Monday, December 29, 2008

Israel Accused Of Massive War Crime Atrocities

UN Professor Falk cites targeting of civilians, disproportionate military response as Obama and Pelosi express terse approval

Paul Joseph Watson
December 29, 2008

A new IAF cockpit video shows an air strike targeted against an alleged rocket launching site located between two civilian homes, as UN Professor Richard Falk accused Israel of massive violations of international humanitarian law.

Falk, United Nations Special Investigator for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, listed numerous actions by Israel that clearly break the rules of engagement codified in the Geneva Conventions.

These include; collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip for the actions of relatively few militants; the indiscriminate targeting of civilians including school children and university students during air strikes, with hundreds now dead or injured; a disproportionate military response which has destroyed every police and security office of Gaza’s elected government.

Israel has also sealed off entry and exit points to the Gaza Strip, causing severe shortages of medicine, food and fuel and hampering efforts to treat victims of the bombing raids.

"Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give Israel any right, neither as the occupying power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response. I note that Israel’s escalating military assaults have not made Israeli civilians safer; on the contrary, the one Israeli killed today after the upsurge of Israeli violence is the first in over a year," writes Falk.

Reports of civilians being targeted on both sides continue to emerge. Hamas TV broadcast a video showing injured Israeli citizens being evacuated with the words "Let them taste violent death" superimposed over skulls dripping with blood.

But the majority of war crimes have obviously been committed by the might of the Israeli military, with one report accusing the Israelis of targeting school children who were making their way home with air strikes.

Meanwhile, President elect Barack Obama’s reaction to Israel’s biggest military assault on Gaza in 20 years was a nonchalant "no comment," while Democratic leader of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for the carnage by stating "When Israel is attacked, the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally."

With at least 285 dead and over 800 injured so far, Obama and Pelosi’s terse approval for the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents reminds us that 2009 is unlikely to offer "change" of any kind but is likely to guarantee more war and bloodshed.

Barack Obama on Israel’s deadly attacks on Gaza: ‘No comment’
By Joshua Frank

Read story here

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7

Reinforcing conviction that Silverstein was referring to demolition with infamous comments on PBS documentary

Paul Joseph Watson
December 23, 2008

Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that "You guys knew this was coming all day," by stating, "We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own."

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

Watch the clip

This reinforces the fact that when Larry Silverstein infamously told a 2002 PBS documentary that a consideration had been made to "pull it," which is a demolition industry term for deliberate implosion, he did indeed mean that WTC 7 was considered for deliberate demolition.

This would mean that Silverstein’s later qualification of his comments, that "pull it" simply meant to pull the firefighters out of the building, despite FEMA’s assertion that no firefighting operations even took place inside WTC 7, was an outright lie intended to deflect possible ramifications arising out of the $7 billion dollar payout Silverstein received in insurance after the WTC complex was destroyed.

Numerous other eyewitnesses have come forward to express their conviction that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished.

Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

"After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage," said Singh.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert Kevin McPadden also reported his conviction that a countdown preceded the collapse of the building.

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn’t hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn’t want to bring it on his conscience - he didn’t want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer also reported hearing bombs tear down WTC 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

Several TV news networks received advance knowledge that the building was likely to collapse, with both the BBC and CNN reporting at least 26 minutes in advance that the building had already collapsed when it still stood.

Rastuccio’s newly uncovered comments about a plan to demolish Building 7 are likely to provoke a firestorm of fresh suspicion surrounding the implosion of the structurally reinforced 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed in 7 seconds within its own footprint despite suffering relatively minor damage from the collapse of the twin towers.

by Larry Simons

To reiterate a few of Paul Watson’s comments, back in 2002, as Watson mentioned, WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted (about WTC 7) that “the smartest thing to do was ‘pull it’”, a term used by demolition experts to describe bringing a building down.

Here’s the video of Silverstein’s “pull it”

The website attempts to debunk the “pull it” statement (as meaning "authorizing demolition") by saying that “The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.” Then they say, "Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".

Click here to go to (also click to enlarge screen shot below)

I find it interesting that in the above screen shot from, that the writers give two definitions to the words "pull it" in an effort to cover all their tracks. Notice they say "pull it" is used for smaller buildings (no doubt, so they can cover for the fact that during the exact same PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, you can hear a demolition worker say, "We're ready to pull building 6") and they say that "pull it" is used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building" despite numerous reports that stated no firefighters ever went into WTC 7.

Then they (at give examples of firefighters’ dialogue on 9/11 (from the NY Times website) in which they claim the word “pull” was used in the context mentioned above meaning to “pulling firefighters out of a building”. Here is one example:

“I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.”

Here’s another example:

“Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street.”

But, as you can clearly see, in both examples above, the word “pull” or “pulling” is used in the normal sense that you would use the word if you were saying you were removing a firefighting unit from an area. “Pulling all of our units out of 7 WTC…” and “Finally they pulled us out”, as well as “they pulled us out of there”. This is exactly how you would say it, but the Silverstein comment is not used in this way. Silverstein said, "pull it", not "pull your units out of there", or "pull them out". In fact, in both definitions mentioned in the screen shot above, they only cite the meanings to the word "pull" and not "pull" and "it" together and then attribute Silverstein's "pull it" to somehow fit into their definitions of only the word "pull".

Here is Silverstein’s full comment (which was conveniently not mentioned at all on Larry Silverstein’s page at, “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Notice the context in which Silverstein uses the word “Pull”. The entire context of this statement is in reference to the condition of WTC 7, not about firefighters at all. Plus, when you’re trying to say you want a squadron of firefighters to exit a building, you wouldn’t tell a third party (in this case the fire department commander) to “pull it”. You would say, “pull them out of there”, or “…the smartest thing to do is get your men out---or pull them out”. In other words, you would use the word “pull” in the exact same way it was used in the portions of dialogue (above) that came from the website!

