey you, fake intellectuals! You are dark people. You are not enlightened. You are dark and ignorant to the point that you do not even know where the southeastern or eastern regions are [in Turkey].

Today we are faced with the treason of the so-called intellectuals, most of whom get their salaries from the state and carry the ID card of this state in their pockets.

You are either by the side of the nation and the state or by the side of the terrorist organization. We will not get permission from those so-called academics. They should know their place.

So:

·         The Turkish state authorities have made it clear that calling for an end to state violence in Turkey’s Kurdish regions is “treason.” This means that in Turkey, requesting peace and political equality between Kurds and Turks is illegal.

·         The 1128 original signatories of the “Academics for Peace” declaration have been subjected to sustained attacks and threats from the Turkish government and nationalist groups. In the week after the publication of the declaration, at least 33 academics were detained by police. Some have lost their jobs. Associate Professor Battal Odabasi from Istanbul Aydin University, for instance, was fired for supporting the petition. At least 29 academics have been suspended from their jobs at universities.

Let’s hope that Erdoğan’s efforts to repress its large Kurdish population, attack Syria, and threaten war with Russia fail miserably. However, at the moment, the truncated Ottoman empire is working hard on a comeback, the same way it originally established its hegemony in the Middle East—by force.

 In the past, Turkey had worked with the United States to destabilize Yugoslavia, and is now laboring hand in glove with America to support ISIL, sponsoring sectarian violence in Iraq while contributing thousands of fighters to the ongoing conflict there.  It provided a locale for American officials to meet with Syrian and Libyan terrorists seeking the destruction of Bashar al-Assad’s government in the Syrian Arab Republic.  Simultaneously, Turkey aided the movement of surface-to-air missiles and other offensive weapons out of Libya and into Syria.  Besides assisting arms transfers from Croatia to Syria, Turkey also helped coordinate support for the extremists who sought to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi in Libya.  On June 15, 2013, SANA (Syrian Arab News Agency) reported Bulent Esinoglu, Deputy Chairman of Turkey’s Labor Party, as saying that the CIA had recruited six thousand Arabs, Afghans, and Turks to commit terrorist acts in Syria.  (Cf. J. Michael Springmann, Visas for Al Qaeda:  CIA Handouts That Rocked The World, Washington, D.C.:  Daena Publications LLC, 2014, passim).


The Turks seem to rely on their membership in NATO (since October 1951) for outrageous military actions.  These have included shooting down a Russian warplane, shelling Syrian army positions, attacking Kurds in Syria and Iraq, violating Greek airspace 2,000 times in 2014, and invading Cyprus in 1974.  Erdoğan and his fundamentalist government apparently believe that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which obligates its signatories to regard an attack on one member as an attack on all, shields them from any response to any Anatolian act of aggression.


They have support for this fantasy.  According to PRESSTV December 1, 2015:  US President Barack Obama says everyone should know that Turkey is a member of the NATO military alliance, after Ankara shot down a Russian jet in Syria.
           

Yet, in 2010, when Israel attacked Turkish ships and murdered Turkish citizens seeking to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, Ankara, with Erdoğan as Prime Minister, did nothing.  It refused to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
           

What’s changed since then?
           

Turkey has become a religious state which has allied itself with radical Wahhabis and Salafists from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.  This was the doing of Recep Ergdoğan.  According to Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan, in his blog Informed Comment (December 15, 2015):


But in summer of 2013, Erdogan revealed that he was abandoning appeals to pluralism. The AKP [the ruling “Justice and Development Party”] Istanbul and Ankara provincial branches cracked down hard on the youth protests over plans to turn Gezi Park into a Muslim mall. The government clearly intimidated the Turkish press into not covering the protests or only covering them negatively. The “democracy” being built by the AKP was revealed to be an elective dictatorship…
 
After the AKP’s losing seats in an election in June 2015, Cole continued
Erdogan responded to this relative defeat with his old divide and rule policy. But this time he did not engage in a positive, inclusive divide and rule strategy. He went negative. He started back up a hot conflict with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a guerrilla group with separatist leanings that had established safe havens on the Iraq side of the border…
 
Erdogan’s negative divide and rule has brought Turkey to the brink of chaos. A hot war with the PKK is ongoing. HDP offices have been bombed. The Syria proxy war, supporting hard line fundamentalists allied with al-Qaeda versus Russian-backed forces, is ongoing. Press freedom, always precarious, has evaporated. A Russian economic boycott is being imposed…
 
Yet, the situation under Erdoğan is closing in on regional war.
           

