Lying Zionist scum slaughter humanitarians, blame the victims

[Note: I will be appearing with Gilad Atzmon, who just wrote a terrific essay on the Free Gaza convoy massacre, and Jim Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, in London, UK, on July 14th, 6-9:30 PM, Friends House, Euston Road opposite Euston Station. Please spread the word! More details at Rediscover911. ]

The Israeli massacre of humanitarian aid workers in the Free Gaza convoy is shocking enough. But what is really shocking is the lies…and the way those lies are being parroted in the mainstream media.

Here is how CNN is reporting the event:

20 dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid convoy
(CNN) — Israeli commandos killed at least 10 people in pre-dawn raids on a flotilla of six ships carrying aid for the Palestinian territory of Gaza early Monday, the country’s military said.”During the incident the soldier’s lives were in danger,” said a statement from the Israel Defense Forces. “They were attacked with severe physical violence, including live fire, bold weapons, knives and clubs.”

Why do AMERICAN mainstream media trumpet even the most absurd Zionist propaganda? The short answer: Because, as Ariel Sharon said shortly after 9/11, “we Jews control America.” How? By dominating the media, political cash, and organized crime; and by maintaining a vast army of sayonim — American intelligence operatives sworn to work for the Israeli Mossad.

Actually it isn’t Jews per se who control America, but Zionist criminal billionaires and those they have brainwashed. Honest Jews, like next week’s radio guest Rabbi Weiss of Naturei Karta, know that Zionism is a criminal syndicate that violates the tenets of Judaism.

It’s time to face facts: America’s media is dominated by people loyal to a hostile foreign power–the power that attacked us on 9/11. Rather than whining about Middle Eastern news outlets that are telling the truth, maybe it’s time to re-establish American control over American media. If the Antitrust Department can’t do it, some day our military may have to. And if today’s escalating Israeli insanity is any indication, that day may come sooner than you think.

Jonathan Kay’s mendacious propaganda: Is this the only “argument” the anti-truthers have?

My old pal and radio guest Jonathan Kay is upset about Tuesday’s interview with Alan Hart, which has gone viral during the past 48 hours.

In a piece headlined The Canadian Charger Magazine honours another 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Kay offers a perfect example of the debating technique of pro-Zionists and anti-truthers: (1) call your opponents names, and (2) lie shamelessly.

Kay begins his piece by labeling Hart a “9/11 conspiracy theorist.”  In fact, anyone who thinks 9/11 was planned and carried out by more than one person must offer a theory about what is by definition a conspiracy. Therefore anyone who discusses responsibility for 9/11 is literally a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, this universal and thus completely empty term is often employed as an ad-hominem insult by those who have no rational or empirical arguments to back up their own conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs with box cutters and a guy in a cave on dialysis did 9/11. (Note: Even Alex “Oswald killed JFK” Cockburn is sick of this kind of anti-conspiracy-theory tripe.)

Kay also uses the ad hominem technique in labeling me a “truther.” While I might accurately be called a member of the 9/11 truth movement, I doubt that Kay would label another Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist professor with a different opinion on this issue an “anti-truther” or “official story apologist.” He is picking and choosing labels he thinks will be prejudicial–a classic use of the ad hominem fallacy.

After quoting my blog entry on the Alan Hart interview, Kay finishes his piece:

“Can someone please tell me why our human rights mandarins, who seem to have time to launch an investigation every time a Christian preacher writes a letter to the editor about homosexuality, give a free pass to Muslims and Marxists who blame the ‘Zionists’ for all the crimes known to humanity?”

Kay suggests that Hart (who is neither a Muslim nor a Marxist) and I (a non-Marxist Muslim) blame Zionists for all the crimes known to humanity. This is, of course, an outrageous lie. Neither Hart nor I have ever blamed Zionists for the U.S. slaughter of millions of Vietnamese, Pol Pot’s atrocities in Cambodia, the CIA’s torture-murder of a million Indonesians in the mid-1960s, the genocide of the Native Americans, the African slave trade holocaust…the list could go on until it included the vast majority of “crimes known to humanity” or at least to Hart and me.

