ISABEL VINCENT: OSAMA BIN LADEN ‘has close ties to some of the radical Muslim world’s strongest leaders and to sworn enemies of the United States, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ SEPTEMBER 12, 2001: BLACK’S NATIONAL POST


Saudi contractor’s son, radicalized in his youth, is world’s most wanted man

The West’s anger at yesterday’s horrible terrorist attacks raged against one man, Osama bin Laden – a shadowing Saudi-born militant who for the past five years has actively declared holy war against the United States from bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.

Bin Laden believes terror is his “heavenly decree,” and in the last few years, he has reportedly financed some of the most devastating terrorist attacks against U.S. installations.

Three years ago, he founded the International Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders, and is now one of the key backers of an army of thousands of Islamic fundamentalists willing to die in the jihad, or holy war, against the United States and its allies.

In addition to yesterday’s attacks in New York and Washington, bin Laden has been blamed for the 1996 terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia that resulted in the deaths of 19 U.S. soldiers and has been indicted in a U.S. court for his alleged role in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed 224 people.

Terrorism experts beleive he was behind last year’s attack on the USS Cole, an American warship stationed in Yemen, which killed 17 U.S. sailors.

He is also implicated in the December, 1992 attack on a Yemeni hotel that injured several tourists and in an assassination attempt on Hosni Mubarak, then the Egyptian president, in Ethiopia in June 1995.

Reacting to the U.S. embassy attacks in Africa three years ago, former U.S. president Bill Clinton called bin Laden “the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today.”

In retaliation for the bombings, the United States  then launched cruise missiles against terrorist objectives in Sudan and Afghanistan.

Terrorism experts believe militant Islamic regimes in Sudan and Afghanistan have been colluding with bin Laden for years to attack U.S. installations worldwide.

Over the past 20 years, both countries have been instrumental to bin Laden’s rise in the radical Islamist underground.

To thousands of fundamentalist Muslims around the world, bin Laden is a great hero who has bankrolled radical Muslim groups from Afghanistan to the Balkans to Chechnya.

He has paid for the training of thousands of young militant Muslims in camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has close ties to some of the radical Muslim world’s strongest leaders and to sworn enemies of the United States, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

In the West, he is public enemy number one — today, the world’s most wanted man.

“To date, bin Laden is the only terrorist leader to have formally declared a jihad – holy war – against the United States,” says Yossef Bodansky, a military analyst and the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.

“And he has done so numerous times since 1996, reinforcing his original call to arms with additional and more specific decrees as his theological and command authority has grown.”






WHO READS YESTERDAY’S PAPERS? National Post, September 12, 2001: ‘The West’s anger at yesterday’s horrible attacks raged against one man, Osama bin Laden,’ wrote Isabel Vincent under headline THE SUSPECTS: BIN LADEN BELIEVES TERROR IS HIS ‘HEAVENLY DECREE’

The Death Culture’s War Party newspapers had their suspect ‘SUSPECTS’ story prepared months before the shocking attacks, and right from the start they identified Osama as the main terrorist responsible for 9/11.

On September 12, 2001, Isabel Vincent, a New York Post reporter recently recruited by Conrad Black to his flagship warmongering Canadian Globalist newspaper, wrote a front page article under the full caps headline THE SUSPECTS: BIN LADEN BELIEVES TERROR IS HIS ‘HEAVENLY DECREE’.

A huge full colour photo of the CIA asset took up most of the frontpage D1 article, with the accompanying caption, ‘Osama bin Laden is shown in April, 1998, in Afghanistan.  The terrorist leader reportedly lives modestly in a cave in eastern Afghanistan with his four wives and some 15 children.’ 

Like most people in those dark days, I was in a state of shock when the news first broke, but I had the presence of mind to buy some of the papers for historical research later.

Doing a belated spring cleaning in our crawl space beneath our Rockland home, I have recently found the long-neglected boxes of yellowing old newspapers, and they are proving to be fascinating reading in this year, tens years after the fateful attacks.

I will be reposting some of the more questionable reports from those old papers in the following days, to show how the Death Culture manipulated all of the shocked Canadian people into accepting the BIGGEST LIE OF OUR TIME.

Gregory Paul Michael Hartnell, Historian

Concerned Citizen’s Coalition

Victoria, Vancouver Island

British Columbia, Canada

Silly Canadian Globalist socialist hawk Jack Harris, NDP’s shadow defence minister, wondered if we might call this “regime change.”

Jack Harris at Jack Layton Rally




The Commons: Getting the words right

by  on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:37pm – 13 Comments

So the House is almost entirely agreed. Colonel Gadhafi of Libya is an undesirable despot, guilty, it would seem, of various abuses and disgraces, likely up to and including crimes against humanity and thus, through some combination of diplomacy, humanitarian aid and bombs, he must be prevented from doing any further harm to the people of Libya, they who should be allowed to proceed soon enough to freedom and democracy.

Now, if only the House could agree on how best to describe the process by which this general notion might be made real.

“Our strategy is clear,” John Baird proclaimed this morning. “By applying steady and unrelenting military and diplomatic pressure while also delivering humanitarian assistance we can protect the civilian population, degrade the capabilities of the regime and create the conditions for a genuine political opening. At the same time we can bolster the capacity of the Libyan opposition to meet the challenges of post-Gadhafi Libya and to lay the foundations of a state based on the sovereignty of the people.”

