With Mr. Skousen often busy doing several interviews or speeches per day, traveling, writing, consulting, etc. I understand that he and his people probably don't have much time available to post the information regularly at this web site. Plus sometimes talk show hosts call guests at the last minute, so often there may really be no time to get the info out to us beforehand even if he tried to keep up with it. But it gets time consuming and expensive trying to purchase audio tapes or track down these interviews, plus I like to listen to them live the first time around. Many people, I'm sure, would like the chance to call in and speak with Joel personally or ask him their questions on the air. We miss this opportunity when we receive no advance notice of his radio or other public appearances.
So I propose that whenever we World Affairs Brief subscribers and other readers know when Joel is scheduled to do a show or if you know where some great "listen online" archives on the Internet are, that we post the information here. Same goes for any newspaper interviews Joel did, which still may contain important info that's still relevant to the future.
Here's some new info I saw today:
On Friday, 2-28-03 at 9 p.m. PST (midnight EST) Joel is scheduled to appear on Radio Libety. The topic is Mexican corruption and the US-Mexico border war. We can listen online to Dr. Stan and Joel at http://www.radioliberty.com.
Almost weekly you can find other lively interviews with Joel at Radio Liberty's listen online archives. I also caught up with Joel at http://www.rense.com archives, plus many more like the Riley Report, Coast To Coast A.M. and others. I understand he's on K-Talk radio, http://www.k-talk.com, every Wednesday around 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Do you know where there are more in other archives or when there's a new show scheduled? If so, I'd appreciate any of you listing them here in the future. Thanks!
From Oct. 1, 2000 -
Is National Sovereignty History?
Geoff Metcalf interviews researcher, U.N. watcher Joel Skousen
Read it at: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/19655.html
If the link above won’t work, the same interview can be found here:
http://www.unwatch.com/ntnlsvhistory.html
Radio talk show host James Whale, England’s equivalent to Art Bell, interviewed Joel Skousen several times in the past. Here’s a great interview from Jan. 12, 2000. Joel talks about Russia, China, future war in the U.S., the New World Order, and more.
http://audio.clarkey.net/Whale5.ram
http://www.clarkey.net/
However, when Joel gives out his web site during the James Whale interview, that’s the old web site. The web site you want is http://www.joelskousen.com, his current one.
From Nov. 15, 16 and 17, 1999–
Three of Joel’s interviews on The Missler Report. Topic: The Possibility Of War
Listen online by going here and clicking the appropriate links.
http://www.khouse.org/misslerreport/currentevents/19991115-156.html
Joyce Riley interviewed Joel Skousen on November 19, 2002. Click on the Nov. 19 link here to listen to Joel when he was on the Riley Report in Fall 2002.
http://www.theradiobeacon.com/riley_report.htm
The following is Part 2 of the Joel Skousen Transcript, broadcast on the Art Bell "Coast-to-Coast A.M." program on Aug 10, 1998.
AB: By the way, you said WAR, do you actually anticipate a war? And if so, where do you think it might be?
JS: The next war is coming from the sector that the entire "Establishment" and the media totally deny. They’ll talk about North Korea. They’ll talk about Iraq. They’ll talk about Bosnia. But they will NEVER talk about RUSSIA. "Russia is benign, it’s our ally. There’s nothing that Russia can do that’s dangerous." The media is full of negative propaganda about how weak their military is, and how decimated the morale is.
AB: But that is true, to some degree. That is accurate!
JS: Absolutely. There is some truth to that.
AB: Look, they haven’t been paid in three months!
JS: But you want to remember that there’s a reason for that. It’s not that they don’t have the money. They are carefully manipulating and feigning weakness. In order to feign weakness, you must put out propaganda and it has to be true and verifiable. There’s weakness, but it’s not the weakness that counts that they’re showing. The strength that they REALLY have is in their new weaponry that they have been pouring money into. The new underground manufacturing and nuclear capabilities, which they’re building. The new chemical, biological, and other weapons.
AB: Why hasn’t this been reported? In other words, as you point out, the mainstream press never mentions Russia anymore. As you point out, they depict them as benign. You’re saying, not paying their people but they’re developing weapons of mass destruction.
JS: They are. Look at this complete nuclear complex, the live-in factories and conditions… the size of the entire Washington, D.C. complex … underground in the Ural Mountains … reported by the New York Times about a year-and-a-half ago. Our "yes-man" intelligence community made excuses that this was totally defensive. It’s just laughable! The degree to which this Administration will go to protect something … but you see, that tells you something. When you look at how much they’re protecting it, look in contrast for example, one little violation from Saddam Hussein for not letting a few inspectors in, and they raise the entire specter of war, don’t they? But Russia has NEVER let our inspectors in! It has been in total violation of numerous treaties for years. Do we ever complain? Do we threaten to go to war with them? Do we even say they are a problem? You see, what I’m saying is that the cover-up always tells you something.
AB: What you are actually saying is that we are in league with the Russians and hiding the fact that a nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S., is according to you, not only possible, but probable?
JS: Not only that Art, it’s being invited! The Clinton Administration is INVITING an attack! Last December (1997) they changed the "Nuclear Doctrine." It was announced by James Bell, NSC Advisor, that President Clinton signed an order, on December 7 interestingly enough, changing American Nuclear Response Doctrine. No longer would we "launch on warning." We would in fact, absorb the "first strike" in the interests of peace.
AB: What????
JS: That’s right!
AB: No, I didn’t hear that! Where did you?
JS: It was on NPR (National Public Radio) for almost three days.
AB: Hell No, I haven’t heard that! What do you MEAN "we would absorb a strike in the interests of peace?"
JS: This is what they said, "To further our disarmament effort, we have unilaterally decided to change our Nuclear response Doctrine that we would no longer 'launch on warning.'"
AB: Can a person get a copy of that?
JS: Yes, in fact it was also published in the Washington Times at that time, But it’s WORSE than that, Art!
AB: That’s bad enough!
JS: For example, anyone who knows anything about Nuclear Doctrine know there is no deterrent. James Bell talked about "this is to increase deterrents in the world." Well, there can be no deterrents without "launch on warning." Your listeners might not understand. It takes at least 20 minutes for missiles, once they are launched in the Soviet Union, to arrive here in the U.S.
AB: Well, that doesn’t even count the Russian nuclear submarines!
JS: That’s right! But land based missiles are their mega-punches. So, it’s very important that these get launched and 20 minutes in advance our satellites can tell when those are launching. A "launch on warning" doctrine does a tremendous amount of deterring because if we launch … because we can detect which of their missile silos launch … we can retarget our missiles to hit their silos that do not launch. And, their missiles are already heading for silos that will be emptied because we’ve "launched on warning." So you see, most of their strike has missed ours, and ours hit their missiles which are still in their silos. So, it’s a tremendous deterrent. But, President Clinton also did something else in this Executive Order. He took our missiles off "Alert!"
AB: I’m familiar with that.
JS: This is very important because if our satellites determine that they have made a launch and if you run to the President and say, "Hey, we’ve got to reverse this ‘launch on warning doctrine,’ we have to launch right now," we can’t do it because it takes more than 20 minutes to warm up the missiles so they can launch.
AB: So, you’re saying that this Executive Order would require at least one detonation. My God, Joel! If they came to the President and said … first of all, I don’t believe the Russians would launch just one nuclear missile. I don’t believe that for a second. If you’re going to do it … really DO it … you try and take out the other side’s offensive retaliatory capability. You try and "cut off the head," and all that sort of thing. You don’t just launch ONE.
JS: That’s right!
AB: So it’s going to be a massive, massive launch!