Since Kay’s statement follows his quote from my blog entry about the Hart interview, he is implying that the evidence that Hart and I blame Zionists for all the crimes known to humanity is to be found in that quote. The specific crimes mentioned in that quote are, in order of appearance:

1) The Israeli massacre of U.S.S. Liberty crewmen in 1967.

2) 9/11

3) The “loose nukes” attempt to steal nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in August, 2007.

4) The ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

All historians agree that Zionists — meaning those actively attempting to create and maintain a Jewish state in Palestine —  are responsible for crimes 1 and 4.  As for crimes 2 and 3, there is very strong evidence for heavy Zionist involvement in crime 2, and enough circumstantial evidence to make the Cheney-Zionist cabal that did 9/11 prime suspects in crime 3.

Whether or not you agree with me about crimes 2 and 3, you must admit that neither Hart nor I have done anything remotely like “blaming ‘Zionists’ for all the crimes known to humanity.” Kay’s statement is a lie. A lie, used deliberately or recklessly in an attempt to denigrate a person, is called libel

Kay’s piece also seems Islamophobic. By pejoratively calling the Canadian Charger “the folks who brought you the Canadian Islamic Congress” Kay seems to be suggesting that there is something wrong with being “Islamic.” If a journalist for a major North American newspaper implied that the word “Jewish” is pejorative, by scorning “the folks who brought you the Canadian Jewish Congress,” would that not suggest anti-Semitism? So why are the rules different for things Islamic?

Kay’s fallacious, mendacious, seemingly-racist* piece ducks the real issue: Actual evidence for and against the proposition that 9/11 was a false-flag operation with heavy Zionist involvement. Most of the world’s Muslims think it was (as do a great many non-Muslim experts). Most of the world’s Jews, and those who get their information from Jewish-dominated media, disagree.

The way to settle this debate is by airing and arguing the facts — not by lying, spinning, waxing racist, and using ad hominem attacks.

* * *

*While Islam is a religion of all races, in North America, Islamophobia is a form of racism, because Muslims are viewed as brown-skinned foreigners.

Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: “Here’s what may have REALLY happened on 9/11”!

McFarland, WI 5/26/2010

Breaking his self-imposed rule against talking about 9/11, former Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author  Alan Hart described what he thinks may have really happened on that fateful day on yesterday’s Kevin Barrett show.

Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a Security Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured by a top-level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000 experts willing to go on the record with the same opinion, see

During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel’s record of engaging in outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)

Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.

Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself. 

When a warning this serious is delivered by a messenger with the stature of Alan Hart, the American people had better find a way around the news blackout imposed by the Zionist-dominated corporate and pseudo-alternative media. The only thing standing in the way of an Israeli false-flag nuclear attack on America, a disastrous US war on Iran, and a horrendous acceleration of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is the awareness of the American people. Please copy, post, and mass-email this story.

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters:

“Should I run for Congress” poll results tallied — and the winner is…

A huge thank-you to everyone who responded to my query, Should I run for Congress?  The results were a lopsided 60-23 victory for “yes” over “no” (with twenty or so that were neither yes nor no). More importantly, there were lots of good ideas and advice offered by folks on both sides.

Overall I think the “yes” voters had better arguments. Their best argument was that I should run in order to raise awareness of important, suppressed issues such as 9/11 truth. Anyone who runs for Congress gets a media platform, and I’m well-known in Wisconsin and would therefore get an even bigger platform than most 9/11 truth candidates can. This is critically important, because the traitors who run our mass media have learned the hard way that “any publicity is good publicity” for 9/11 truth — they tried bashing us in 2006 and it backfired, so they’ve retreated into full censorship mode, at least here in the USA. (Globally, the media is gradually opening up to 9/11 truth.) So forcing 9/11 truth into the media by any means necessary, short of the Unabomber method, is a huge plus for our movement.

