Chalabi-gate: None Dare Call It Treason

[shraby]

Neocons behind bars? Sounds good to me….
by Justin Raimondo

The fallout from Chalabi-gate continues to rain down on the heads of the War Party, opening up the exciting prospect that some neocons might well wind up behind bars.

<http://www.antiwar.com/justin/>

[anarchy1999]

1. Try None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0899666612/ref=sib_dp_rdr/102-4954626-3537762#reader-link

http://kamron.com/none_dare_call_it_conspiracy.htm

NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
by Gary Allen, 1971
_____________________
Originally published by Concord Press
P.O. BOX 2686
Seal Beach, Calif. 90740
...




........
This act (the Federal Reserve Act)
establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth...
When the President signs this act,
the invisible government by the money power,
proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation,
will be legalized...
The new law will create inflation
whenever the trusts want inflation..."
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
December, 1913



"IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY
WE HAVE IN EFFECT TWO GOVERNMENTS...
We have the duly constituted government...
Then we have an independent,
uncontrolled and uncoordinated government
in the Federal Reserve System,
operating the money powers
reserved to Congress by the Constitution."
- Congressman Wright Patman,
(former) Chairman of the House Banking Committee

........
"Those that create and issue the money and credit
direct the policies of government
and hold in their hands
the destiny of the people."
Reginald McKenna,
(former) president of the Midlands Bank of England.
.......
...


Chapter
3

The Money Manipulators

Many college history professors tell their charges that the
books they will be using in the class are "objective". But stop
and ask yourself: Is it possible to write a history book without a
particular point of view? There are billions of events that take
place in the world each day. To think of writing a complete
history of a nation covering even a year is to entertain a
fantastic conceit.
Not only is a historian's ability to write an "objective"
history limited by the sheer volume of happenings but by the fact
that many of the most important happenings never appear in the
papers or even in somebody's memoirs. The decisions reached by the
"big boys" in the smoke-filled rooms are not reported in even the
New York Times, which ostensibly reports all the news that's fit
to print. ("All the news that fits" is a more accurate
desription.)
In order to build his case, a historian must select a miniscule
number of facts from the limited number that are known. If he does
not have a "theory", how does he separate important facts from
unimportant ones? As Professor Stuart Crane has pointed out, this
is why every book "proves" its author's theory. But no book is
objective. No book can be objective and this book (NDCC) is not
objective. The information in it is true, but the book is not
objective. We have carefully selected the facts to prove our
case...