JS: Even more so with this doctrine, because once Clinton has said we’re going to absorb a "first strike," he’s saying, "We invite you to throw everything at the first launch." Now let me tell you why I think Clinton is doing this.
AB: Why?
JS: The reason is that Clinton is part of a conspiracy that wants a New World Order. In order to get this done, you must remove the U.S. military from the foreign policy scene. No one will ever give credit to the Majesty of the U.N. army as long as the U.S. Army exists. In other words, you have to induce the Russians to get rid of this. That’s to the benefit of those who want a New World Order, and Russian also sees this as being to their benefit.
AB: But Joel, I have to argue a little bit with you here. I don’t like a lot of things Clinton has done and he is no doubt what you consider to be "cover trouble" with Lewinsky. But you’re talking about a U.S. President setting up a situation where he wants war. He wants the U.S. to be hit with nuclear weapons. I find this hard to believe, even of Clinton.
JS: Just remember, it’s not just Clinton. Clinton is a "Yes man" to a much more powerful group who are calling the shots. Remember in World War II, Roosevelt purposely wanted that strike on Pearl Harbor and did many things to induce it. The purpose of war is to slowly destroy national sovereignty. There are many, many tactics … using the environmental movement to destroy property rights, to undermine sovereignty with the Bosnia and Iraqi wars, etc. But nothing is really going to undo national sovereignty except a horrendous nuclear war that will make people cry out to destroy ALL nuclear weapons, and all possibilities of war. This will be through the offerings that the New World Order has set up.
AB: Earlier in the program, you complained about "Right-Wing" elements that almost want the Y2K date to be a disaster that many believe it will be. They WANT it, you say. But when you say the things you have in the last half hour, it makes you sound like you’re in the "Right-Wing." Is that an unfair classification?
JS: Not at all! I’m a "Conservative of Liberty." I’m against tyranny and that’s why I’m sounding this warning about what the conspiracy is trying to pull on us.
End Interview excerpt.
Several Joel Skousen interviews along with other great ones like Rodney Stich can be found in these archives:
http://members.shaw.ca/cp-archive/aud_cons.htm
At the link above you should find:
Bush At War and Kissinger
From Dec. 7, 2002
Joel Skousen interviewed by Dr. Stan Monteith on Radio Liberty
TWA & The Baxter Death
From March 6, 2002
Joel Skousen interviewed by Dr. Stan Monteith on Radio Liberty
You’ll need to fast-forward through the music about 1-2 minutes before the TWA/Baxter show begins.
Joel Skousen – World Geopolitical Analysis
From April 9, 2000
For Joel’s more recent interviews, check here:
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
Joel Skousen Columns at CentrExNews.com Archives
http://www.centrexnews.com/columnists/skousen/archive.html
Still, Russia And China Are Not Our Friends
By Joel Skousen, NewsMax.com, June 5, 2000
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/print.shtml?a=2000/6/4/183918
Stiff Right Jab: Looking The Other Way?
Steve Montgomery & Steve Farrell wrote at NewsMax.com on Oct. 9, 2001:
"Are US leaders really so stupid that they never learn from chronic Russian lies and misbehavior? Or is there an alternate agenda to allow Russia to build a coalition that will eventually attack the US?" So asks intelligence expert Joel Skousen in his World Affairs Brief, last week. The question is a disturbing one, which few analysts have the gumption to ask – but the question must be asked . . . Read the entire story at
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/10/9/001928
Just read that Joel will discuss the "World Crisis" and we can listen online on Friday, March 14, 9:00 p.m. MST (12:00 a.m. EST) at http://www.radioliberty.com. Also heard it from a good source that K-Talk should have streaming audio up and running again before the end of March 2003. Soon we can once again listen online and ask Joel questions on Tom Draschil's show on Wednesdays at 4:00 p.m. MST (6:00 p.m. EST). K-Talk has many other interesting shows at other times as well. Check them out at http://www.k-talk.com.
Joel is listed as Joyce Riley's guest for March 28, 2003. Noon Mountain Time; 1 p.m. Central. Listen to the Riley Report live at:
http://wwwtheradiobeacon.com/riley_report.htm
The show should also be available soon in the archives at this same link.
"Syria Is Next"
Hear Joel discuss Syria and more on Radio Liberty, Thursday, 4-17-03 at 9:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (12:00 a.m. EST). You can listen online at http://www.radioliberty.com.
If you miss the show, the interview should be available for online listening in the Radio Liberty archives at the same link above for about 7-10 days afterward.
Joel at Radio Liberty
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
9:00 p.m. PST (12:00 a.m. EST)
http://www.radioliberty.com
Check out Joel's exchange with Jeff Nyquist at the final phase (TFP) forum at jrnyquist.com. This is great stuff!!
You’re right, Mark! There’s a lively and interesting debate going on over there right now (May 2) between Joel and J. R. Nyquist about the conspiracy theory and more. As one of the Final Phase guys put it, “This is better than TV!” Their discussion is under the topic, "Commo from Joel Skousen to TFP" at http://pub15.ezboard.com/fthefinalphasefrm18 at http://www.jrnyquist.com .
Joel appeared on Radio Liberty 4-28-03, not 4-30-03. To listen to the interview before it disappears soon, go to http://www.radioliberty.com or click here:
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/index.asp?how=1
It’s at 4-28-03b. Fast forward since the interview begins late, around 22:00.
Thanks for your acknowledgement Robert. By the way, that was me that made the TV crack. I use the name title of liberty in memory of that great patriot Captain Moroni. I noticed Clint posted on the thread as well. It was facinating to hear the different perspectives from Joel and Jeff Nyquist along with the other posters. These people are sharp cookies with a wealth of geopolitical knowledge and insights. It was fun to learn from them.
Mark, or Title of Liberty as you’re also known: I liked the quote you used in a recent post so much that I hope you don’t mind me borrowing it and posting part of your comments here:
One of our early statesman Daniel Webster made the following observation: "The first object of a free people is the preservation of their liberty... The spirit of liberty is, indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but it is also a sharp-sighted spirit; it is a cautious, sagacious, discriminating, far-seeing intelligence; it is jealous of encroachment, jealous of power, jealous of men. It demands checks; it seeks for guards; it insists on securities; it entrenches itself behind strong defenses, and fortifies itself with all possible care against the assaults of ambition and passion. It does not trust the amiable weakness of human nature, and therefore it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed limits, though benevolence, good intent, and patriotic purpose come along with it."
The scriptures teach us that where the spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3:16) . . .
Great stuff, Mark. Keep it coming!
US Plan For Israel – Joel Skousen, http://www.radioliberty.com May 6, 2003. The JS interview is the third show of the evening; fast forward to 01:23:33 (started at 9:20 p.m. PST). Interview will disappear within 7-10 days from Radio Liberty’s archives, so remember to press “save” if you plan to listen later. This interview makes a good companion for Joel’s 5-2-03 World Affairs Brief, “Israel: The Bush Road Map To Nowhere But War.”
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
5-06-03b 01:23:33
Joel’s Analysis Of White House Obstruction Of 911 Investigations is the last show at the link below since Joel was Dr. Stan Monteith’s final guest on May 13 at Radio Liberty (http://www.radioliberty.com). To find the 911 interview, fast forward to 01:20:10.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
Click on 05-13-03b, then FF to 01:20:10.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
05-20-03b Fast forward to 01:22:35 (last show of the evening; Joel was the fourth guest.)
Topics discussed: Al Qaeda, Vinnell Corporation, Saudi Arabia, how the US immediately attaches “Al Qaeda” to nearly everything that happens…Al Qaeda is an excuse to expand the “War On Terrorism.”