Alongside 9/11 truth are the many other most-important-yet-suppressed issues, which boil down to the one big issue: The American political system, and much of the world system, have been subverted by an obscenely corrupt amalgamation of the New World Order financier elite, the military-industrial complex, and the Zionist lobby. It was these forces that pulled off 9/11; and they rig our elections, murder anyone who seriously stands in their way, and are intentionally dumbing down our people and destroying our economy in order to create a world of a few masters and a great many serfs.

While running for office as “infowar by other means” against these forces is laudable, I do think many “yes” voters overestimated my chances of winning the election. In fact, those chances are slim; since a victory by someone as outspoken as I am would present a serious problem for the NWO, they would mobilize their tremendous resources to prevent it. Here, the “no” voters were more realistic. But this does not detract from the value of running in order to call attention to critically important suppressed information.

My decision had to take into account not only this informal plebiscite, but also two other considerations: The fact that we already have an excellent pro-truth, anti-NWO District 3 candidate (Eric Sayward), and the feelings of my family members. After conducting what we Muslims call a “shura” or consultation with my family, I discovered that there is some resurgent ambivalence. Splitting the ambivalent votes in half, it came out to something like 3 to 1 or 2.5 to 1.5 in favor of running. That isn’t good enough. If I run, they get more stress and less of my time and energy. So,  learning from previous mistakes, I decided it would have to be a consensus decision. Since the consensus isn’t there, I’m not running.

I urge everyone who would have supported me to instead support two other 9/11 truth, anti-NWO candidates here in Wisconsin: Eric Sayward of We Are Change – Wisconsin  in District 3 and Mark Wollum eats_funny(at) in District 6.  I will be doing everything I can to support them, and any other candidates who share the commitment to spreading the truth and struggling for justice.

I apologize for not getting back to most of you who commented or emailed me about this issue; if you have a question you want personally answered, please (re)send it.


Kevin Barrett

Summary of plebiscite results — for the full responses, read the comments at

Yes votes (total: 60)

Just plain yes. (23)

Run to win!

Run on a 9/11 truth platform – the mother of all issues. (2)

It’s fun.

You could do well in Congress. (Because, like Ron Paul, you’re a nice guy with radical ideas, ain’t no politician, etc.) (3)

Run to beat the two-party system.

It’s great to have at least one politician telling the truth.

Yes – and de-emphasize 9/11 etc., focus on the workingman’s wallet. (2)

It’s entertaining.

Yes – do it to raise awareness of issues like 9/11 truth. (11)

Yes – or consider running for State Assembly instead.

Run as a member of a new Zionist-free party.

Run as a Green Party candidate.

You might win the Democratic primary and then the election.

Run, because you finally answered my emails.

Run to get a bigger platform for your ideas, and then write a book about it.

Sure, you’re no worse what what we have now.

We need principled/courageous/intelligent representatives. (3)

Run with a (third) party behind you.

Run if you think you have a realistic chance of winning.

Run as part of a new anti-corruption/unity party. (2)

No votes (total: 23)

Just plain no. (2)

Your health comes first. (3)

You’re doing well as a writer and radio host, don’t mess with a good thing. (4)

If you win you’ll be marginalized, ruined, or, failing that, assassinated. (3)

Congress is terminally corrupt. (2)

You won’t win.

You’re a bleeping moron who belongs in the nuthouse.

You’ve been there done that.

It’s pointless. We need a revolution.

It’s pointless because Zionists control the entire political system.

Don’t run because you never answer my emails.

People still aren’t ready to vote for independent candidates.

You wouldn’t even win the Libertarian primary (despite landslide victory last time).

I’m a Christian and you’re a Muslim so I can’t support you.