On this, the Foreign Affairs Minister asked the House of Commons to endorse a three-and-a-half-month extension of Canada’s involvement in the NATO mission over and around Libya. And it was on the occasion of this request that Jack Harris, the NDP’s shadow defence minister, stood a short while later to wonder if we might call this “regime change.”

Reading from a recent edition of The Globe and Mail, Mr. Harris noted that Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian now leading NATO’s effort, had recently said that “regime change” was not his “job.” “Would the minister confirm that is in fact a correct position,” Mr. Harris asked, “and that is not the role of the military mission in Libya?”

For sure, the Minister would confirm as much, even as he explained why precisely a change in regimes was necessary. ”It goes without saying that at the political level, apart from military issues, all G8 leaders and most actors in the world believe Colonel Gadhafi must go,” Mr. Baird said. “There is a significant and real concern that as long as he holds political power in Libya, a vulnerable population, those seeking the rule of law, those seeking human rights, those seeking freedom and democracy will be at risk.”


I happened to watch the NDP members of Parliament voting in favour of the extension of the Libyan war on television as it was happening — a depressing sight when you know that Jack Layton and his advisers are fully aware that this conflict has nothing to do with humanitarianism and everything to do with imperialism.

The NDP tried to camouflage its loss of principle by making soft amendments that Harper had no problem with because they did nothing to alter the reality of our unjustifiable intervention in that country.

How it now intends to oppose the purchase of $30 billion worth of fighter bombers, designed for exactly this kind of adventure, is anyone’s guess.

The 70 per cent of Canadians who say they opposed the three-and-a-half month extension can be thankful to the Green Party’s Elizabeth May, who refused unanimous consent to the motion.

She was the only principled MP in the House on that day.


– Murray Dobbin @

PRO-LIFE PEACE DOC RON PAUL signs Susan B. Anthony List pro-life pledge… Bachmann, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Santorum also sign



Doctor Ron Paul, who has delivered more than 4,000 babies and never aborted a single one, is the American Peace Movement’s wisest candidate to stand as the Republican Party presidential candidate against the warmongering ‘pro-choice’ eugenicist Emperor Obushama.

Dr. Paul  just signed the pro-life pledge of the Susan B. Anthony List!

The Pro-Life Peace Doctor is consistent in his ethics, his principles and his voting record, a claim that certainly cannot be made for any of the other Republican Party candidates.

Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, also running for the GOP ticket, followed the good Doctor’s lead and also signed the pro-life pledge.

Mitt Romney, who has flip-flopped on this issue, but now claims to be pro-life, has not signed the pro-life pledge, saying it would stop federal funding to hospitals.

Mr. Romney’s inconsistency on this key issue, his continued defence of an expensive flawed public health care plan in Massachusetts for which he took credit, his bellicose language on war, and his Mormonism are all seen as impediments to his gaining the nomination.

Doctor Paul, on the other hand, just won yet another poll, as reported earlier this week at the CCC BLOG.

Canadian pro-life peace voters can help the good old American Peace Doctor by praying for his continued success in conveying his bullet-proof Revolutionary Constitutionalist ideas to his fellow citizens in the Republic.

Gregory Paul Michael Hartnell, Historian

Concerned Citizens’ Coalition

Victoria, Vancouver Island

British Columbia, Canada

The Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge: Who Will Lead for Life in 2012?

The Susan B. Anthony List’s 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge asks declared presidential candidates to commit to key pro-life goals if elected to the presidency in 2012. While this is by no means a complete list of all pro-life objectives, having a President that actively supports these pro-life aims will keep up the momentum to achieve our ultimate goal of ending abortion in this country. Click each candidates’ name to see their signed pledge.

Rep. Michele Bachmann Speaker Newt Gingrich Rep. Ron Paul Gov. Tim Pawlenty Sen. Rick Santorum

The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Herman Cain, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Mitt Romney.

Update: Following his announcement to run for president, Gov. Jon Huntsman has been asked to sign the pledge.

Stand up for Life! Will you take the 2012 Pro-Life Citizen’s Pledge?

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

CANADA’S SHAME: Fighter jets bomb Tripoli night and day

Canadian jet fighters join NATO raids on Tripoli, target armoured vehicles

OTTAWA—Canadian warplanes have bombed the Libyan capital of Tripoli, the military confirmed Thursday.

CF-18 jet fighters took part in four days of targeted strikes over last weekend, said Col. Alain Pelletier, who commands Canada’s air contingent in Italy.

Pelletier could not say whether any of the strikes came close to hitting Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. He said he doesn’t get day-to-day intelligence on the movements of particular people, but added bombing runs target command and control elements of Gadhafi’s forces.

“So we’re not targeting specific persons,” Pelletier said via telephone to a short briefing of journalists at Defence Department headquarters.

“I cannot say whether or not we got close to a specific person or not, unfortunately.”

The Canadian jets were involved in day and night raids on Tripoli, which has recently been the focus of more intense NATO bombing.

“When we’re talking of targets that are in the vicinity of populations, we’ve been actually targeting at night for some of them, and some others were actually targeted during the day,” Pelletier said. “All of the attacks were extremely successful using our laser guided weapons.”

Ron Paul explains why he is joining Dennis Kucinich in suing Obushama for his illegal war on Libya @ Texas Straight Talk

Ron Paul: Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.