A caller asked Joel, “Is this whole terrorist movement being manipulated by other forces besides the terrorist forces themselves?” Joel responded that he believes terrorism worldwide is a controlled entity, not a spontaneous uprising. Joel said he believes that most of the individual terrorists do not know who’s in control of terrorism. They simply act on their hatred of the West.
Other topics discussed in the 05-20-03b interview: illegal searches at airports and elsewhere, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Chalabi, Iraq and Jordan, the looting of Iraq, WMD, Syria, and more.
Also, it looks like streaming audio has finally returned to http://www.k-talk.com/
At http://news.phaseiii.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=502 you can read a full transcript of the Radio Liberty May 13, 2003 40-minute radio show with Dr. Stan Monteith and Joel Skousen. Topic--The 9-11 Investigation.
Or read it here:
Dr. Stan:
We are fortunate to have with us this next hour, or the remainder of this next hour, our good friend, Joel Skousen. And we’re going to talk about the investigation of 9-11. And it’s really fascinating – we did a show earlier today with Joel. Our regularly scheduled guest for three o’clock was unavailable so we talked to Joel, just asked him if he would come on on short notice. He did. And you know it’s so vitally important that you understand that the administration is frightened to death the American people will learn what really happened on September the eleventh, 2001.
Now, if there’s nothing to conceal, if they had no foreknowledge, if they were in no way involved, why are they so frightened, why are they doing everything they can to prevent a independent investigation? Why did the president oppose the investigation, and then why did he say ‘well, all right, you can have an investigation, but I’m going to have to have the say as to who the chief is, who is in charge of this, and of course overseeing who are members of the commission? Now, we have to then ask ‘well, what was the significance of what happened on September the 11th ? We all saw those planes crashing into buildings. We saw it over and over and over and over again. And then of course we saw not only the two buildings come down but a couple of other buildings come down.
Oh, you know… it must have been something happened to the foundation, or they must have come down because they were hit by the other buildings or … But they didn’t come down for that reason. Building Number 7 came down spontaneously later in the evening almost as if there were explosives at the base of it. Well, there was a fire up on top, but it didn’t come down from the top. It came down from the bottom just like the hotels that we see in Las Vegas when they want to destroy them and they put the explosive charges around the base.
Of course, is it that nothing is as it appears to be? Of course, there are so many unanswered questions, and obviously the people in high positions of government don’t want you to get those answers cause they’re going to control the investigation.
Hi Joel, how are you doing?
Joel Skousen:
I’m just fine, Dr. Stan. Good to be with you again today.
Dr. Stan:
Well, it is, and now you can be as repetitive all you want to because this is an entirely different audience than what we had earlier, so feel free so we can talk about exactly what we talked about earlier. It was fascinating, and I want you to bring all these facts out to our listeners. Why don’t you explain to our listeners why you are concerned about this so-called independent investigation or this investigation of what happened on 9-11?
Joel Skousen:
Well, it appears clearly there’s some obstruction going on. It appears that the administration is circling the wagons, looking over their shoulder. There are tens of agents and people who have inside knowledge of government operations who have become whistleblowers, giving many indications and witness testimony that the government not only had foreknowledge in various reports predicting these kinds of terrorist events but allowed them to happen and otherwise obstructed agents’ attempts to intervene in the process.
The obstruction continues in the two investigations that are going on. The first has been the congressional investigation. It’s really not an investigation in the fullest sense of the word but rather a report from various testimonies that appeared before congress as to the actual happenings of 9-11. Included in that report in congress of course are many of the things that the Bush administration does not want the American public to hear.
They include warnings from FBI agents that Al Qaeda supporters were training in U.S. flight schools, warnings of course about some of them having very peculiar desires about learning to fly only wanting to learn to take off and not wanting to learn how to land.
There are also some reports of course about why Arab-speaking only would-be terrorists would seek flight training at English-only speaking schools when in fact there is an Arab-speaking flight school that trains candidates in major-airline type equipment at Fort Worth International. So it appears very, very strange that this well funded, well articulated terrorist group, if that’s how it happened, ended up taking flight lessons, even from a CIA outfit, Huffman Aviation out of Venice, Florida. But in any case, a lot of these things have come out rough with the congressional report, which is complete by the way -- it’s 900 pages -- is that the FBI, the CIA, and the White House are refusing to cooperate with the report. They are basically saying that parts of these reports are going to be classified now and therefore cannot be made public.
Now, all of these things have been made public. So it’s a little bit after the fact to say ‘We’re going to classify these things.’
Dr. Stan:
Well, fortunately we did get those directly from the initial investigation. It was amazing. I had to call about four times before they finally sent them. But finally found some person there who wanted to cooperate. They sent me copies of testimony from the first couple of days –including that by Eleanor Hill, Christian Breitweiser, and Stephen Push. And now they’ve classified them? Why would they classify them, unless they didn’t want the American people to know cause there was certainly nothing there that would help Osama Ben Laden, certainly nothing there that would help Mohammed Atta. So, why are they classifying it unless of course it has nothing to do with keeping Osama or Mohammed Atta from learning – it has to do with keeping the truth from the American people.
And I really think that’s what’s so frightening, Joel, is that our government spends so much time not revealing but concealing the truth from the American people.
Joel Skousen:
You know what’s always concerned me was the military pilots with the top-secret clearance. When I would read the top-secret material coming down the line, I mean it was probably a little -- there were a few things that the establishment media didn’t know -- but most of this stuff was coming out of the establishment media. Which meant ‘Hey, this is public knowledge. What’s it doing with a top-secret classification? ‘
Of course, your mention was referring to the recent classification of the witness testimony in the independent 9-11 commission. I was of course referring to the congressional testimony which was classified – which is trying to be classified after the fact, after the independent testimony was released.
But you’re absolutely correct about the 9-11 Commission, even though it’s staffed by ex-Governor Keene and former Democratic congressman Tom Romer and many other establishment personalities, including some cover-up artists like attorney Ben Venista who has a real long history with dark-side operations with the U.S. government. Nevertheless, these were open hearings, as you said. You and I have been able to hear the transcripts and they are available on the Internet. And yet one of the participants, Tom Romer, couldn’t go down to the Capitol secure reading room and even read them because he had been told these are now classified. They will be classified until the White House attorney can get down there and read them and see if there’s anything that they want to invoke presidential executive privilege of refusing to go out to the public. Well, it’s already been out to the public. So, this can only mean, of course, that it’s not for national security but to protect the White House from scrutiny and from criticism over the potential that they had reason to know that this attack was coming and did nothing about it.
Dr. Stan:
Now, is that the Christian Breitweiser testimony that has been classified now?
Joel Skousen:
Yes, in the congressional report. Now, there are many others too, not just his. But it’s an ongoing battle where Congress tried to explain to the CIA, the FBI why this is illegal, why it’s improper.
You know what’s one of the interesting things that I would like to address is the fact that there really isn’t any proper criteria for classification. It’s strictly an executive privilege to classify whatever they want. What we really need, Dr. Stan, is a law in the United States that clearly lays out the criteria upon which things can be classified. And there ought to be a specific provision in that law that it is a federal offense in any attempt to classify or make otherwise secret anything that covers up for federal wrongdoing.
Dr. Stan:
But of course this is exactly what they’re doing. In fact, this Bush administration, this Christian administration, this supposedly wonderful open administration, is doing everything they can to prevent whistleblowers, to block freedom of information requests. There has never been an administration, even Bill Clinton’s administration, that was as intent upon keeping the American people from knowing what’s going on as much as the current administration. I just don’t understand that.
