By Des Griffin
The second BS (Bush-Saddam) War is now history. The Warlords of Washington along with Britain's
Socialist government (fronting for the notorious 'City' of London) and the international banker/Zionist
cabal have emerged victorious. With huge military complexes in a number of Gulf states, their power
base in the Middle East region has been greatly enhanced.
The ouster of the blood-drenched Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is generally accepted as being another
successful battle in the "war against terrorism." But Bush's bungling of post-war affairs in Iraq reveals the
amazingly high degree of presumptive arrogance with which the whole operation was riginally
Readers will remember that Bush initially described his war against Islamic extremists as a "crusade."
Not good! Apparently the not-too-well-read president has little if any understanding of world history. To
the Arab world such rhetoric automatically conjured up visions of the Crusades against Islam that took
place 8 and 9 hundred years ago. Multiple millions fear that his ultimate intentions are less than honorable.
Of course, readers of Midnight Messenger understand the phoniness of and the true purpose behind
the Bush administration's so-called "war on terrorism." As documented in recent issues, the planned
result is not what most Americans naively assume! They are in for a rude awakening!
WHY DID WE WAGE WAR?
The most recent phase of that bogus exercise was astutely evaluated in a recent article on the Internet.
We paraphrase Peter Freundlich: "All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We
ignored the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be
ignored. We waged war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle was that the
UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then we will.
Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Did I get that right?
"Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq was to destroy the democracy of the Security
Council, then we are honor bound to do that too. Why? Because democracy, as we define it, is too
important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
"Also, in dealing with a man who endured no dissension at home, we could not afford dissension among
urselves. We had to speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to
be heard. We sent our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right,
as Saddam Hussein seemed to think it did. And we twisted the arms of the opposition till it agreed to let
us oust a regime that twisted the arms of the opposition. We could not leave in power a dictator who
ignored his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then
we have no choice but to ignore them."
OBLIVIOUS TO PLAN
In the aftermath of the success of the multi-billion dollar military Bushwhacking of Iraq, most people
appear oblivious to the plan that is being worked out on the global stage with such military precision.
Mindlessly, they have fallen under the spell of the propaganda blitz to which they have been subjected by
the Warlords of Washington. This does not bode well for the future of our former Republic!
MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS
Important facts about Bush War II have been kept from the gullible American public. The original war
plan, as conceived by President Bush and his Pentagon advisers, called for a horrendous "shock and awe"
assault on Baghdad. This was designed not only to strike terror into the hearts of the Iraqi people (thus
ensuring their speedy capitulation), but also into the hearts of millions of others worldwide who might be
tempted to resist Bush's plans to create a New World Order.
Such a "shock and awe" offensive would probably have resulted in an Iraqi holocaust somewhat
reminiscent of the blood-lust vented on the German cities of Hamburg (1943) and Dresden (1945) by the
Anglo-American alliance during World War II. In those two murderous attacks on mainly civilian targets
by the allies, some three hundred thousand (300,000) innocent and defenseless civilians were incinerated.
Such matters appeared of little concern to the Bush people. They just wanted to get a clear "message"
across to people who might stand in the way of their worldwide political agenda.
Thankfully, Britain blocked the implementation of such holocaustic plans in the Iraqi theater of war. "This disclosure," states The Times of London, "explains one of the great mysteries of the campaign: America's failure to use its massive arsenal in an overwhelming attack to force immediate Iraqi capitulation... "Air Marshal Brian Burridge, the commander of the British Forces in the Gulf, argued that it
would have disastrous political consequences.... Burridge told the coalition commander General Tommy
Franks that he was totally against the shock and awe concept ... believing that it would strengthen rather
than destroy Iraqi resolve... Shock and Awe painted totally the wrong picture."
According to The Times, "Burridge argued that the plan to drop 3,000 precision-guided bombs and
missiles in the first 48 hours could destroy what international support there was for the war... "The debate was settled only when President Bush decided to try to kill Saddam Hussein when he was
reported to be in a house in the outskirts of Baghdad on March 19 [Apparently someone close to Saddam
had tipped off the coalition forces as to his whereabouts].