Mideast-expert journalist-author Alan Hart

Tuesday, May 25th, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon-1 pm Eastern) on (to be archived here a few hours later…)

Alan Hart is the author of the brand new book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews v.3. (The title says it all…or at least a whole lot of it!) Check out the book’s preface, An Appeal to the American People, which I decided was important enough to headline on my website. From Alan’s site:

“Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

  • As a correspondent for ITN’s News At Ten and the BBC’s Panorama programme (covering wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world).
  • As a researcher and author.
  • As a participant at leadership level, working to a Security Council background briefing, in the covert diplomacy of the search for peace.

“He’s been to war with the Israelis and the Arabs, but the learning experience he values most, and which he believes gave him rare insight, came from his one-to-one private conversations over the years with many leaders on both sides of the conflict. With, for example, Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. The significance of these private conversations was that they enabled him to be aware of the truth of what leaders really believed and feared as opposed to what they said in public for propaganda and myth-sustaining purposes.

“It was because of his special relationships with leaders on both sides that, in 1980, he found himself sucked into the covert diplomacy of conflict resolution…” more here.

NBA whistleblower Tim Donaghy, professor & author Rodrigue Tremblay on Truth Jihad Radio

Truth Jihad Radio Sat. 5/22/10, 5-7 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (to be archived here.) Call-in number: 512-879-3805.

First hour: Whistleblowing basketball ref Tim Donaghy, author of Personal Foul: A First-Hand Account of the Scandal that Rocked the NBA. Are sports just as rigged as elections, “terrorist attacks,” economic crises, and just about everything else these days? Say it ain’t so, Tim!

Second hour: Rodrigue Tremblay, author of the brand new The Code for Global Ethics and other books; Stanford Ph.D., University of Montreal professor, and former government minister.

Israel Identifies the Real Existential Threat

“You see, despite the rhetoric, Israel and its supporters in Washington do not view the current dispute over Iran’s nuclear program as an ‘existential threat.’ Rather, it is viewed as another golden opportunity to bring ‘regime change’ to a country considered one of Israel ‘s adversaries, as Iraq was under Saddam Hussein.” – Ray McGovern

A leaked top-secret memo from the Israeli Ministry of Secrets, Existential Threat Department has confirmed what everybody always suspected: The real existential threat facing the apartheid state of Israel is not Ahmadinejad, Hamas, or Hezbullah.

The memo, entitled “Coping with the Real Threat,” begins:

“It is time for we Israelis to admit that we are facing an existential enemy far more terrifying than the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Muslim ummah, or even the Nazis. That threat, in a word, is Justice.

“If Justice were ever to triumph, Strauss forbid, we would be dispossessed of the land that we stole fair and square through murderous ethnic cleansing. Justice, as victor, would rewrite history, effacing our falsehoods and revealing us as the biggest liars ever to walk the earth. Were Justice to gain the upper hand, it would inflict terrible retribution on us for what we have done.

“Given the absolute and existential nature of this threat, we must not remain immobilized, sitting on our hands while our enemy,  Justice, grows stronger every day.  Our only hope of survival is to strangle the infant Justice in her cradle. We must declare a pre-emptive war on Justice.”

The memo outlines a War on Justice beginning with an all-out assault on even-handedness and reason via a blitzkrieg of double-standards:

* Bombarding Justice with nuclear double-standards such as “it’s okay for us to have have hundreds of nuclear weapons, but it isn’t okay for Iran to even have nuclear power.”

* Promulgating Islamophobic double-standards such as demonizing the Qur’an’s modest and limited call to military self-defense when necessary while ignoring the Torah’s calls to genocide; decrying the abuse and exploitation faced by some women in some Islamic countries, while ignoring greater abuse and exploitation in non-Islamic countries; and calling any Muslim who engages in self-defense a terrorist.

* Promoting Jewish-Zionist superiority by making Jewish-Zionist power invisible and off-limits to critique, and viciously insulting anyone who notices or critiques it.