Joel Skousen:
You know, I have to chuckle or cringe really when so many people say ‘Well, just think how bad it would be if Al Gore were elected.’ Well, it couldn’t possibly have been worse. In fact, it wouldn’t have been worse because I can tell you that had Al Gore suggested these kinds of draconian restrictions on our constitutional liberties, every single constitutional conservative in the country and every mainstream conservative in our country, every Republican would be up in arms and saying this is a violation of his oath of office, and yet when George Bush does it and all of his lackeys in our own Republican party do it, you know everybody says ‘this must be right, this must be God’s will..’ I have never seen such unthinking among our own people and it’s very, very disconcerting.
Dr. Stan:
Well, I will have to admit that I attended a meeting not too long ago with the major Christian conservative leaders of this country, and you know no criticism at all was even allowed. We were even told you can’t even ask any embarrassing questions of the speakers. In fact I did ask one. I asked ‘what happened to the weapons of mass destruction?’ and I didn’t have a place to eat dinner that night. Maybe it was just coincidence, but it was a very, very strange coincidence – first time that’s ever happened.
But you know this is the problem that we have is that they are taking the advice of Colonel House from his book Phillip Drew, Administrator written in 1912 ‘if you want to control the country, you bring the leaders to Washington, D.C. and you give them the information you want them to take back to the people. And of course George Bush is following Colonel House’s recommendation and mobilizing the Christians to back policies that will ultimately end in the destruction of our freedom and the destruction of Christianity.
Joel Skousen:
Well, that’s well put. I have a list in the World Affairs Brief of this week of real tough questions that were never asked by the victims’ representatives, even though they did ask some tough questions, especially why the New York Port Authority restricted people’s ability to evacuate the South Tower which could have saved many other thousands of lives. And they did ask some other questions, but I think you know if they had asked the kinds of questions that I have asked and others on the Internet alternative news have asked that they wouldn’t have been allowed to testify.
And I think that’s really the strange thing about a commission such as this, whether it was the commission to investigate the JFK assassination, which had many, many links to government wrongdoing and very strange things - multiple caskets floating around the Washington D.C. area when Jackie accompanied Kennedy back home and many, many other very, very strange things. But they never put on the real critics or let them testify before these commissions. It’s incredible that because of David Lipton’s book and a couple of other books, Congress was forced to hold additional hearings, but they never had those people testify who had caught the public’s imagination and who had basically driven the movement to require this.
And it was so much of the tough questions that were driven by the Internet groups that caused the victims’ families, who basically didn’t know any of this on their own other than people had died. They got their information from the Internet, but it’s interesting that none of the really tough questions were allowed to be spoken. And I think that either there was some selective process on who was allowed to speak or someone had subtly hinted to the people ‘No, we don’t want to get into that because you know you’ll be ridiculed as an extremist and we want to make sure that you know whoever is going to represent the victims is moderate and, you know, that type of excuse. I think that’s probably what happened.
But here are some tough questions. You can interrupt me anytime you need to take a break Stan. Here are the tough questions that I put forth in by Brief.
1.
Why has the government refused to make public the recorded pilots’ conversations with ATC -- that’s Air Traffic Control -- surely notifying them that a hijack was in process?
Now we have the timeline from the FTC, and they had noted duly that at certain times -- that was before the first and second aircraft ever hit the North or the South Tower -- that they had alerted NORAD at two separate occasions, for both airliners had declared them as hijacked aircraft. Now they did note that the transponders had been turned off, but they never did tell the public how that they knew that a hijacking was in process because simply if you lose communication with an aircraft, you aren’t really sure, but they were sure. That means they’re not positive because it takes time to break down a cabin door. There are also phones at both ends of the aircraft for stewardesses to alert the cabin that a hijacking or an emergency is in progress. It is inconceivable to me that the pilots would not have known before that door was broken in – if that’s how it happened --that a hijacking was in process. They would have hit their transmit button and told ATC Squawk Emergency that we’ve got a real emergency in process.
Now, why if this is the way that it happened, why not simply reveal those tape recordings and let us hear the pilots declaring an emergency?
And let us hear the pilots with the banging of the doors and the crashing into the cockpit. There’s got to be something wrong with this picture when the ATC has this evidence and refuses to give it up, indicating that that in fact may not be how it happened.
2.
Why has the government denied having intercepted Flight 93 over Pennsylvania with two fighter aircraft despite the voluminous evidence by one of the air traffic controllers in New Hampshire who vectored both aircraft to them that the airliner was shot down, in fact?
An engine was found several miles from the crash site as well as various luggage pieces and that aircraft was shattered through its crash by an unmarked jet that we find out now that is linked to the U.S. government.
Now, that’s two – do we have to take a break here?
Dr. Stan:
We’re going take a break. We’ve got time for one more.
Joel Skousen:
All right.
3.
Why were most military tower operators, especially McQuire Air force Base, told to ground all fighter aircraft taking off?
That was before they had crashed into the second tower, and our fighter aircraft were told not to take off.
Dr. Stan:
Well, that of course is something that I think everybody would ask In fact, I didn’t realize that there was actually an order put out. We’ll be right back here in just a moment with our special guest Joel Skousen.
Dr. Stan:
Well, this is Dr. Stan back here, and our special guest this evening is Joel Skousen. Joel, before I forget, let’s go ahead and get your web site and your telephone number out.
Joel Skousen:
The World Affairs Brief web site is www.JoelSkousen.com That’s spelled as one word
J O E L S K O U S E N, and for those who don’t have access to the web, my telephone number at my office weekdays is area code (801) 224- 4746, 224-4746, and you can request a sample issue, especially this one on the 9-11 investigation just by asking for it, and we’ll send it out to you in the printed edition.
Dr. Stan:
Well now, of course, Joel, I wasn’t aware …is there any evidence that there really was an order that no fighter planes were to take off?
Joel Skousen:
Well, this is one of those where I had unique evidence because one of my subscribers is friends with one the air traffic controllers at McQuire Air Force Base, and he got a call from his friend who said "You just won’t believe it. I was on duty, you know, when this happened and I got a call from a commanding CO and he said ‘you’re to ground all aircraft.’ And he said ‘"What do you mean? We’ve got fighters ready to take off. He said ‘ground all aircraft.’" This was before the U.S. had decided to ground all civilian aircraft.
Dr. Stan:
All right, fine, then basically this is what the government is afraid will be brought out -- that there were fighter airplanes…
In fact, it’s so interesting, Joel, I did quite a bit of talk radio immediately after September 11th, and I would keep bringing up the fact that there were no fighter planes there, you know, guarding our nation’s capital. Certainly it was standard operating procedure. Those planes would be monitoring and following the hijacked planes. And every place, every station in the country I was on, there was a fellow who would call in -- the same guy -- and he would always say " I’m in the military. I know all of these people. I know all these people. I know the people in command at Andrews Air Force Base. We didn’t have any flyers. All of our planes were guarding the periphery. " You know, "Don’t you want us to guard the periphery? We didn’t have any planes available. They didn’t have gas in them, and they didn’t have any ammunition." All of this -- very authoritative. And it was the same story every station I went on to. Obviously, he was there to neutralize anything that I said that might make people ask the question – that very important question -- "Why were there no fighter planes in the air?" So, what they were doing was certainly trying to circumvent any effort to get people thinking correctly, and then of course I’ve hardly ever heard of him since then. But it didn’t matter what station I was on. I could be on a station in New York. I could be on one in Podunk, Iowa, or wherever it would be, and he would always be one of the callers they’re trying to discredit what I was saying. So, obviously, if there’s nothing to conceal, why are they concealing it? And why would they go to all that effort just to quiet somebody as unimportant as I am, but I think they have to silence everybody who is asking those questions.