"The air campaign [that was unleashed on March 19, the Jewish feast of Purim!] amounted to an
impressive display of firepower, but fell far short of the original Shock and Awe concept. For
example, the U.S. military refrained from using its 20,000 pound MOAB, the massive ordinance
airburst bomb, nicknamed the 'Mother Of All Bombs'" (The Times, 5/3/03)
Whatever happened to Saddam Hussein? Why was there vitually no resistance in the Baghdad region?
Why did not Baghdad turn into a bloodbath as anticipated by many? Where were the famed Republic
Guard? Why were none of the bridges blown up? Why so few oil well fires? Why...? Why... Why?
Evidence suggests that Baghdad didn't fall. It was handed over with hardly a shot being fired. The Arabic
media has speculated that a "safqua" - a secret deal was made between the United States and the Baath
regime under which Saddam and company would be given clearance to leave the country.
It's now known that Saddam took truckloads of U.S. dollars (estimated at $20,000,000,000) out of bank
vaults just prior to the beginning of hostilities and then vanished.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN,
The two recent Bush wars those on Afghanistan and Iraq were waged with great initial success
under the very high-sounding slogans of Patriotism and National Security. In the light of the terror attacks
of 9/11, 2001, it was insinuated that those who questioned such moves were anti-American, anti-
government, and pro-terrorist. Of course, the illogic of such "reasoning" escapes most Americans. In their
nationwide brain laundries euphemistically called schools they were never trained to think and reason
logically and analytically. The Bush administration was merely using the terrorist attacks of which they had
adequate prior knowledge to further their political agenda (For documentation, see Dr. Dennis Cuddy's
two books, September 11: Prior Knowledge and Coverup: Government Spin or Truth?)
In this context, it should be noted that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (both of whom were "created" by the CIA on behalf of the new underworld order) have, in the last two years, been used
mightily to justify the suspicious domestic and foreign policy agendas pursued by the present
But such activity is nothing new. Under the drum beat of patriotism and national security the American
people have over the years been mobilized for a wide variety of false causes, all of them political in
nature. As one observer wrote: "Beginning with the Spanish-American War, culminating in World War I and World War II, and
continuing to the present, the U.S. has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the
rank of the world's dominant imperial power. Thus, nearly every president since the turn of the [twentieth]
century has also been responsible for the murder, killing, and starvation of countless innocent foreigners
around the world....
"The U.S. government does not protect us. To the contrary, there exists no greater danger to our life,
property, and prosperity than the U.S. government, and the U.S. president in particular is the world's most
threatening and armed danger, capable of ruining everyone who opposes him and destroying the entire
globe" (Hans-Herman Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense," (The Journal of Libertarian Studies,
1998-99, pgs. 31-32)
Regrettably, the concept of "patriotism" in modern America has been cunningly transformed by the
political establishment and their mind-manipulating cohorts in the mass media. In early America patriotism
was defined as: "Love for one's own country: the passion that aims to serve one's country, either by
defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and
purity. Patriotism is the characteristic of a good citizen, the noblest passion that animates a man in the
character of a citizen." A patriot is an individual who is "devoted to the welfare of one's country; as
patriotic zeal" (American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828). The "laws" and"
"Rights" to be "maintained ... in vigor and purity" were, of course, outlined in the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights.
In the politically correct America of 2003, patriotism is now understood to be "love of the state." This
perverted sense of "patriotism" demands unconditional support for whatever domestic or foreign policies
the president or federal government undertake, no matter how nationally destructive they may be in the
As practiced over the last 70 years, American foreign policy has been just that a policy totally foreign
to the best long-term interests of the United States as a sovereign nation. Of course, when that fact is
brought to the attention of most people it is met with a blank stare or a look of incredulity that expresses
in no uncertain terms the belief that the observer must by completely out of touch with reality. In politically
correct America, such truthful observations are generally viewed as being at least "anti-government" and "anti-American" if not altogether insane.
It must be noted, however, that the truth hasn't changed. Facts are still facts. Truth is still truth. Reality
is still reality. To some, truth may "suck," but as Henry Ford, the great auto pioneer, once observed: "The
truth frequently seems unreasonable; the truth is frequently depressing; the truth sometimes seems to be
evil, but it has the eternal advantage, it is the truth, and what is built thereon neither brings nor yields to
HAVE WE COME
In the light of recent events, we need to ask a vital question: Has America come the full circle? Are we
in the process of reverting to the same conditions out of which our forefathers, by the grace of God, so
gallantly delivered us in 1776? Has our nation indeed lost its will to live?