One more thing, and maybe most importantly, why would the fire commander call Silverstein (even if it was a courtesy call to inform him the building was not salvageable) and tell him, “they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire?" Doesn’t the fire commander know what to do in the event that a fire cannot be extinguished? Wouldn’t he already know that getting his men out of a hopeless situation would be the #1 priority? Wouldn't he have already pulled them out of the building before calling Silverstein? So, let me get this straight. If you're the fire department commander, you would call the leaseholder of a building to inform him of the condition of his building before getting your men the hell out of it? Wouldn't it make better sense to make the decision to get your men out first and then call the leaseholder (if you were going to at all) and tell him, "We couldn't contain the fire, so I pulled my men out?"

Plus, it was reported that they knew “all day” that WTC 7 might come down. It was even in the NBC video clip above. So, why would you even send firefighters into a building that you were hearing reports about the fact that it could come down “at any time”?

All of this is irrelevant anyway because of the fact that FEMA reported that there were no manual firefighting operations in building 7 (another ‘insignificant’ fact left off of the site).

NIST (the National Institute for Standards and Technology) also reported no firefighters were in building 7 when they said, “[W]ater was never an issue at WTC 7, since firefighting was never started in the building.”

It’s a mystery as to what the “pull it” comment meant. The explanation that it meant to pull the firefighters from the building just isn’t believable, since, as I said, people just don’t talk that way, especially since firefighters was not the main subject of the context in which Silverstein was referring. But most importantly, because no firefighters were in the building to "pull" out.

I also find it difficult to believe that since Silverstein stood to gain from the destruction of WTC on the basis that it was done by terrorists so he could collect insurance money, that he would openly admit on national television that he ordered the building to be destroyed. Perhaps a good alternative explanation is this one found on

“A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.”

No explanation overrides the empirical evidence of having every characteristic that explosives were indeed used. Author and 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin puts it best when referring to the empirical evidence of WTC 7’s destruction (from Debunking 9/11 Debunking):

“Damage to one face of the building plus small fires on a few floors----could not explain why the building collapsed into a debris pile only three stories high, as this would have required the 81 columns of this 47-story-high building to break into several pieces simultaneously. This damage and fire could not explain why the building came down at virtually free fall speed. They could not explain the squibs, the molten metal, or the sulfidized steel. The official theory, in other words, cannot explain why, if this was not an example of controlled implosion, it was a perfect imitation thereof.”


Here's a montage of clips highlighting the "pull it" controversy. Included in this is a phone call from a member of 9/11 truth to Mark Loizeaux's company Controlled Demolition, Inc, one of many experts on demolitions that yellow journalists Popular Mechanics claimed they contacted to support their claim that "pull it" is not slang for controlled demolition. You will love the secretary's answer when 9/11 truth calls them.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Obama & Biden To Protect Bush Administration Criminals

Nuremberg trials also judged “a waste of time”

Paul Joseph Watson
December 22, 2008

It’s par for the course for Obama and Biden, the men who promised “change” but in every step of their preparations for assuming office have pursued nothing but continuity, to acknowledge that they will protect criminals in the Bush administration from prosecution for authorizing torture, a complete violation of both the U.S. constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

When asked by ABC host George Stephanopoulos if top level Bush administration officials would be prosecuted for mandating prisoner abuse, Biden said that he and Obama would be “focusing on the future,” adding “I think we should be looking forward, not backwards.”

Such rhetoric goes to the very heart of the gigantic con job the “Obama change” hoax has wrought upon millions of befuddled Americans who naively presumed that voting for the lesser of two evils would result in anything other than more evil.

Perhaps Göring, Ribbentrop and the rest of the Nazis prosecuted at Nuremberg for their war crimes were following the wrong line of defense when they claimed they were merely “following orders,” they should have just proclaimed that the world should be “looking forward not backwards” and according to the Biden/Obama view of justice, they would have got off scot free.

Likewise, pedophiles and rapists who abuse children and women in ways not far removed from what was approved at Abu Ghraib should merely tell police that since the abuse and rape occurred in the past, everybody should just move on, “looking forwards not backwards”.

Obama and Biden, with their de-facto pardons of the Bush administration torture masters, are ensuring that what happened at places like Abu Ghraib, including beating people to death, raping people with acid covered batons and sexual abuse of children, will continue to happen in future without consequence.

Of course, those that protect war criminals from prosecution should be treated no better than the war criminals themselves, and when real “change” comes to America, Obama and Biden will face the same justice as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

I was right all along. Christians have been duped into believing Bush is a Christian

Bush admits the Bible is not literal and that evolution is not incompatible with creation; lies AGAIN about Iraq/9-11 connection

by Larry Simons
December 18, 2008

This story is belated because I couldn’t find the video of it. On ABC’s Nightline last Monday (Dec 8), Cynthia McFadden interviews George W Bush on matters of religion. I find it very interesting that for the past 8 years, most, if not, all evangelicals in this country had been under the impression that Bush was this deeply religious, conservative, praying man. Ha! Finally, the truth comes out about this bastard---and best of all, the truth comes from the bastards own lying lips! The very sad thing is, I'm sure most Christians will still defend this prick.

Here’s my favorite highlights from the interview followed by my analysis in parenthesis

MCFADDEN: Is it literally true, the Bible?

BUSH: You know. Probably not ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it.”
(Even though it’s not literally true? Hmmm, I guess you’re right. I learned a lot from “Green Eggs and Ham” and “One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish”----so I guess that’s a fair statement. Problem is, if it’s not literally true, what’s the point in having faith in it?)