Alongside the blitzkrieg of double-standards, the War on Justice will include spectacular events designed to demonstrate the futility of the cause of Justice. Zionist forces will launch such massive terrorist attacks as the obvious controlled demolition of inhabited skyscrapers, make little or no attempt to disguise what has happened, and use their power in media and government to blame the attacks on Muslims (in such a transparently false way so that anyone paying attention sees the truth), thereby assuring that the real perpetrators are well-known yet never brought to justice.

The memo concludes:

“Such a series of grotesquely spectacular crimes, committed shamelessly and with complete impunity, offers a psychological warfare strategy capable of bringing Justice to its knees.”

In response to the memo, the Department of Zionist Common Sense and Other Oxymorons released a statement questioning whether a war against Justice is a viable long-term strategy.

Splitting-the-Sky facing up to two years in prison for arrest-Bush attempt

Splitting-the-Sky will be my guest on Truth Jihad Radio Saturday, June 5th. -KB

Canadian Man Could Be Sentenced to Two Years in Prison for Implementing the Law:

Former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark to Speak at the University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium in Defence of Splitting the Sky The Man Who Attempted a Citizens’ Arrest on George W. Bush

Joshua Blakeney
Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

“George Bush hasn’t suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused…no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same or next day”

Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, 20081

Ramsey Clark will arrive in the Canadian oil-patch city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, this coming June 6th and 7th, mounting pressure on Judge Manfred Delong, who is presiding over the sentencing process in an epochal trial which some have dubbed: “The trial of Splitting the Sky versus George W. Bush.” Splitting the Sky (STS) on the advice of legal experts Ramsey Clark, Gale Davidson and Anthony J. Hall attempted a citizen’s arrest on George W. Bush on March 17, 2009 when the former US president was addressing an audience of business people at the TELUS Convention Centre in the downtown of Calgary.2 In his March 2010 trial STS invoked the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes legislation, which was enacted by the Canadian parliament in 2000, to submit to the court that he was implementing the law by seeking to apprehend Bush, and was unjustly arrested by police who were in effect “aiding and abetting a credibly accused war criminal.” Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney came to Calgary to attempt to testify in the March trial but was prevented from doing so as the judge shut down the trial earlier than anticipated. Instead McKinney spoke at the University of Calgary in support of Splitting the Sky.3 It is hoped by supporters of justice that the arrival of Ramsey Clark in Calgary will help to publicize this unprecedented case in Canadian legal history, the knowledge of which the state and their media accomplices have made a concerted effort to suppress and censor from the public domain.
Ramsey Clark has a long history of being a thorn in the side of those political elites who would seek to apply the law expediently rather than unanimously. Born in Dallas, Texas, the son of prominent jurist Tom C. Clark, Ramsey Clark witnessed as a young man the Nuremberg trials following World War II. Clark would go on to graduate from the University of Chicago law school and become Attorney General of the United States under the administration of Lyndon Johnson. Clark worked tirelessly throughout his career as an outspoken Civil Rights attorney advocating for many prominent activists and political dissidents. After the 1971 Attica Prison debacle Clark replaced William Kunstler as Splitting the Sky’s legal advocate. STS’s charges were acquitted as a result of Clark’s relentless advocacy.
Clark took his human rights advocacy from the domestic realm to the international arena when he made a provocative visit to North Vietnam in 1972 as a protest against the illegal bombing of Hanoi by the US military. Clark’s pro-human rights and anti-war stances led him to become the attorney for a number of political nemeses of the military-industrial-complex. Clark’s clients included American Indian prisoner Leonard Peltier, members of the PLO, Camilo Mejia the US soldier who deserted his post in March 2004 in protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq, Slobodan Milosevic former president of Serbia, and Saddam Hussein former president of Iraq, to name a few. Clark has been particularly critical of those seeking to impose “victors justice” upon the vanquished opponents of Anglo-American expansionism. Of the “trial” of Saddam Hussein he stated: “it failed to respect basic human rights and was illegal because it was formed as a consequence of the United States’ illegal invasion,” going on to call for an “absolutely fair” trial for the deposed Iraqi leader.4