Joel Skousen:
You know, I think the same thing happens throughout the Internet now in all the major chat rooms, they have government shills and professional debunkers, whether its on a chemtrail sites or on 9-11 who have these prepared reasons, and these are pretty sharp people they’ve put to do these things. But I think as I’ve gone head-to-head with some of these people and presented irrefutable evidence and see them carefully weighed, answering these questions, you realize they weren’t sincerely trying to discuss issues, you know, on the basis of truth but on a kneejerk defense of government operations.
4.
You know this is the same thing with the reported cell phone calls which is reason number 4 here. There is real good reason to believe that these major cell phone calls were faked. I realize this is very controversial, but there is significant evidence that cell phones do not operate at high altitudes. Horizon Wireless, for example, puts out a notice to their cell phone telephone customers that their phone does not operated over 1,800 feet in altitude.
The FAA doesn’t like people using cell phone at altitudes -- it messes up they say the cell telephone system because of multiple towers. If they do receive a signal, receive the same signal, they cannot determine which tower should handle the call. Cell phone towers, for example, are oriented for horizontal reception, not vertical reception. So although, you know, from a moderate low altitude, generally lower than 2000 feet, at even at 5000, you get some cell phone reception, but not at the altitude Flight 93 was flying.
You know the Barbara Olsen call is also very, very suspect. Mr. Olsen, you know, is Solicitor General. The first thing he could do after he supposedly got this call was to the news media. You know instead of to call the White House or call people and say "Get a fighter into the air to help save my wife.’ Supposedly he calls the news media. But interestingly enough in the story that the news media relates, it is very clearly stated that she had to call them collect, that she didn’t have any other way. Well, you can’t call collect from a seat-back cell phone – it was supposed to be a seat-back telephone -- You can’t call collect. You have to have a credit card to activate the phone. You cannot call collect because the call already goes through with the credit card. And you see nobody asks those questions.
There are many, many other things that happened.
Dr. Stan:
You know, that wonderful story about the fellow who led the charge on the plane in Pennsylvania, but he didn’t call his wife. He called an operator who later relayed, you know, this call to the wife. So, you know, she doesn’t know who it was. She knows who she said it was, but I’ve always been a little suspicious that that was set up because we wanted to have a hero. We wanted to have this idea that these people rushed the cab, rushed the cabin. Did you ever have that thought?
Joel Skousen:
Yes, well especially with the language that was supposedly used in this. You know, here the operators and he is supposedly telling him that the airplanes are crashing, and he decides while he’s talking to the operator to get some meetings going, and all this time he is supposed to be talking on a cell phone to this operator with transmission that usually won’t stay current or stay on at that altitude, and then has this dramatic " Okay boys, let’s roll." You know that you don’t do that while the telephone is still on. You know you don’t hold a meeting while you’ve got one ear to the telephone. It just seems very, very strange.
Dr. Stan:
I had that same feeling, but I really didn’t want to say anything. You know I didn’t want to make it out that I was a little paranoid, but then you’re only paranoid when you imagine that they are against you or when you imagine that there really is a conspiracy to take over our government and plunge us into a series of wars.
Joel Skousen:
Now, I’m not saying that any one of these things is conclusive evidence. I’m not saying even conclusively that no cell phone communication could have occurred, but evidence
indicates that it’s very, very hard that it could. And it causes us to question these things. It’s the total number of these conundrums that we need to address.
For example the next one…
5.
How did the U.S. so quickly develop such complete profiles and dossiers on all the hijackers, including their nightclub activities, if these people were not previously being tracked by government agents?
I mean for an agency that was so incompetent that the didn’t know that any of this would happen to suddenly rise to that level of competency is just a little hard to believe, not to mention the long trail of incriminating letters that have supposedly survived the crash into the World Trade Center - passports intact from the flaming inferno, flight manuals supposedly left behind at the rental cars. This is just ridiculous.
Dr. Stan:
6.
I think that story that, you know, that story of the passports, found both at the World Trade Center and the Pennsylvania site … anybody who believes that passports just happened to survive that flaming inferno has to be incredibly gullible. In fact, the FBI actually took the picture that they had on their web site down. We got a copy of the Pennsylvania passport of one of the hijackers who rolled down the window and threw it out . But you know the only other explanation that could possibly explain… How could it possibly survive the flaming inferno if what we’re told is true? The plane’s nose is down to the ground – nothing's left -- but the passport had to be thrown out before the plane went into the ground.
Joel Skousen:
How do you throw it out…?
Dr. Stan:
Of course, you don’t, but you use that analogy. Even some of the Americans who have been so brainwashed that they are almost brain dead realize "Gee, how do you roll down a window there in an airplane?" What sort of an explanation can you come up with, unless of course it was planted?
Joel Skousen:
7.
Well, you know, there are several other things involved with the naming of these hijackers. In the first place, you know this is the worst intelligence technique to simply, according to their version, take these names off the passenger manifests and say these were the terrorist hijackers. I mean, what terrorist would use his real name in getting on an airplane? And, of course, we have the list of these almost 20 people here and eight of them are alive and confirmed alive, and yet the U.S. government never even intended to amend the list of hijackers.
Dr. Stan:
Well, now I’ve heard that there are eight of them who are alive. What’s the background of that? How do we know that? I’ve heard that story told, and I’ve always wondered what’s the foundation of it?
Joel Skousen:
Well, the foundation is that Arab-Americans who knew of people who had relatives….When this was first published, everyone in Saudi Arabia knew that and these people surfaced, and you can read some of their public letters saying "Hey, I’m alive. I’m this person. I’m not a terrorist and here I am. I’m living in Saudi Arabia. I’ve got this particular job" and they were very, very upset that they were involved in this particular role. And of course the government has been mute about it.
And of course they doctored all of the passenger lists. They eliminated all of the Arab names since there would be no way that anyone could check. I wrote to the airlines and said "Let me have the names that you omitted from the passenger lists," and they refused. You know, they said, "The government doesn’t want us revealing that." Isn’t that strange? The government produces a list supposedly from the passenger list, and yet it then classifies that portion of the list so that it cannot be seen, and yet the government supposedly is reviewing it. The only possible explanation for that is that the two lists don’t match.
Dr. Stan:
Okay, of course, that is very, very provocative, but there are so many things out there. What were some of the others?
Joel Skousen:
8.
Why were some of the alleged hijackers who the government has admitted were on the terrorist watch list given VISAs, even without proper documentation that would normally be required?
9.
Why did two of those hijackers have relationships with Huffman Aviation and were seen being taxied and chauffeured to that Huffman flight school on various occasions?
There’s a CIA front group, Britania Aviation, that leases space in a Huffman hangar there. So we know that there is a relationship there between the CIA in this very flight school which trained -- well partially trained -- two of these. In my opinion, these people, if they did the hijacking at all, were not trained with Cessnas - you can’t -- there’s just no relationship between flying a Cessna and flying one of these major aircrafts, especially the technical electronics and transponder operations. So, if anything, they were simply providing a cover for having received training elsewhere on major airliners and the simply established a cover by going to American flight schools so that it wouldn’t be blamed on where they got real training.
Dr. Stan:
You know basically … Joseph Bodanski … I know you have some questions about him. But for our listeners, he’s the director of the Congressional Task Force for Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. He wrote in his book Attack America back in 1993 that there was a training camp actually in Iran in the early 80s where they had 707s and 747s and they were actually training them on hijacking airplanes and practicing crashing them into buildings.
Have you ever heard of any relationship between any of these hijackers and that Iranian camp?
Joel Skousen:
Well, I’ve seen the satellite photos of the presumed Iraqi camp where they had trained and that’s very, very slim evidence I do know of Bodanki’s claims on that. Bodanski is an insider within the government, so as you know, I don’t trust anyone who works within government. You know they just aren’t allowed to stay there if they’re a critic.