MCFADDEN: So, you can read the Bible and not take it literally, I mean, you can, it’s not inconstant to love the Bible and also believe in evolution say?

BUSH: Well, I think you can have both. I think evolution, ugh, ca ca, ugn, aahhh……you’re getting me way out of my lane here.

(translation: you’re making me think---damn you!)

BUSH: I, ehhh, I’m just a simple president.

(Good lord isn’t that the fucking truth!)

BUSH: But it’s, uhhh, ehh ehhh, but I think God created the Earth, created the world, I think that the creation of the world is so mysterious that it requires something as large as an almighty---uhh, and um, I don’t think it’s incompatible with uhh, the scientific proof that uhh, there’s evolution.

(So, in other words, you believe in a God that ‘forgot’ to tell his subjects [who wrote the words of the Bible down] to mention evolution? Or you believe in a God who loves to deceive people by having them think the Bible is to be taken literally when in reality when the Bible mentions that a day is 24 hours in length, it really means 1 million years? I thought God is perfect? How is being forgetful and deceiving ‘perfect’?)

Part 1

MCFADDEN: Do you believe that when you pray to God, that that’s the same God that a Muslim prays to?

BUSH: I do. I do.

(Hmmm, really? So, you pray to the same God Osama bin Laden prays to? Maybe that’s why your family and the bin Laden’s are business partners)

BUSH: I do believe there is an almighty (notice he says "an" almighty, implying there’s more than one) that’s big enough, loving enough that, that uh…can encompass a lot of people..I don’t think God is a narrow concept…I think it’s a broad concept (now God’s an “it”) just happen to believe the way to God is through Christ---and others have different avenues toward God and I believe we pray to the same almighty, I do.

(Hmmm. You pray to the same God Muslims pray to and you believe the way to God is through Christ? Muslims pray to their god Allah and they reject Christ as the son of God. They only see Jesus as a prophet of God, but just a man, not God. Why do I understand this better than you do Georgy-boy? I’m agnostic. I think it’s hilarious that you said “others have different avenues toward God”-----yeah, like the Muslims---who you claim prays to the same God as you!)

Here’s my FAVORITE part!

MCFADDEN: So, the leader of the Taliban is praying to the same god?

BUSH: No, I’m not so sure he’s praying to a god. I think anybody who murders innocent people to achieve their objectives is not a religious person. They may think they’re religious, and they may play like they’re religious, but I don’t think they are religious. They’re not praying to the god I pray to…the god of peace and love.

(“anybody who murders innocent people to achieve their objectives is not a religious person. They may think they’re religious, and may play like they’re religious, but I don’t think they are religious”-------congratulations! You just described yourself. 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens are dead because of your objectives! Your god is of peace and love? Didn’t you just say that you pray to the same god Muslims pray to? Their god must be of peace and love too, right? You’re saying that if they kill us for invading their country, then they’re not really praying to a god at all and they just think they’re religious when they’re not? But, we are the real religious people when we invade and kill innocent people? We didn’t invade the country that supposedly attacked us---and WE are the righteous ones? Peace? Did you say peace? You have boasted that you are a “war president”. You don’t give a flying fuck about peace you lying sack of shit.)

BUSH: And that’s one of the great ironies about this. We’re in a so-called religious war (no, you're in, not we're in), I don’t view this as a war of religion. I view this a war of good, decent people of all faiths against people who murder innocent people to achieve a political objective.

(So, let me get this straight. We get attacked on 9-11 by 19 Arabs who killed 3,000 of our citizens, so in response you invade a country [Iraq] that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11? You not only invade the country, but you kill over 1 million of it's innocent citizens and you claimed it’s President was linked to the blamed orchestrate of 9-11 [bin Laden]? Why didn’t you do the thing that Jesus instructed you to do [turn the other cheek]? Why didn’t you at least attack the country that produced most of the hijackers [Saudi Arabia]? It seems you had the political objective since it was your plan all along to invade Iraq despite of the lies you told to the American people that they had WMD’s and the fact that you had doctored the original NIE report issued by the CIA that said Saddam was not an imminent threat to the United States, so that when Congress saw the doctored report, they would vote to support the war based on the molested CIA report, known as the ‘white paper’)

Here’s prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi talking about the doctored ‘white paper’

MCFADDEN: I want to focus on your decision to go into Iraq, because an awful lot of people believe that you did this based upon your faith. Was that part of the decision?

BUSH: No, I did it based upon the need to protect the American people from harm. You can’t look at the decision to go into Iraq apart from what happened on September 11. It was not a religious decision.

(Liar. First of all, it has already been proven and debunked over and over that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. And it has even been admitted that there was no Iraq/9-11 connection. By who, you ask? You and your administration!!)

Here’s Bush admitting Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 in 2006

Here’s Cheney admitting it in 2003 and lying about it in 2004

Part 2 of McFadden interview

Like the rest of the fake media, McFadden was a weak chickenshit that didn’t ask Bush anything that even resembled a hard question. How many times has it been debunked now that there is no Iraq/9-11 connection? And she let that prick get away with it again?

I find it interesting that when I get into arguments with people about 9/11 and I say that the press blackout the 9/11 cover-up for fear for their jobs, they say “don’t you think the press would love to break that story if there was proof?”, and yet here’s Cynthia McFadden, with documents, video clips and testimonial evidence that there’s no Iraq/9-11 connection even from Bush himself and she doesn’t call him on it at all! If they won't even call him on lesser crimes like Iraq, they sure as hell won't touch 9/11!