In 1776, America's Founders gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Declaration of Independence. They
declared that, because of "the Course of human Events," it had become "necessary to dissolve the Political
Bands which [had] connected them with another." This required "that they should declare the causes which
impel[led] them to the separation." It was a self-evident Truth, they declared, that all men were created
equal, that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
Government becomes Destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the people to alter it or to abolish it...
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown that Mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces
[reveals] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security... The History of the Present
King of Great-Britain [KING GEORGE III] is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all
having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let
Facts be submitted to a candid World...."
Thereafter the Founders outlined a long list of "Injuries and Usurpations" imposed on the people with contemptuous arrogance by King George III and his tyrannical representatives who "sent hither Swarms
of Officers to harass our People, and to eat out their Substance...
"In every stage of these Oppressions [they] Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms [but their]
repeated Petitions [were] answered only by repeated Injury... [The King was] deaf to the voice of
Consanguinity [kinship or affinity]."
Thus our Founders dissolved the political ties that had bound the American people to Great Britain. A
new nation was thus born, free and independent, the United States of America.
The results were phenomenal. As prophesied by John Winthrop, American became as a city on a hill.
The eyes of the whole world was upon us. Millions flocked to the new nation. On the world stage, America
represented freedom. Under its biblically-based, unique free enterprise system, America soon became a
giant among the pygmies.
RED LIGHTS ARE FLASHING
Again the question, Have we come full circle? Are we once again being made subject to draconian
laws "all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny" in our land? Think about
For a number of years red warning lights have been flashing. Alarm signals have been ringing loudly
throughout the land. But most people have decided to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to those warnings.
They are asleep at the switch.
These signals have become increasingly alarming since 9/11. Many ominous things have been happening
under cover of Bush's phony "war on terrorism." His administration has created legislation that, when
implemented, will nullify the Constitution to which Bush and his Cabinet have sworn allegiance. As
detailed in recent issues of Midnight Messenger, these new laws can within hours completely reverse
the Bill of Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The hideously misnamed Patriot Act and Homeland
Security legislation, in effect, make toilet paper out of the Constitution. In the event of a "national
emergency" (real or contrived) they flush "the Supreme Law of the Land" down the drain and create a
Having come full circle, the United States could well find itself under the heel of another King George
this time, His Imperial Majesty, King George I of Crawford, Texas. Don't smirk or laugh. Just take the
time to read the details of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security legislation!
For decades the American "sheeple" have been subjected to an unrelenting tidal wave of lying propaganda. This is designed to gradually brainwash and maneuver them into a position where most will when
the created conditions are just right willingly accept the draconian measures planned for their future.
This is a modern application of the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) whereby the government
creates a crisis, and then develops a program to allegedly deal with the "emergency" they were
instrumental in creating. The synthesis is the establishment of a new social order (in this case, a police
The process involves the blatant manipulation of public opinion through mindless slogans. These usually
mean the exact opposite of what they appear to say. The thought police use this method ("homeland
security," "national defense" etc.) to manufacture consent for the implementation of their Orwellian
agenda. Of course, "If you don't go along the bogeyman will get you!"
As Lawrence Eagleberger, a former federal official, speaking at a forum at Brigham Young University,
declared some years ago: "We have to be the world's thought police to create a world police force" (Daily
Universe, the campus newspaper, 11/8/94)). Remember also the words of James Warburg, son of Paul
Warburg one of the founders of the founders of the international banker-controlled "Federal" Reserve
System: "We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world
government will be achieved by conquest or consent" (Congressional Record, 2/17/1950).
'A BOOT STAMPING ON A HUMAN FACE FOREVER
We wonder about the significance of the fact that the headquarters of the Bank for International
Settlements the bank for central banks in Basel, Switzerland, is shaped like a boot. It should be noted
that, in George Orwell's 1984 the description of the future under 'Big Brother' is given as 'a boot stamping
on a human face for ever.'