Not content to indirectly support radicals in Syria, Turkey has raised the stakes.  According to the Washington Post of February 14, 2016, Erdoğan will send ground forces into its former colony and will permit Saudi airstrikes against supposed “militants” there using the Turkish base at Incirlik, near Adana.  (It’s located 70 miles, ca. 112 km., from the Syrian frontier and 100 miles, ca. 161 km., from the Russian base at Latakia.)

This comes after …Turkey has allowed ISIS to ship oil from northern Syria into Turkey for sale on the global market, thus providing a major source of continuing revenue for the terrorist movement.  Moscow has charged that the reason Turkey shot down the Russian plane is because Russia’s military actions in Syria were disrupting the oil flow, and that accusation may well be accurate.  Indeed, evidence has emerged that Erdogan’s son is involved in the illicit oil commerce.  (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/it-time-expel-turkey-nato-14518; December 4, 2015).
 
According to February 12, 2016’s 4thMedia.org, Moscow warned Thursday [the 11th] that any move by Gulf nations to send in troops to support the rebels in Syria would risk a “new world war.”
           

And that’s just the Middle East.
           

In the recent past, and most likely, the near future, Turkey worked (and will work) with the United States and its repressive allies in Southwest Asia, to flood Europe with alleged refugees.  These migrants, supposedly fleeing civil war in the Middle East (including many from elsewhere) have inflamed an entire continent.
           

As I noted in GlobalResearch.ca In the Wake of the Terrorist Attacks. Paris: The City of Light or the City of Darkness? (December 7, 2015):  While there had been a steady stream of migrants from North Africa, it wasn’t until early in 2015 that they moved in the hundreds of thousands to Europe–through Turkey, a NATO member. The cause was straightforward: the new Ottomans, failing to unseat Assad [Syria’s president] with weapons transfers from Libya along with cross-border raids by agents provocateurs, worked with the United States and its repressive allies in the region to fill Anatolia with Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, and many others. It then opened the floodgates. A simple stream became a deluge, one that even Noah and his Ark couldn’t handle. This flood came in waves, some Syrian, some from many other nationalities and ethnic groups. The rising tide began to cascade into the Balkans (which the U.S. and NATO had destroyed in the 1990s), then into Austria, and then into Germany. Turkey being Turkey, no Kurds were part of this river.
               
This produced the desired result in Europe:  total chaos.  The natives hated the invaders, denouncing them as Muslim zealots and sex-crazed fanatics.  The migrants hated the Europeans as being narrow-minded xenophobes and Islamomisiasts.  Europe had excluded Turkey from the EU for years.  Now, it was Turkey’s chance for revenge.  The obviously intended result?  Repression.  As I said in FEAR FURCHT VREES PEUR (Hausfrauleaks.com, January 1, 2016):

…one astute analyst of the European scene noted:

Immigration and integration politics, and confrontations with Muslim conservatives over education, women’s rights, and the relationship between the state and religion are likely to strengthen right-of-center political organizations and splinter the left-of-center political coalitions that were instrumental in building it.

And what will this lead to?  As that observer sagely added:

Germany’s national security is on the verge of collapse… [Expect] militarization of Germany in domestic and international domains as a result of this crisis and respective changes in German and anticipated EU changes in laws… [Look for] restriction of freedom of speech and hate speech laws, No-Go Zones, strictly enforced protest zones…. Europe moves to the political right in fear and attempted public self-defense, uncomfortably far to the right……[As the result of] the groups, individuals and motives behind the entire manufactured mass migration crisis…

COMMENT:  There are several obvious solutions, all of which take resolution, the ability to make unpopular choices, and the will to fight real terrorists.

1.      Throw Turkey out of NATO so that it can’t call on its Big Brother, Uncle Sam, to fight the enemies it provokes.

2.      Withdraw all U.S. and German forces from Turkey, leaving the Anatolians to their own devices.

3.      Establish a no-fly zone over the eastern third of Turkey, preventing the new Ottomans from inviting other repressive governments to use Anatolian airfields to attack Syria and other countries.

4.      Impose a UN peacekeeping force on Turkey to establish control of the country, taking it out of the hands of the AKP’s fanatics.

5.      Require Ankara to cede the eastern third of the country to the Kurds for their homeland.

A longer term goal would be to abolish NATO entirely.  Originally set up to counter the Warsaw Pact forces, it now has no reason to exist.  The Warsaw Pact and its sponsor, the USSR, have dissolved.

Whether the United States and the Europeans have the gumption to implement these solutions, does not appear in my crystal ball.

N.B.  The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the American Kurdish Information Network for background on Turkey and the Kurds.