There’s more evidence than any prosecutor in the world needs that there is a 9/11 cover-up, but it’s plain and simple, people want their jobs and they are controlled puppets. They aren’t allowed to ask anything hard.

Asking about the satanic secret societies Bush is involved in [like Bohemian Grove and Skull & Bones], I'm sure, we're taboo too. I mean, what would satan have to do with a religious discussion?

This interview made me sick. This is how our media is in America, weak and apathetic----and pathetic!

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Dick Cheney admits he is a war criminal

Admits on national TV that he knew the waterboarding program was going on, supported it and helped in getting it cleared

by Larry Simons
December 16, 2008

On Monday, VP Dick Cheney admitted on national TV to ABC news reporter Jonathan Karl that he supported the waterboarding program and actually helped in getting it cleared.

When Karl asked the VP if he approved of the interrogation tactics used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who the Bush administration blames for masterminding the 9/11 attacks, Cheney said:

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do,” Cheney said. “And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.”

He added: “It’s been a remarkably successful effort, and I think the results speak for themselves.”

Then Karl asked, “Do you think any of those tactics used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went too far?”, Cheney replied, “I don’t”.

Jonathan Karl got even more specific and asked Cheney, “And on KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), one of those tactics, of course, they reported was waterboarding and that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that, you think was appropriate?” In which Cheney replied, “I do”.

Those two words alone make Dick Cheney a war criminal.

After World War II, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted right here in the United States for waterboarding. Evan Wallach of the Washington Post wrote about this in 2007 and said, “After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture…. I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Even fellow neocon John McCain admitted last year during a news conference that waterboarding is torture and we convicted the Japanese of it for doing it to Americans. “There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans”, McCain said.

Funny, I haven’t seen any footage, since Cheney’s confession on Monday, of McCain demanding that Cheney be prosecuted.

Here’s a clip from the debates last year of John McCain telling Mitt Romney (after Romney had just admitted that what happened to KSM was “just exactly how it ought to be”) that “how could anyone believe that is not torture? It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It’s a violation of existing law..” Then McCain said to Romney, “We’re not going to torture people. We’re not going to do what Pol Pot did. We’re not going to do what’s being done to Burmese monks as we speak…..and how in the world anybody can think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.”

Well, Johnny-boy, your buddy Cheney just admitted that it was “appropriate” and that he “supported it”. When will you give him the same speech? Remind Cheney that the punishment for violating the Geneva Conventions is death while you’re at it.

Watch the clip

Here’s Cheney admitting his crime

Constitutional law professor from George Washington University, Jonathan Turley says, “…it is most certainly a crime, to participate, to, in many ways, monitor a torture program.” Then Turley adds, “…so you have the Vice President sitting there saying, ‘Yeah, we talked about it, they came to me, I supported it and I helped put it through’. The only problem is that what he is describing is most certainly and unambiguously a war crime”.

Turley then goes on to discuss what the actions of Obama will be in light of this confession. Will he bring REAL change and have Cheney prosecuted?

Turley adds that is also the duty of the citizens of America to not sit in silence when a crime has been committed. “It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing. And that is what the citizens are doing. There’s this gigantic yawn as we hear about a war crime on national television being discussed matter-of-factly by the Vice President.”

Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest

"Purposeful domestic resistance" would require military to "rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States."

Steve Watson & Paul Watson
December 16, 2008

A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed "strategic shock."

The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.

"Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock." it continues.

"An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…"

"Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility.

Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States." Lt. Col. Freir concludes.

See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.

Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.

Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a "first term crisis" that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.

"The current administration confronted a game-changing ’strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office," the report reads. "The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense]."

We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of "domestic security" from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials," reported the Washington Post last month.

In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling "civil unrest and crowd control".

After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.

The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a "military form of government," following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.

Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, "It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.

This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.

"The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock," wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.

The memo predicts "depression, civil disorder and possibly wars" as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.

Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.

The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.

The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, "(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution."

Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?

[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:

"A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home."

The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.

The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is - another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Bush gets a “farewell kiss” by Iraqi reporter who hurls shoes at him

“This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq”, shouts angry Iraqi reporter

by Larry Simons
December 14, 2008

During a news conference between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad in his final Iraq visit, an angry Iraqi news reporter hurled both of his shoes at Bush, both missing Bush as he ducked. The reporter was identified as Muntadar al-Zeidi, who is a correspondent for Al-Baghdadiya TV, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt.

As the reporter threw his shoes, he was heard shouting in Arabic, “This is the farewell kiss you dog….this is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq”, and “This is the end!”

Bush later said, “I didn’t feel the least bit threatened by it”. I guess I could have titled this, “Shoe fly, don’t bother me”. Others have dubbed the incident, “Sole survivor”.

“Where’s Nolan Ryan when you need him?”, was one comment I read on a website.

Other comments condemned the reporter, saying, “This dog should be executed for insulting our President. These Muslims are nothing but barbaric animals”, in which I replied, “Imagine the United States is invaded tomorrow by (fill in the blank), but let’s just say….Canadians. The Canadians said we had WMD’s which we didn’t and it is discovered not soon after the invasion began that the war was all based on one big fucking lie…yet it continued and more Americans were slaughtered in this invasion. In fact, 1 million of us were slaughtered to be exact. You start seeing pictures of decapitated babies, blown up American citizens all being thrown onto trucks to be buried in a big hole and you cried out for it to stop…yet it continued. Now, imagine there are reports issued by the Canadian government that said we never had WMD’s, nor did we ever have the capability of making any nukes and you start putting this puzzle together….that the invasion was just a big fucking front in order to imperialize Canada and for them to secure our oil fields. You begin seeing poll numbers in the news that the popularity of the Canadian president is declining rapidly and that many of Canada’s own citizens even think their president was involved in their worst terror attack ever. Now imagine the Canadian president making a final visit to the USA and he is greeted with respect by our President and they have a news conference where no one is condemning the Canadian president for the 1 million deaths of your fellow citizens. Imagine you are an American news reporter and you despise the Canadian president for the war he started based on lies and the slaughter of your fellow countrymen. Are you trying to tell me you wouldn’t be consumed by immense hatred for this man standing behind a podium talking about how there’s been “progress” in your completely destroyed country?"