It may or may not be of interest to note that on at least 3 separate occasions, George W. Bush has been
quoted as favoring a dictatorship: Describing what it was like to be governor of Texas, Bush stated: "You
don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier" (Governing Magazine, July 1998). "If there were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" (CNN.com,
December 18, 2000). "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there is no question about it"
(Business Week, July 30, 2001). The fact that Bush has, on occasion, referred to "my government" gives
one additional pause for speculation.
In May, massive "preparedness exercises" were held in Seattle and Chicago. These were allegedly to
ensure that the nation as a whole will be prepared in the event of future terrorist attacks. More
brainwashing. More conditioning.
One is tempted to ask, Are the powers-that-be planning to allow equally catastrophic or even more
cataclysmic attacks to take place within our borders? Such a horrendous occurrence could be used to "justify" the full implementation of the Stalinist measures so clearly laid out in the various pieces of
legislation enacted since 9/11? Don't snicker! We know now that "our" government had advance
knowledge of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and that they were also heavily involved in
the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. In the latter case, to cover up the
truth the feds imploded what was left of the building before it was properly examined. The debris was
removed to a remote dumping ground and is still under seal. We also know that the feds had "prior
knowledge" of 9/11 because, among many other things, some top Pentagon officials at the last minute
changed their plans to fly that morning. Why weren't the airlines and the general public similarly warned?
If additional "justification" for the implementation of a dictatorship were needed, the escalating crime
wave, uncontrolled immigration, and an economic collapse might come in handy. You must understand,
of course, that all this would be done in the name of "patriotism" and "homeland security." Relax, we're
from the government. We're here to help you!
"A WHORING AFTER
What's the bottom line? The comparisons with the ancient Hebrews are striking. The United States, like
Israel of the Old Testament, was founded on the Law of God. We, like they, have "gone awhoring after
false Gods." We have treated with contempt the laws and principles upon which our nation was built.
America has forsaken her God. The effects of that rebellion are all around us in society.
The "before" and "after" effects in both cases were clearly outlined in Deuteronomy 28. Reading that
whole chapter is a summary lesson in history.
As was true prior to Israel's fall and descent into slavery, many voices were raised in warning. But, in
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the people "killed the prophets and stoned them that were sent unto
them." They wouldn't listen to the voice of sanity and paid a hideous price. Today, for the most part
that "killing" and "stoning" is done in a figurative manner: through scorn, contempt, and ridicule in society
One graphic example from the past. Ahab was a king of Israel who "did more to provoke the Lord God
of Israel than all the kings of Israel that were before him" (I Kings 16:33). Ahab married the infamous
Jezebel, a treacherous, Baal-worshipping tramp from a neighboring pagan nation. Like so many in America
today, this deadly duo hated the truth. "Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord" (18:13). She and her
husband were determined to wipe out the memory of the true God. There was no nation or kingdom where
they did not attempt to find Elijah, a true prophet at that time. They were determined to kill him (18:10).
After being hounded from pillar to post, Elijah with God's protection finally had a confrontation with
the demented king.
Get this! When Ahab came face-to-face with the man of God, he asked an almost unbelievable question: "Are you he who troubles Israel?"
What gall. What spiritual insanity. In his demented fantasy world, Ahab had verything upside
down. To him, good was bad. Right was wrong. Up was down.
Elijah replied, "I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house, in that you have
forsaken the commandments of the Lord and have followed Baalim" (18:17-18)
Regrettably, most "leaders" in our society today have an attitude like that of Ahab. To their deluded
minds, those who point out the truth and strive to educate others in the way that would lead to personal
liberty, peace and prosperity are the ones who are "sick." They're "troubling America." They are"nonrehabilitatable."
There is a great lesson to be learned here. When spiritually depraved Ahab and Jezebel called for a
showdown with those who humbly followed the Creator God, they were taught a lesson that we should
never forget. You can read all about it in I Kings 18:22-40.
In America 2003, we must all personally answer the blunt question posed by Elijah to the people of his
day: "Why halt you between two opinions? If the Lord be God follow him, but if Baal [be god] follow him;
And the people answered him not a word" (I Kings 18:21)