In recent history, Clark was unflinching in his attempts to have George W. Bush impeached. In 2002, Clark founded “VoteToImpeach” an organization whose ostensible goal was to see members of the Bush administration brought before a court of law for their misdeeds. The Independent reported: “Clark said there is a website,, dedicated to collecting signatures of U.S. Citizens who want President George W. Bush impeached, and that approximately 150,000 have signed to impeach.”5 Clark also helped found the protest organization A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).
On April 3, 2010 Clark was elected at a meeting of over 150 lawyers, legal scholars and human rights campaigners, to be the chairperson of a new international campaign to investigate the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Bush regime. Global Research reported: “Ramsey Clark emphasized that it is the imperative responsibility of the American people to relentlessly pursue this investigation, and to seek prosecution and indictment inside of the United States…Ramsey Clark made the point that all the war crimes and crimes against humanity flow from the commission of the most supreme crimes which he identified as the Crimes against Peace. This was the finding at the Nuremberg trial, and it is enshrined in the Nuremberg Principles.”6 Clark’s reference to precedents set at Nuremberg, a German city once infamous for its right-wing extremism, encourages those of us who would like to see Calgary’s image in the world evolve from one of Harperite cowboys and vulture-capitalists into a city where law enforcement agencies set precedents in human rights jurisprudence and international law with the support of the polity’s residents. Perhaps such a paradigm shift would ignite a necessary atonement for the state-endorsed despoliation of the Indigenous Peoples of the region’s ancestral resources, lands and waters which has been unpardonably gifted to mainly Texas-based oil and gas conglomerates.
How Judge Manfred Delong will be influenced by Clark’s arrival in Calgary is yet to be seen. Will Judge Delong compound the Culture of Impunity afforded to credibly accused war criminals emanating from Anglo-America – which the Harper-minority government and their equivalents around the world have supported – by “setting an example” and sentencing STS to spend two-more years of his life behind bars and burdening him with a fine of up to $5000? Or will he realize the broader implications of this trial and dismiss the case before the court that STS “obstructed a police officer”?
The more citizens who mobilize in solidarity with STS the less able the state and their media accomplices will be to sweep the profound juridical questions being raised by STS, Clark and others, under the carpet. The proceedings are as follows:
Ramsey Clark arrives in Calgary, June 6, 2010. He will speak at the University of Calgary, Murray Fraser Hall Room 164, 4pm – 6.30pm.
The sentencing of Splitting the Sky commences on June 7, 2010 at the Calgary Courts Centre.

1Vincent Bugliosi, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” 2008. excerpt quoted:

2Anthony Hall, “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta to be Tried for International Crimes?” Voltairenet. March 9, 2009. and Gail Davidson, “Barring Bush From Canada: Time for the Law to Step in.” Global

3Anthony Hall, “Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky.” Global March 14, 2010.

4“Chaos Mars Saddam Court Hearing.” BBC News. Monday, 5 December 2005.

5 Josh Davidson, “Ramsey Clark Speaks Out Against War at College.” The Independent. March 19, 2003.
6“Ramsey Clark Chosen to Head Commission to Investigate Bush Crimes.” Global April 14, 2010.

Should I run for Congress?

Debating pro-war, pro-bankster-bailout Rep. Ron Kind in 2008

Yes, I’m asking YOU: Should I run for Congress?

Pro: We need truth-tellers like tomorrow’s radio guest  Sander Hicks, NY Senate candidate to run for national office. My wife and family are  on board and enthusiastic this time. I could coordinate my campaign with Eric Sayward, who is running in District 3 as an independent; we could do a series of “debates” around the district bashing the New World Order bankster dictatorship and calling for a peaceful uprising.