Dr. Stan:
Although all…well, just about all … I had a very, very difficult time getting that book here in the United States, and the impression I had was that. Somebody had collected those -so for whatever that’s worth… so …
Joel Skousen:
I’m not saying that…. obviously anything Bodanski has to write at least 90 percent truth, but I am very careful about anything I receive from people who work within government, especially people who write books about the Massad or write books from an insider position because you or I can’t get access to that information. You have to be on the inside to get that information. And it’s always very selective. They give you very open and really enticing information that makes them an expert, but there’s twice as much information that they’re not telling you, and that’s where I challenge their veracity since they don’t tell all that they know. They’re still under control of U.S. government censorship.
Dr. Stan:
Okay.
Joel Skousen:
10.
In any case, you know, there are other things that we could talk about. Not only why certain investors knew to short the stocks of American Airlines prior to 9-11, but along the same lines, why has the U.S. government never attempted, Stan, to subpoena Wall Street computer records to find out who these stock investors were? It’s almost like we don’t want to know.
11.
Why have the testimonies of New York fire fighters -- this is the big one – who heard bombs going off in the tower as they were evacuating people, why were they pressured never to say anything? There, of course, is Firehouse Number 12, the first one in to the North Tower of the World Trade Center, came in and testified that the lobby was completely blown out. All but the windows were gone. It looked like a major explosion in terms of all the plants turned over and furniture turned over. I mean, this was when they first came in, and this is well before the tower had come down. Now later on the feds came in and said you’re never to talk about this, and they gave them a half-cocked excuse saying that the fuel poured down the elevator shaft and exploded in the bottom and that’s what happened here.
This isn’t true at all. In the first place, the elevator shaft coming from the upper floors doesn’t even come close to the lobby, and the second point that belies is that there were no marks of any flames whatsoever, and you cannot have a fuel-fed explosion without having a great deal of carbon and flames go out in that area. So, there definitely was an explosion in that building or multiple explosions.
We’ve seen now a video of World Trade Building Number 7. It came down in a complete collapse. It wasn’t a - you know - … it was very similar, if not an exact replica, of a controlled explosion of that particular building.
Now I have always been a skeptic, I might say Dr. Stan, of the concept of these buildings being sabotaged by explosives, mainly because it would have been extremely difficult to know where to place the explosives in order to anticipate where the airplanes would crash in to it. You’d have to hypothesize that you would have had to rig the entire building and then have radio-controlled devices that would allow you to blow off the appropriate ones that corresponded to where the airplane crashed in.
Well, I believe that that is highly untenable because of the fact that it would require months to wire that many explosives. It would all too easy for regular maintenance people to find those over the period of time You wouldn’t be able to hide that many people going into the building doing that kind of explosives work.
But there is new evidence that it was only the main support steel, the 47 main internal pillars, that had to be exploded. In fact there was evidence that when they took out the debris that they found great big pools of molten metal at the bottom where those pillars had stood. And that would provide… and there are seismic evidence, of course, of multiple explosions in the tower before them collapsing as well…But that would explain the pancaking of each floor subsequently coming down. If you ignited those main support towers enough to cause a jolt in combination with the damage to the floor trusses to let those floors start to release. They did definitely come down differently than World Trade Center Building Number 7 which came down all at once. These pancaked down from the top damaged area on down which made it appear very realistic as if the damaged had occurred from flames weakening and softening the floor trusses. It doesn’t have to melt.
You know a lot of people have ignorantly made the claim that jet fuel burns at 900 degrees and that’s not enough to melt steel. Well, you don’t have to melt steel to weaken trusses and cause them to sag and let loose of their connections. But what you do need – because it's very rare that one floor collapsing would cause the whole building to collapse -but if the main support pillars in the middle were suddenly cut out from under them, then that would cause a sufficient earthquake-like jar to precipitate, I believe, the pancaking of the floors one after the other and bringing the building down. So, that’s the basic theory right now, that there was some correlation between the bomb-like explosions the firemen heard and the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Dr. Stan:
Well, there are all sorts of fascinating things there, and certainly I’ve seen one picture of that coming down of Building Number 7, and it certainly did not come down from the top – it came down…and that was a very, very high building…I think it was forty or fifty floors, wasn’t it? But anyway….
Joel Skousen:
What they’re basically explaining is that the damage from the collapsing World Trade Center building undercut the building (WTC Building Number 7). But if that were true, it would only undercut from one side of the building and the building would have tipped over. That building came down just like a controlled explosion. Now, it was different that the World Trade Center which came one floor after another, one floor landing on top of the other, breaking it loose and continuing on down.
But it is interesting that were that to really occur, it’s very difficult, you know, justify that happening since the firemen had reported, for example, on the North Tower which had received less damage because of the way in which the airplane– I’m sorry, the South Tower, the second one --the way in which the airplane crashed only into the corner that the firemen had reported that they almost had the fire out was their last report. In other words, this thing was fully contained. There really wasn’t any reason for that collapse to occur, and they did not view any eminent damage to the main structural portion.
Dr. Stan:
Well, there are a lot of unanswered questions, and I fear that the investigation that George Bush and his administration are going to stage manage is not going to going to get any information out, and I think that the administration is frightened to death the American people are going to begin to suspect that everything that happened was simply to justify first the war with Afghanistan, the war with Iraq, and thirdly, of course, the destruction of individual freedom here – PATRIOT 1, PATRIOT 2, Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, Homeland Security, doing away with of posse comitatus laws, the imposition of a police state in the name of fighting terrorism, and yet of course nobody wants to mention that there wasn’t any worldwide Islamic terrorist movement of any significance prior to when we precipitated the Afghan war. And then we brought the Muslim warriors, the Mujahedin from countries across the world and began to indoctrinate them in this radical form of Wahabism or Islamism that our good friends in Saudi Arabia have been financing. So we created this whole Islamic movement, and now of course we’re wondering why we have a war against terrorism. This is entirely new. It did not exist before twenty-three years ago.
Remember that we toppled the Shah of Iran. We brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power, which of course created the first, or perhaps the second – the first Islamic state would be Saudi Arabia , the second would be Iran, and we brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power.
Back in 1979 when we toppled the Shah, I couldn’t figure out why we were toppling our friend and bringing in an enemy. Today I could readily understand that. What are your thoughts on that?
Joel Skousen:
Well, you know there really is no justification for the curtailment of constitutional rights. There is a proper principle of law that justifies that in a real war situation under two situations -- one when you have sufficient chaos and destruction within the country that the court system cannot operate. And I’m talking about, you know, this justification of why they have to have all this terrorist restriction of liberties. And you know if you really had chaos and the courts couldn’t operate, you might be able to justify withdrawing habeus corpus - meaning the ability to bring forth a body and hold a full hearing. Or, if you have so many prisoners that you can’t get around it. But you know that none of that occurred after 9-11.
You know they rounded up three or four hundred people. Less than a dozen of those people ever crossed the threshold of a court. I hardly could say that the courts were overloaded, or that they could not grant constitutional protections.
Now we have the ongoing fiasco in Guantanamo Bay going, Camp Xray, a very appropriate name for some X File type goings on down there. You have 665 prisoners being held down there without Geneva Convention rules, considered enemy combatants rather than enemies of war just because they didn’t have uniforms on. Well, nobody wore uniforms in that particular war. So, you know, this is a guerrilla war. But in this case the U.S. has been having to explain to the American people why they’re keeping those people in limbo. And now they’re suddenly coming out and saying we’re going to write a new code of military justice specifically for this situation and they will control it.
Dr. Stan:
Let’s go to Richard, calling from Florida. Richard had called our earlier in our earlier program and we didn’t have time to get to him. Richard, do you have a question or comment?