This is the hatred that Bush has created around the world.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was injured during the melee to apprehend the journalist. It is reported she was hit in the eye with a microphone and has a black eye.

Watch the video

Friday, December 12, 2008

Slimeball Rachman Aghast At Reaction To "Global Government" Editorial

Sophistic phony intellectual vents his distaste at the rabble rousing rednecks who think a world dictatorship might not be such a good idea

Paul Joseph Watson
December 11, 2008

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman complains that he has been "covered in internet slime" after receiving hundreds of hostile e-mails in response to his article in which he all but called for a dictatorial global government to be installed to fight terrorism, climate change and solve the financial crisis.

Self-satisfied with his perch on the wannabe-elitist media peanut gallery, puking verbal diarrhea from the gravy train of sophistic phony intellectualism, Rachman’s was aghast that the rabble-rousers and "gun-toting bible bashers" as he disdainfully referred to them dared challenge his globalist world view.

"These people can read, but they cannot think.," sneers Rachman, as he registers his contempt for those "Who believe not only that global warming is a hoax - but that it is actually a conspiracy."

No matter that the IPCC’s chief source for its scientific data was recently caught faking temperature data in claiming that data records from the naturally warmer month of September represented those from October.

No matter that 2008 is the coldest year of the decade, that the Arctic ice sheet has expanded by an area the size of Germany since summer 2007, and that record low temperatures have hit areas all over America.

No matter that over 650 scientists have put their names to a US Senate Minority report that challenges the contention of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change that there is a scientific "consensus" on the causes of global warming.

Forget about all that, to even question the religious orthodoxy of global warming makes one intellectually inferior, Rachman implies.

Despite calling his article, ‘And now for world government,’ Rachman then has the temerity to argue that he was not promoting the idea of a one world government, but merely "debating" the topic.

Throughout Rachman’s article he employs the intellectual tactic of making it seem that global government is inevitable as a means of advocating its necessity.

Rachman writes that there is, "An opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government," that the idea is "plausible," makes an argument that the financial crisis, terrorism and global warming create a pretext for it, and he quotes others who have passionately called for it. Near the end of the article he bemoans that fact that the push for a world government will be a slow process due to massive opposition against it.

How can this represent anything other than advocacy for the implementation of global government? If this article was a "debate" surrounding the question of whether or not global government should be set up, as Rachman claims, then he would have included at least some of the many arguments against global government, but how many did he cite? Zero. That’s not a "debate", that’s coming down on one side of an issue. For Rachman to claim that his article was "a dispassionate discussion of the possibility" of global government is completely dishonest.

This smacks of the classic hand-in-the-cookie jar moment. Far from being covered in slime as he protests, the spotlight has been turned on Rachman and to everyone’s horror, he is already a slimeball of the highest order. Rachman’s retort is a desperate effort to turn the light off again before more people take a look - he obviously doesn’t like the fact that his distasteful and abhorrent opinions are being shown for what they are.

Rachman’s article is all about the merits and necessity of global government and then at the end he brazenly adds the caveat that it will only be a success if it is anti-democratic in nature, ie dictatorial.

Rachman’s attempt to backtrack and protest his innocence in claiming the article was anything but a PR piece for global government may fool the naive, but when we have dozens and dozens of highly influential figures throughout the decades calling for the same thing, the seriousness of the issue becomes clear.

Global government is by no means a new phenomenon proposed as a "solution" to current problems, it is the ultimate goal for a long-standing agenda that seeks to crush national sovereignty and freedom and replace it with a tyrannical new world order. That is not some kind of hare-brained conspiracy theory as Rachman would have it, it is a privately and publicly stated mission of the global elite.

Strobe Talbot, current Obama advisor and President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, wasn’t loosely "debating" the subject of one world government when in 1992 he told Time Magazine, "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all."

Neither was Dr. Henry Kissinger absently chit-chatting when he told a Bilderberg conference in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Likewise, international financier James Warburg was deadly serious when he told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, "We shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

The march towards a centralized global government is not a contemporary idea, it is a coordinated movement firmly entrenched in history.

At the end of his riposte, Rachman cracks a lame joke about pretending to be a member of the "Bilderberg/Illuminati/Council on Foreign Relations/UN/Zionist establishment" to make millions from tell-all books.

Deliciously ironic it is therefore that as a matter of routine, Rachman’s colleague Martin Wolf, the Financial Times’ associate editor and chief economics commentator, attends the Bilderberg Group meeting every year and hob-knobs with hundreds of the world’s power elite, and then routinely fails to report on it in the knowledge that if he did he’d be shunned by the very establishment that Rachman makes light of.

After all, 200+ global powerbrokers meeting in secret to discuss the future course of the planet doesn’t seem like a very interesting story now does it?