Con: “Standing for Congress” requires a lot of standing, and I was recently diagnosed with end-stage osteoarthritis of both hips, presumably from Lyme disease. I can’t be out there collecting the number of signatures I’ll need (roughly 1500) so I’d have to pay signature gatherers. Also, maybe it would be better to just let Eric be the one anti-NWO candidate this time.

What do you think? Should I run?  If so, which issues should I emphasize? Please list the issues you’d like to see me run on in order of their importance. Here is a  list of issues from my 2008 campaign. (Note that this time my position on national health care is aligned with the Libertarians: I’m against Obamacare.)

Check out media highlights from my 2008 campaign here and here.

You can leave your feedback as a comment on this blog post, or email me at kbarrett[AT)merr(DOT]com

If you want to pledge to contribute [insert amount of money here] in the event I do decide to run, that would be “louder than words” as the Loose Change guys put it.

Thanks for your feedback!

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters:

PS Here’s the latest example of the kind of stuff I can push into the mainstream if I do run:
Kevin Barrett: Psychological warfare campaign rages under the radar

Sander Hicks, NY Senate candidate

Tuesday, May 18th, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon-1 pm Eastern) on (to be archived here a few hours later…) Sander Hicks, Green Party candidate for Senate

Sander Hicks’ Letter to the Truth Movement


9/11 Truth Activist Sander Hicks Announces Run for US Senate (Green Party, NY)
More Info

New York City’s leading 9/11 truth author, Sander Hicks, once again is determined to do the impossible.

On Friday, May 1, Hicks filed his papers with the Green Party secretary. He pledged to campaign hard on a platform of “Truth, Transparency, Peace and Real Economics” in his bid to win the Green Party nomination for US Senate.

Truth and peace activists are invited to participate in campaign kick-off events on Wednesday, May 5, in the East Village. This rambunctious campaign sparks off with a whole night of rocking live music, Hicks’ new band, and an appearance from Hicks at Webster Hall.

Last month, Hicks was interviewed on ABC’s Nightline, making the case regarding “Treason in America” at a conference. With this campaign, the truth about 9/11 will hit the mainstream, once again. For 9/11 Truth activists, this good news comes at a time it is most needed.

Despite the Movement’s recent setbacks in the courts, for nine years, Hicks has never accepted “no” for an answer. Hicks has physically confronted Rudy Giuliani, Eliot Spitzer, Dick Cheney, Richard Ben Veniste, and the Shreveport FBI, in an attempt to penetrate the cover-up around the biggest crime of our time.

Hicks invites all the NY and NJ truth movement faithful to come lend a hand and make this OUR US SENATE campaign. Hicks is running against Democratic incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand has made promises to support a new investigation of 9/11, but has not delivered. Later, Gillibrand supported moving the controversial KSM trial from New York, but did not question the premise of that upcoming trial. In May, 2009, she was told of the international study that found military-grade Nano-thermite explosives in the four samples of Ground Zero dust. Yet she has done nothing with that burning evidence.


Wednesday is the campaign kick-off. The Campaign Action Squad meet at 7 PM for pizza and a meeting at Due Amici restaurant (88 3rd ave @ E. 12th Street), for the first gathering of the volunteers. Then, the campaign kick off party/event is at fabulous nightclub Webster Hall, around the corner on E. 11th Street, at 9 PM. Hicks’s own band Rebel Moon is playing, in a “5 bands for 5 bucks” bill that includes Hicks’ friends Alana Sveta and Jamie Block. This series at Webster Hall is produced by East Village Anti-Folk music legend Lach, who has created community and kickass rock-folk scenes for over 25 years.

Sander Hicks
Blogger, Huffington Post

Builder of Furniture
Using Green Construction Principles

Home Office: 347 627 4705
Cell: 347 446 4461