Richard:
Yea, well a quick comment and then a question for Joel. Is this gentleman, Eric Hufschmid, I think his last name is pronounced, who has a lot of interesting evidence that the towers were demolished. I mean it’s kind of long…but he was touring the Prophecy Club and has a lot of interesting information.
Dr. Stan:
I’ve read his book. I’ve talked to him. I don’t know if you have any opinion of him at all, Joel.
Joel Skousen:
Would you relay the question?
Dr. Stan:
Eric Hufschmid -- he’s got a book that he’s put out about the coming down of the World Trade Center buildings. He’s got some great pictures there that certainly suggest that there was an explosion. You’re not acquainted with his work though?
Joel Skousen:
Yes, I have seen some of it on the Internet. He does, I believe, mostly conform to the theory of very sophisticated explosions throughout the building, and I don’t really buy that. I think that’s too complex and too difficult to pull off.
The best theory I believe is targeting only the 47 main pillars and letting the regular damage do the rest.
Dr. Stan:
Okay, anything else, Richard?
Richard:
Yes, I wanted to ask Joel about a topic real quickly. Joel, how did Halliburton gain from the war? They were already doing business with Iraq before the war - actually Gulf War I? Did they improve the monopoly on the Iraqi oil, or what new contracts did they get?
Joel Skousen:
Would you relay the question please?
Dr. Stan:
He wants to know – Halliburton Oil -- He said -- did they get some new contracts? If they got new contracts, what were they, and why are they better off than they were before? Halliburton, of course, is Dick Chaney’s corporation.
Joel Skousen:
Yes, of course, it’s Brown and Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton that’s been in extensive refurbishing of the Kuwaiti oil fields from which they gained many billions. Any they are now …You know their contract has been modified. This is how they gained. They had certain contracts for reconstruction of the slightly damaged southern oil fields, but now their contract reads that they also get to continue to work in distribution of that oil, which means basically that they’ve got their foot in the door for doing an unlimited amount of oil restoration and increasing the oil supply there.
I think it’s very important to realize about all of these contractors who supposedly came in on a bid relationship. There was nothing to bid on. How do you bid on something when you haven’t even been in the country and the war isn’t even over? Yet these contracts were granted at a certain fixed amount before in fact that they could even assess the damage. So that tells me that it’s a rigged deal.
Dr. Stan:
Well, sure. We’re out of time. Thanks so much, Richard. And Joel, I want to thank you so much for being with us. It is always a pleasure. Again the telephone number and the web site.
Joel Skousen:
Our phone number is Area Code (801) 224-4746, or check us out at www.JoelSkousen.com.
Dr. Stan:
God bless you. Thanks so much for being with us.
Joel Skousen:
Thank you.
Dr. Stan:
And Joel is certainly one of my favorite guests we have here, and I hope he’s one of yours as well. And I think that this is one issue that we do not want to let die. We’ve got to keep this issue before the American people with the hope, of course, that we begin to understand they’re playing games with our minds - they’re manipulating our reality. And of course, it’s about time we begin to think independent of mass media, which is designed not to inform, but to control our reactions.
So ladies and gentlemen, this is the time we have to remind you that Radio Liberty is listener supported. We hope that many of you will join the Radio Liberty family, and then we ask you to pray for America, we ask that you pray for our leaders and for our ministers. We ask you to pray for our boys overseas and we ask you to pray for Radio Liberty, for our provision and protection. And so until next time – May the Lord be with you.
Topics discussed during Joel’s Radio Liberty, 6-30-03 interview include: the dangers of hospitals and public schools (re: parental rights, family sovereignty, state vs. parental choice, dangerous vaccines); the CO family against immunizations (case of Baby M; the dangerous hepatitis B test that often gives false positive readings); compelling state interest doctrine (The state has an interest in the welfare of the child, but who has the ultimate authority—parent or the state?); home schooling; ways to stay out of dangerous institutions (like hospitals and public schools); beware of the fine print, such as filling out forms when entering a hospital); eating right to not wear out glands prematurely . . .
Also Joel discussed in this show: the Supreme Court vs. Constitution; what constitutes a fundamental right; man’s law vs. God’s law; and more.
To listen go to http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
06-30-03b - Fast forward to 01:06:25 for Joel Skousen (second show of part b, June 30).
Here’s Joel’s recent Radio Liberty interview (available in the archives for only a limited time). On Iraq, democracy and other topics he wrote about in World Affairs Brief during Aug.-Sept. 2003.
First show for 09-02-03b—Joel Skousen. Begins at 00:04:25 after 2-4 minutes of opening music.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=09-02-03b
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
Joel discussed “The Big Picture” and other topics he wrote about recently in World Affairs Brief during his 10-13-03 Radio Liberty interview. Listen to it below (first show, starts at 06:00).
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=10-13-03b
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
Before this show disappears from the Radio Liberty archives, check out the very interesting 2-hour program Joel Skousen did on Dec. 11, 2003. This makes a great companion to his WWII backgrounder World Affairs Brief from a few weeks ago.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=12-11-03b
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
To Steve Stock: Thanks for letting us know in advance at the Secure Home forum that Joel will be on Coast To Coast AM on Tuesday, 1-6-04. But I thought your earlier post belonged at this thread as well so I hope you don’t mind that I “borrowed” it below. Earlier Steve wrote:
“At http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ I just read that on Tues., Jan. 6, 2004 Joel will discuss terrorism and strategic relocation with host George Noory on Coast To Coast AM. Call-in numbers for Coast To Coast are listed here http://www.coasttocoastam.com/info/callin.html so we can ask Joel questions about terrorism and safe places during the Jan. 6 show.”
At the Coast To Coast AM web site, it says:
Tuesday, January 6th, 2004
Upcoming
Joel Skousen -Safe Places- joelskousen.com
Joel Skousen (joelskousen.com) a political scientist and designer of high security residences and retreats, will talk about terrorism and strategic relocations.
Joel Skousen, currently the editor of the "World Affairs" brief and former designer of high security residences and retreats, specializes in crisis preparedness, whether it is natural disasters, a major terrorist attack on a U.S. city with chemical or biological weapons, an economic crisis, or massive social unrest.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/schedule.html
Re: Joel on Coast To Coast Tuesday night. I want to hear this show, but I have to work that night and will miss it. Will it be archived?
There will probably be a recap posted immediately following the Jan. 6 show at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/ or check later at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/classic.html.
Joel’s three-hour Coast To Coast AM interview on Jan. 6, 2004 with George Noory is really worth a listen to in case you missed it. Great show! It was loaded from start to finish with stunning, new information on terrorism, world affairs, strategic relocation, safe rooms, and much more. George Noory’s sharp questions made the show all the more interesting. The show is archived at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/ - Available to Streamlink members. Here’s a general recap from the Coast To Coast AM web site:
Preparing For The Enemy
"At the very best the [U.S.] government allowed this to happen," said political scientist Joel Skousen (joelskousen.com) about the 9-11 attacks. No verifiable evidence has been produced that shows that Arabs were in charge of the strike, he said. Further, he suggested that the last few presidents have been "script readers" who take their orders from a controlling set of individuals above them.
"By the end of the decade we could see a major backlash," against the US said Skousen who believes the country's greatest enemies are not rogue nations or terrorists but China and Russia. Because these countries are continuing to increase their arsenals he believes they "plan to take on the West someday," with a first strike nuclear assault. Interestingly, he posited that after such an attack China would "stab Russia in the back," in a bid for even more power.