Perhaps Rachman should ask Wolf for an invite to Bilderberg 2009, and then he could stop hoping to be a member of the global elite and actually become one. With disgusting, anti-democratic and elitist opinions like his, I’m sure Bilderberg will welcome Rachman with open arms.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Ron Paul: Printing Money Only Prolongs The Pain

Congressman identifies Federal Reserve as the real problem

Paul Joseph Watson
December 11, 2008

Amidst the hand-wringing of the automaker bailout debate, Ron Paul took the opportunity on the House floor yesterday to remind Congress that the real culprit behind the financial crisis is the Federal Reserve, and that allowing the Fed to continue to print money without audit will only prolong the pain.

"If you look at the grand problem we have it’s much much bigger," said Paul.

"There were many who predicted that the climax would be exactly as we are witnessing," said the Congressman before lamenting that no one seems willing to go back and discover how financial bubbles form and how they burst.

"Instead we just carry on doing the same old thing….we spend more money, we run up more debt, we print more money, and we think that’s gonna solve the problem that was created by spending too much money, running up debt, printing too much money and here we are today," stated the Congressman, adding that Congress was debating about "tinkering on the edges" while failing to deal with the big problem.

Paul said that the Fed’s creation of over $8 trillion dollars in obligations was outside the audit of Congress.

"They create this money and when the Fed chairman comes before our committee we ask, where did you dispose of this $2 trillion dollars that you’ve created recently, he says well it’s not your business, he doesn’t even have to tell us" exclaimed Paul, adding that the Federal Reserve was out of control.

"We’re dealing only with finding victims, we cannot get rid of the debt," said Paul, adding that the cause of the bubbles was the result of monetary policy dictated by the Federal Reserve system.

Watch the clip

watch Part I of the new "Zeitgeist Addendum" here to better understand how printing new money only creates more debt (Part I begins at 6:45)

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Billo once again a traitor in his imaginary “war on Christmas”

Has used the word “holiday” on his own site to describe ornaments, has had a “holiday” reading list……now writes “The great American "holiday" quiz”

by Larry Simons
December 9, 2008

As if we needed yet another example of Billo turning traitor on his own imaginary “war on Christmas”, he has delivered one anyway. For 6 years now loofah boy has been declaring from his bully pulpit that there has been a “war on Christmas” brought to you courtesy of those secular-progressives who are hell-bent on destroying the Christmas holiday forevermore by using that evil word….”holiday”. The reality is that this “war on Christmas” only exists in one place on Earth...Billo’s imagination.

Because even Billo himself knows this is imaginary might be one reason why, on many occasions in the past 6 years, he has hypocritically used the word “holiday” on his own website, TV show and in things he has written like the latest “Great American Holiday Quiz”, featured here on Of course, those of us who still live in saneworld know the main reason he uses “holiday” is because he is a complete fraud.

(click to enlarge)
Not only is the word “Christmas” left out of the title of the quiz, but some of the questions in the quiz have absolutely nothing to do with Christmas (in the religious sense, of which Billo claims is being destroyed) like the following:

Who created the American image of Santa Claus?

What does Hanukkah mean in Hebrew?

Who created Kwanzaa?

Poinsettia plants came to America from what country?

The hilarious thing is, when you take the quiz (which means answering some evil, liberal, secular-progressive questions unrelated to Christmas) you could win a copy of Billo’s book, “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity”!! It’s not even a Christmas-related prize! It’s a copy of his stupid book! A true Christmas lover would have at least offered the winner a book from his “holiday” reading list (below)!

Just last month on Billo’s website he listed books as a part of his “holiday” reading list, here.

(click to enlarge)
Yes, those evil liberals want to banish the traditions of Christmas and the entire Christmas holiday altogether by “ordering” others to use the word “holiday” and placing “atheism” signs in front of state buildings, etc, etc.! What does it say about Billo when he uses the word “holidaywithout being ordered to use it, and by not being an atheist?

I’ll tell you what it makes him. The world’s biggest FRAUD, HYPOCRITE and LIAR.

Bill O’ Reilly……hater of Christmas!

Billo wins Worst Person for being the Benedict Arnold of Christmas!

Monday, December 8, 2008

Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both "Inside Jobs"

Hamid Gul tells CNN that neo-cons, zionists were behind terror attacks

Paul Joseph Watson
December 8, 2008

General Hamid Gul, the former head of the Pakistani ISI, told CNN yesterday that both the Mumbai attacks and 9/11 were "inside jobs," much to the chagrin of host and CFR luminary Fareed Zakaria, who told viewers that Gul’s opinions were "absolutely wrong and thoroughly discredited".

"When you look at the full spectrum of possibilities, who could have done it, then one knows that Samjhauta Express was a similar case, in which Pakistan ISI was accused. But it turned out that it was the militant Hindus themselves who had killed 68 passengers in that train, and that it was an inside job," said Gul.

"Now Colonel Srikant Purohit, who is a serving army officer, he has been caught in this particular case. And the whole thing has turned around."

"So, obviously, there is an inside job."

The revelation that Mukhtar Ahmed, a "counterinsurgency police officer who may have been on an undercover mission" working for Indian authorities was arrested for illegally buying mobile phone cards used by the Mumbai gunmen, allied with the numerous intelligence warnings proving that the method, arrival and targets of attack were all known well in advance, proves Gul right in his assertion that the terrorists could not have achieved such carnage without help from people on the inside.

Asked by Zakaria, "What is your hunch as to who did - who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks?," Gul responded, "Well, I have been on record, and I said it is the Zionists or the neocons. They have done it. It was an inside job."

"And they wanted to go on the world conquerors. They were looking upon it as an opportunity window, when the Muslim world was lying prostrate. Russia was nowhere in sight. China was still not an economic giant that is has turned out to be."

"And they thought that this was a good time to go and fill those strategic areas, which are still lying without any American presence. And, of course, to control the energy tap of the world."
"Presently, it is the Middle East, and in future it is going to be Central Asia," added Gul.

