1) Would a fellow strick constructionist please point out the flaw in the logic of my previous post before my head explodes.
2) These two guys are after to me help them and I can't really figure out what the hell is going on. Here is an exchange between the two of them.
Dear Ken,
I applaud all of the wonderful research and publications condemning the MEK you have accomplished through January 2003. In January 2003, you published an article critical of the New York Times for running a full-page advertisement for supporters of the MEK. That January 15, 2003 advertisement listed the names of 6 of the 150 members of Congress who had signed the Iran Statement. As a professor who relies upon a salary as a professor, I can write without trying to please the New York Times. As an independent writer supporting a family by attempting to sell books and articles, you could have made much more money and had more books on the New York Times bestseller list by writing on topics supporting the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites). I appreciate the sacrifices you made through January 2003.
Since January 2003, I have been searching for new articles or books authored by you covering the following subjects of enormous importance:
1. April 2003. The American military bombed Camp Ashraf, Iraq killing perhaps 100 to 200 of the MEK in a camp with more than 4,000 MEK members. It would have been easy for the American military to bomb and destroy all of Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Some Internet postings contain the suggestion that the American attack was staged. Did the MEK members at Camp Ashraf, Iraq know whether their leaders made a deal with America so that some of them must die? Why did the American military protect the MEK rather than designate them as prisoners of war? In the background paper to President Bush’s September 2002 remarks at the United Nations, President Bush listed the MEK as one of the few Saddam Hussein-sponsored terrorist groups operating in Iraq. Al-Qaeda was not even on President Bush’s list. If we went to war because of the MEK, then why are we protecting the MEK? I have been unable to find any postings by you on any of these issues.
2. June 2003. The French government arrested Maryam Rajavi and approximately 160 MEK members in France. Some MEK members responded by burning themselves to death in front of news cameras. With your extensive experience in France and with a book on the French betrayal of America, I expected to see a posting by you providing insights into what happened plus the names of the many members of Congress who signed letters of support for the release of Maryam Rajavi, America’s terrorist enemy.
3. July 2004. The Defense Department and the State Department ended their battle over the MEK by agreeing to a compromise. The American government would recognize all MEK members at Camp Ashraf as having Fourth Geneva Convention special person protection. I am still searching for anything you have published condemning this American government action and naming those in the American government who provided protection for the MEK. The MEK has murdered American military officers, Rockwell International employees, and large numbers of innocent Iranians. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein ordered the MEK to kill Kurds and Shiites. The MEK leaders told the MEK members that they could not use bullets because the bullets would be needed for the invasion of Iran. Instead, the MEK forced large numbers of innocent Iraqis to stand in roads so that MEK tanks could run over them and crush them to death. Why have American politicians ordered the American military to protect these communist war criminals? I have found no postings or books by you on these issues.
4. Where is Massoud Rajavi? Is he hiding in Switzerland or in Camp Ashraf? Is he dead? Has he had a stroke? The Internet is filled with speculation. I expected to see your article with a definitive answer.
If the American government can change the designation of the MEK from terrorist, prisoner of war, or war criminal to Fourth Geneva Convention protected persons, it will be easy for the American government to claim that the MEK and front organizations are eligible to receive millions of dollars of support under the provisions of the Iran Freedom Support Act. Why did 5 of the 6 members of Congress you criticized in January 2003 become co-sponsors or sponsors of the Iran Freedom Support Act? Please send me any documents these members of Congress have issued condemning the MEK. Why is there no clause in the Iran Freedom Support Act stating explicitly that the MEK and its front groups will never be eligible for funds?
The MEK claims it is pro-democracy, including in a free book posted online: Democracy Betrayed. The MEK claims that Maryam Rajavi is the elected president of Iran. There never was an election in Iran or anywhere else of Maryam Rajavi. George Orwell warned about such totalitarian group claims in his book 1984 and in other writings. Even the New York Times reported that many Iranians regard the MEK as desiring to become the Pol Pot of Iran. While you have written (and even appeared on a comedy channel’s “news” program) about why American must attack Iran, you have not written about how many millions of Iranians will be murdered by the MEK if America imposes this communist regime on Iran. You should be defending the Iranian people from the second most evil group in the world today, the MEK. The most evil group in the world today is the group of American neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites), many of whom have become sponsors or co-sponsors of the Iran Freedom Support Act.
The sponsor of the House version of the Iran Freedom Support Act is Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. You did not include her on your list of hardcore supporters of a communist takeover of Iran. At age 7, she came to America from Havana, Cuba. She claims to be anti-communist. From her positions on issues, she appears to be only anti-Fidel Castro.
I would never work with any neo-conservative (neo-Trotskyite) on the passage of any legislation. In the last election, I refused to vote for Republican Congressman Chris Cox because he did not provide me with a written response as to whether he was one of the 150 signers of the Iran Statement or any of the earlier similar statements. Instead, I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, Bruce Cohen. In the future, I shall vote only for candidates of any political party who support liberty, not those who support endless neo-conservative (neo-Trotskyite) wars in the name of American values and traditions. As a Vietnam veteran who fought against communists in Vietnam, I reject the claims of the chickenhawk neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) who claim that anyone who opposes them are cowards and traitors. They are the real traitors. There is not enough room in the Republican Party for those who support communism and those who oppose communism.
My hope is that the American voters will vote out of office all of the evil neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites), both Democrats and Republicans, before they drop nuclear bombs or impose communist governments in Iran or anywhere else.
Thank you for your good work through January 2003. Please email me any articles you have written since January 2003 on the issues listed above.
Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
California State University, Fullerton
PO Box 6848
800 North State College
Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA
pfoote@fullerton.edu
(714) 278-2682
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Timmerman [mailto:timmerman.road@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Paul Sheldon Foote
Subject: Re: America's Tratiors in Congress, September 11, 2005
Dear Paul,
Are you suggesting that people encourage members of congress NOT to support the Iran Freedom Support Act?
The Foundation for Democracy in Iran is a strong supporter of the bill. And, I hope you would agree, we have an unparalleled record of denouncing the MEK and their inroads on Capitol Hill. (I was the first to expose and denounce MEK campaign contributions in 1995 in an article in the American Spectator).
There is nothing in either version of the bill that would allow the MEK to receive funding. In fact, there is specific language that would prevent any funds from going to the MEK, because it cannot meet the pro-democracy standard. Section 302(b)(3) states that groups eligible for assistance must be “dedicated to democratic values and supports the adoption of a democratic form of government in Iran;” The MEK clearly fails this test. The MEK also fails the test of opposing terrorism, and supporting freedom of speech and freedom of association.
When I was on the Hill in 1993 working for Tom Lantos I worked hard to educate staff and members to MEK lobbying practises. Too often what happened was that an MEK lobbyist would come round to a member’s office and get a staff member to sign onto a letter using a felt pen (standard practise) by saying, “Don’t you support freedom and democracy in Iran?”
But there is still a hard-core (Filner is one; Gary Ackerman and Tancredo are others) who buy into the MEK whole hog.
It’s a never-ending battle... Keep up the good work.
All best regards,
Ken Timmerman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Executive Director
Foundation for Democracy in Iran
Www.iran.org
Reply to:
exec@iran.org
Linear Mode