An advocate for "strategic relocation," Skousen said the safest course of action is to move out of urban areas to escape social unrest in the event of a natural disaster or attack. Recognizing that this is not an option for many, he recommended building a "safe room" in one's home that offers concealment and protection. This can be done in a do-it-yourself manner fairly inexpensively he said, using such materials as "gravel wall construction" which can offer a sturdiness similar to concrete.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/01/06.html
During Joel’s Radio Liberty interview on Jan. 28, 2004, he discussed George Bush, John Kerry, Rudolph Giuliani (our future president at the end of this decade?), Skull & Bones, Bilderbergers and secret societies, 911 whistleblower and FBI translator Sibil Edmonds, Russia both arming and disarming, more.
On conspiracies. “There is no one smoking gun,” Joel said because “Satan runs competing conspiracies . . . What you do find are patterns in whistleblower accounts which prove that something very dark is happening”.
1-28-04
8:00 p.m. – Joel Skousen
Fast forward through the first 10 minutes of a previous show, then stop at 10:25 here for the start of the Skousen/Monteith discussion.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=01-28-04b
Or go to http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio_liberty/
Radio Liberty, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2004
8:00 PM: Bill Sardi – Longevinex/vaccines.
9:00 PM: Joel Skousen - Haiti.
02-23-04b Start at 01:04:15 for Joel's comments on Haiti http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=02-23-04b
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/
Haiti and Aristide—Part 2. Other topics Joel discussed in the interview below include: Israel, Ariel Sharon, terrorism, Bush, Kerry and the 2004 election, more.
Radio Liberty, 3-3-04a
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/
For Joel’s comments on Iraq, Fallujah, Paul Bremer, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Clarke, the 911 cover-up, Cheney, Ben-Veniste, the Bush family, oil, mercenary units in Iraq and other foreign countries, fast forward to 01:04:00 to the second hour of Radio Liberty.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=04-01-04b
or http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/
8:00 P.M: Rowan Scarborough – Rumsfeld’s War
9:00 P.M.: Joel Skousen
04-01-04b
Cyprus and Votescam – Radio Liberty, Joel Skousen – 4-26-04b
Fast forward to second show, starts at 01:04:00:
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=04-26-04b
or http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/ 4-26-04b
Dr. Stan Monteith interviews Joel Skousen on Radio Liberty on May 7, 2004.
I just read at http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com:
“The archive (real audio file) for the May 4 9PM PST show has now been posted. Mr. Skousen will again be the guest on the upcoming Friday May 7 show at 4PM PST. Listeners can access that program online by clicking the 'Listen Live' link on the page's lower right hand corner, a few minutes before the scheduled start.”
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/
I heard the May 4 show about the Iraqi torture prison scandal. It’s definitely worth a listen--and even a second and third listen.
Iraq torture abuse scandal/Radio Liberty interview
Joel Skousen, 05-07-04a
4:00 p.m.
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/
Joel talks about Korean POWs and more.
Radio Liberty, June 1, 2004
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=06-01-04a
Joel Skousen discussed his general alert for June (see June 4 World Affairs Brief or listen below) with Dr. Stan Monteith on Radio Liberty on 6-10-04 (second show). The first show, Kevin DeMerritt’s, is on the economy and this speaker reflected the same concerns that Joel also addressed in Show #2 below.
6-10-04b
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=155a&d=06-10-04b
8:00 p.m. – Kevin DeMerritt
9:00 p.m. – Joel Skousen
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/
To go straight to Joel’s interview, “Is something bad coming in June?” fast forward to 01:02:25 at the first link above.
Joel Skousen on Jeff Rense Program, 6-21-04
Hear Joel Skousen, editor of World Affairs Brief, at http://www.rense.com Monday night (June 21, 2004). Listen to Jeff Rense live, 10 p.m.-1 a.m. EST (Monday) at http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/ If you miss the show, check the audio archives later at http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rense/archives.html
Thanks, Kris. Here’s a shortcut to the audio archives and the Joel Skousen interview with Jeff Rense on June 21, 2004.
Topics discussed: June 2004 issues covered in World Affairs Brief/World on the Edge/Preparedness Tips
Listen to the 2-hour show (in 2 parts) at
http://www.talkone.com/rensearchives.htm
From the Coast to Coast A.M. website...Recap of the Art Bell-Joel Skousen show on Coast to Coast A.M., Nov. 14, 2004:
Terrorism, Iraq & 9-11
Joel Skousen, a political scientist and designer of high security residences, presented his analysis of terrorism threats, the Iraq war and 9-11. He suggested that since there have been no attacks since 9-11 in the U.S., that the ongoing threat is possibly being blown out of proportion as a guise for the government to restrict civil liberties.
According to his sources, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction but they transferred them to allies such as Syria before the U.S. invaded. Further, he believes that Russia and China are the "real axis of evil" and countries like Iran are surrogates for them. He also said that Russia "cooked up the their own demise" in order to facilitate subsequent technology transfers from the U.S.
Skousen stated that the American government is withholding crucial pieces of information about the 9-11 attacks. And while he finds evidence that the Pentagon may have been hit by a missile rather than a commercial jet, he has refrained from drawing definitive conclusions about the machinations behind this. He did theorize that groups within or behind the administration may be trying to bring us closer to a global government through involving us in war.
Full show and other audio clips at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/11/14.html
Deadline Live with Jack Blood
Host Jack Blood and Joel Skousen discuss Condo-LIE-za Rice and many other hot topics in the Jan. 2005 news and World Affairs Brief.
(www.WorldAffairsBrief.com, call for free sample: 877-518-5888)
http://www.jackblood.com/index/id2.html - 1/27/05
(Interview begins about 40 minutes into the first hour, continues into second hour).
The French Connection with Darrell Smith
Mon., January 31, 2005
Guest: Joel Skousen—Relocation, security and what you can do to prepare and save your family
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Darrell/0501/20050131_Mon_Darrell.ram
The French Connection with Darrell Smith
2005 Audio Archives
M3U/RAM at http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Darrell05.html
Mon., February 28, 2005
Guest: Joel Skousen
Topics: George W. Bush, Charm Offensive, Jacques Chirac, France, US, others becoming more like a police state, Russia and Putin, US economy, real estate bubble, foreign currencies, interest rates, Venezuela’s current moves with China, foreign currencies, privacy, tracking people, FEMA camps, 911, war on terrorism, coming WWIII, HAARP, chemtrails, scalar weapons, coming flus and plagues, more.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Darrell/0502/20050228_Mon_Darrell.ram
Thu., March 24, 2005
Guest: Joel Skousen
Topics: Vaccines, building up the immune system by natural means, strategic relocation, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, George W. Bush, press manipulation, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Latin America, OKC, Timothy McVeigh, more. http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Darrell/0503/20050324_Thu_Darrell.ram
World Affairs Brief, K-Talk Radio Update—July 2005
The World Affairs Brief hour where you can listen to the latest news and analysis from Joel Skousen is now every Friday at noon Mountain Time, 2 p.m. EST on the Barbara Jean Whiteley show at KTKK. Listen live each week at http://www.k-talk.com.
You can also find recent WAB interviews by editors Joel, Derek or Andrew Skousen in the Radio Liberty archives at http://www.soundwaves2000.com/radio%5Fliberty/ or http://www.radioliberty.com.
SPY VS. SPY, part 1
Remember those two little guys in Mad Magazine tossing hissing bombs at each other? In a way that's what going on in the CIA today. World Affairs Brief Editor Joel Skousen reveals the reasons why CIA Director Porter Goss was fired.
Part 1: http://www.freemarketnews.com/eRadioLaunch.asp?rid=623
SPY BUSINESS, part 2
World Affairs Editor, Joel Skousen reviews the inner workings of the CIA with regards to drugs, black side activities and even JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/eRadioLaunch.asp?rid=648