Gul told Zakaria that the evidence for 9/11 being planned by Osama Bin Laden and executed by Al-Qaeda has not emerged and that the events are still "shrouded in mystery".

"A lot of people have a lot of misgivings about that. And it’s not only me. I think a lot of people in America would be thinking the same way. There are scientists, there are scholars, who have written articles on it," added Gul, calling for President elect Barack Obama to set up a new commission to investigate the attacks.

Gul said the attacks were planned inside America by people with a dangerous agenda who have "turned the world upside-down".

Returning from a commercial break, Zakaria, editor of Newsweek, Council on Foreign Relations kingpin and also a Trilateral Commission board member, told his viewers, "Some of General Gul’s views are simply false. There is a mountain of evidence about 9/11 that refutes his assertions," but Zakaria failed to cite any of it.

Zakaria was then joined by counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen who said that the Mumbai attacks bore all the hallmarks of a "clandestine operation or a covert operation style activity," but when pressed he refused to directly implicate Pakistan in the attack.

Watch the clip

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Real Truth Online’s 2008 Fraud of the Year: David H. Willis

Snatches victory from Billo the Clown!

by Larry Simons
December 6, 2008

I am proud to announce that RTO’s first ever Fraud of the Year Award goes to conservative minister David H. Willis. Willis and Bill O’ Reilly were the frontrunners, but Dave wins with a whopping 36% of the vote. A part of me is sad that O’ Reilly didn’t win, because I’ve done many, many stories on how big of a fraud Billo is, but maybe when you read why Willis won, you’ll agree.

Visitors of my site may not know who David Willis is. I actually met Dave when I attended Bible College in the late 80’s. Yes, that’s right, I once believed in talking snakes and a 500 year-old man who built a boat the size of the Titanic all by himself.

Since then, I’ve changed into a person whom many of my religious friends from yesteryear would deem “radical”, or even “of the devil”. I now form my own opinions, think and use rational thought. I have become honest with myself and have simply stated that “I don’t know” if the Bible is true. This is called agnosticism; the belief that God may or may not exist and that even if he does exist, it can never be proven. How dare me to demand proof.

Now, where does this tie into Dave Willis? About a year ago, I stumbled upon Dave’s website, “Watcha Talkin’ Bout Willis”. It’s a website of brainfarts, occasional political commentary and Bible discussion. The general overview of the site is perfectly represented by the disembodied head of Gary Coleman in its logo. What I also found interesting is that his website boasts “I enjoy political & sports talk radio and I'm all about the truth.”

I first noticed that Dave, like me, is a big Ron Paul supporter, which shocked me because I thought most, if not all, religious people supported (and were fooled by) the vast smorgasbord of neo-conservatives that permeate Washington and in particular, the Bush administration. I thought, “wow, Dave’s not one of the sheep!” It wasn’t long before I realized this was a premature thought.

One day, I stuck my nose into a heated debate between him and another blogger. This is what led to a huge discussion about the war in Iraq, and more importantly, the event in which we were all lied to by Bush as to what caused the war…9/11. This is when I found out that when it came to 9/11, Dave “I’m all about the truth” Willis was in lock step with the government’s conspiracy theory of 9/11.

What is incredible about Dave's disdain about the truth of 9/11 is the fact that just 7 months prior to this (when I first discovered his site) Dave said this to me (the highlighted parts are most puzzling), "'Hey bro. I'm about truth - the real truth, so I weigh everything based whether it is true or not. I can't stand when people are afraid to examine an issue to see if they've sold a bunch of...I recently discovered Alex Jones. Whenever I hear the "mainstreamers" dismiss him it makes all the more interested in what he has to say. When I hear an outcry against people being lunatics, etc. it usually sparks my curiosity. A lot of my church friends walk in lock step with the republicans like thry're the apostles or something! I love telling folks I support Ron Paul. You well know the expressions I get in return. If the "ol' boys" club can run a town, why can't they run bigger entities? Hmmm.I believe in freedom of speech and truth, so, like I said, I'll be back with an open mind." Hmmmm. My oh my, how things change.

What I find interesting is that when I first discovered Dave's site and he revealed to me the above post, he had not yet known about how I felt about religion (me being agnostic). It wasn't until I began saying religious people were "nutballs" that Dave began his anti-9/11 truth, anti-Alex Jones crusade. Awwwww, did I hurt Dave's wittle feelwings? Awwww, poor baby. So, it makes one wonder: Does Dave believe in the 9/11 truth movement and have a personal vendetta against me? Or does he not believe in it and lied to me in the above February 2008 post? A church person lying....what a shock.

From the day I began posting my political comments on September 10, 2008, until the day I was being deleted on a regular basis and ultimately banned due to Dave’s Gestapo-like tactics by enabling comment moderation...ending free speech on his site (although he claimed on the Sept. 10 thread, “You know how most people will react to what you've written. I'll leave it up to my readers to form their own views, but thanks for stopping in. I'll probably get beat up a little too, but this is a free speech zone and I've never deleted a comment) I was destroying everyone with fact after fact after fact with virtually no personal opinions cited.

My arsenal was a barrage of names, dates, links, sources, video clips and quotes-----none of which were ever challenged with anything even resembling a logical debate or researched fact. I would ask questions over and over only to be ignored over and over. I challenged Dave countless times to public debates even telling him he could bring any tool he chose…books, newspapers, DVD’s, anything, and I would bring nothing but just the info in my head and still win. I was ignored repeatedly.

Instead, Dave responded the only way he knew how. Panic. Panic led Dave to simply type the words “debunk 9/11 theories” into the search bar and whatever popped up, he blindly copied and pasted the links into our discussions on the thread and would disguise it as an investigation. Dave’s 20-second research led him to the biggest proponents of yellow journalism on the planet….Popular Mechanics. A magazine whose research editor, Davin Coburn, claimed during a radio interview in 2006 with Arizona talk radio host, Charles Goyette, that DNA evidence of the hijackers had been recovered from the rubble at ground zero. A feat (pointed out by Goyette) that would be impossible unless there was DNA previously obtained (prior to the hijackings) in which to match the ground zero DNA.

I almost felt sorry for Dave “I’m all about the truth” Willis. He had no clue these imbeciles (at PM) had already been debunked. He would post audio clips (from YouTube) of Popular Mechanics' Editor-in-chief James Meigs (a man just 4 years prior to becoming EIC of PM, was making Oscar predictions for Premiere Magazine). The very makers of the audio/video clip didn’t even research enough to spell Meigs’ name correct in the clip. They spelled his last name “Miggs”. See here.

During the course of our “debating”, Dave admitted researching 9/11 was not a priority to him by saying, “Why don't I read the books you've suggested? Because I have other priorities. I am not consumed like you are.” Yet, Dave had plenty of time to do more 'in-depth' social commentary, like when we should and shouldn't use windshield wiper fluid.

Therein lies his contradiction. He says that investigating 9/11 is “not a priority”, but yet he knows more about the intricate details about 9/11 than I did (and I’ve done 4 years of extensive research on the subject, even studying the views of the advocates of the official conspiracy theory)?

This is why when he would send me clips or links in an attempt to 'debunk' my views, I knew more information about his own sources than he did! Like the spelling of Meigs’ last name and one link he sent me from founder Michael Shermer, in which I informed Dave “all about the truth” Willis that Shermer did a segment on the Penn and Teller show “Bullshit!” a few years back in which he denounced the validity of the Bible.

What was ironic about this was, one of the top 9/11 sources I used repeatedly was the brilliant David Ray Griffin (who just happens to be a retired theology professor). Here I am, the agnostic, praising Christian David Ray Griffin’s works on 9/11 and there was Dave, the Christian, using as his source (to attempt to ‘debunk’ me) Bible-trasher Michael Shermer! The true sign that Dave "I'm all about the truth" Willis did ZERO research!

During our entire “debate” on 9/11, all Dave did was cite debunked “experts”, give BAD analogies for his points, deflect and ignore 90% of my points and dish out ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack. Just look at our threads. I completely school him repeatedly here and here.

And when Dave “all about the truth” Willis finally banned me, he resorted to the only tactic left in his arsenal…to mock me and liken the 9/11 cover-up to Bigfoot and aliens, despite the fact that he believes in talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man living 3 days inside of a big fish and a 500 year old man building a Titanic-sized boat by himself.

I told Dave that one doesn’t have to agree with my views to be considered rational. It’s all in the debating technique you use. Dave resorted to the old, tiresome ignore/deflect/dodge and ad hominem attack method and uses the term “conspiracy theorist” in the pejorative sense, when in reality, the official account of 9/11 best fits the description of a conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense.

What is interesting is that of the 5 nominees for FOTY, the only one who is NOT a neocon is Dave Willis, yet he won the award. Why did he get the most votes? I believe that although O’ Reilly, Limbaugh, McCain and Hannity are far worse in their ideologies, you have to understand that they are controlled puppets who are paid to ignore important issues and whose jobs will be in jeopardy if they dare speak in any manner that is not in lock step with their puppeteers. So, it’s really not unexpected of them to be complete dicks---they’re controlled.

Willis, on the other hand, is not in the media. He is free to have an independent thought. Or is he? Let’s keep in mind, he works in a church. His strings are being pulled too and he has no choice but to do the same thing the aforementioned puppets do.....comply . In fact, he even ADMITTED to me that if he spoke about a 9/11 cover-up in his church, he’d get fired. (see below)

(click to enlarge)
The difference between Willis and the other neocon goons is that Dave, being the “Christian”, is supposed to be a zealot for truth, no matter what that truth is. He’s in a business (and that’s what church is, a business) where speaking about controversy is in the job description. Like the media, he’s a salesman. He’s selling God. God is supposed to be the ultimate truth. If God were giving Willis enlightenment as a reward for Willis’ faithfulness, why wouldn’t he see the real truth of 9/11? I will tell you why. Because of the 5 characteristics that writer Douglas Herman said were the 5 reasons why people don’t accept that 9/11 was an inside job:

1. Comfort
2. Complacency
3. Cowardice
4. Conviction
5. Collusion

Herman writes of people just like David H. Willis when he says, "Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world — a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community — want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all."

There’s something more sinister about a person who should be the very epitome of truthseeking (although they claim they are) yet completely ignores and ridicules something so obvious in which the evidence for it’s existence couldn’t be more obvious if it was being jammed up their ass. Also, it also has to do with the method of debating, as I mentioned. You've already lost the debate when you ignore documented facts and begin using references to Bigfoot and aliens. NY Times writer Paul Krugman puts it best when he says:

“The truth is that many of the people who throw around terms like “loopy conspiracy theories” are lazy bullies who [as one observer put it] want to “confer instant illegitimacy on any argument with which they disagree.” Instead of facing up to hard questions, they try to suggest that anyone who asks those questions is crazy.”

Well said Paul.

Congrats Dave!

Friday, December 5, 2008

Steve Quayle on Coast to Coast with George Noory

Researcher Steve Quayle discusses the world's escalating flash points and his new work on giants

Coast to Coast with George Noory
December 3, 2008

(click from Left to Right/Top to Bottom)