Thursday, February 28, 2008

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?


(Added) The conspiracy "nuts" have been warning about vaccines for years. Now, with a government concession, are we (the "nuts") all of a sudden not loony anymore?

by David Kirby
HuffingtonPost.com
February 25, 2008

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?
Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD.

Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Read the rest of the story here

Related stories here

Film "Vaccination: The Hidden Truth" by Bronwyn Hancock here (must see)

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

North American Army created without OK by Congress

U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies

by Jerome R. Coris
February 24, 2008
WorldNetDaily

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of USNORTHCOM, signs agreement Feb. 14, 2008, with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command (USNORTHCOM photo)

In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites."

The military Civil Assistance Plan can be seen as a further incremental step being taken toward creating a North American armed forces available to be deployed in domestic North American emergency situations.

The agreement was signed at U.S. Army North headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, by U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, or USNORTHCOM, and by Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command.

"This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities," Renuart said in a statement published on the USNORTHCOM website.

In discussing the new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established by USNORTHCOM and Canada Command, Renuart stressed, "Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering an mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment."

Lt. Gen. Dumais seconded Renuart's sentiments, stating, "The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command."

"Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century," he stressed, "and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends."

The statement on the USNORTHCOM website emphasized the plan recognizes the role of each nation's lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada.

The statement then noted the newly signed plan was designed to facilitate the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

As WND has previously reported, U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, as a military command tasked with anticipating and conducting homeland defense and civil support operations where U.S. armed forces are used in domestic emergencies.

Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and securities partners.

In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.

In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Lone Gunmen Producer Questions Government on 9/11

James Corbett
February 25, 2008

Cast and crew of the X-Files attended "WonderCon 2008" in San Diego this weekend to discuss the upcoming X-Files movie. During the question and answer, one intrepid audience member asked Chris Carter, creator of X-Files and The Lone Gunmen, about the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which eerily predicted the events of 9/11 that took place in New York mere months after the episode aired on tv. Carter, looking slightly flustered, turned the question over to the Lone Gunmen producer, Frank Spotnitz. Video of the response is available from YouTube:



After Carter's bizarre and awkward joke about turning the question over to his producer because he had "a special underground connection" that made him better qualified to answer it, Spotnitz admits he was "disturbed that if we could imagine it [crashing planes into the World Trade Center] our government didn't, and I didn't understand why we weren't prepared for a tragedy like that." After raising this very valid point about the government and military's complete lack of response on the morning of 9/11, he then quickly dismisses any suggestion that the pilot episode's uncanny prediction of that attack was anything more than a coincidence, as the story was produced merely from an "active imagination."

The episode in question featured rogue elements of the government hijacking a plane by remote control and attempting to fly it into the World Trade Center in order to launch wars in the Middle East. Highlights of the episode can be seen here:



That Spotnitz dismisses the incredible similarities of the episode to the events of 9/11 is perhaps unsurprising, given that he was featured prominently in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary which attempted—albeit hamhandedly—to discredit the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"...that is to say, anyone who doesn't believe that the government is not telling us the truth about 9/11, which just happens to be the majority of the population.

Of course, many serious people have questioned just how the writing team was able to dream up a plot of a government staging an event to launch wars in the Middle East which actually happened six months later only for the government to use it as an excuse to launch wars in the Middle East.

This may well be coincidence, as Spotnitz asserts, but it's worth questioning whether the writers of that episode were also correct about the supposition that the attacks were carried out by a rogue element within the government itself. Although Spotnitz is quick to dismiss this as "conspiracy theory" some of the crazed conspiracy wingnuts who believe it include ex-CIA field agents, ex-FBI translators, the former German Defense Secretary, the head of the largest victims family group (and the majority of its members) and many others, including Dean Haglund, star of The Lone Gunmen. For more information on these people and their reasons for questioning the government's account of 9/11, please listen to this Corbett Report documentary:
Click here to download the mp3


The new X-Files film is untitled but is scheduled to be released on July 25, 2008. It stars David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Amanda Peet.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

The Life and Times of Racist Billo…..the Saga Continues…

Bill O’Reilly says he would join a lynching party against Michelle Obama if her comments about being proud of her country “for the first time” were true…..and he STILL has a job!!!!

by Larry Simons
February 23, 2008

I waited until the dust settled on this story before I commented on it. Most of all, as is the case for every time loofah-boy says something he should be fired for, I waited until he told a LIE to cover it up. Billo didn’t disappoint this time either.

On February 18, Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL), made these comments, “What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

The very next day on his radio talk show, the Sultan of Spin himself, Bill O’ Reilly took a call from a listener (who called herself Maryanne) who said that Michelle Obama was an “angry woman” and that she was “speaking with her real voice for the first time”. She then told O’ Reilly that she had a ‘friend’ who had knowledge of Michelle Obama and this ‘friend’ said she (Obama) was a “militant woman”.

O’ Reilly told the caller he would like to get her information and find out who she is and ended the on-air discussion with her. Then Billo began talking about the spouses of the Democratic candidates (Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama) and how he has sympathy for them for having to endure all the criticism and attacks that come their way when they are defending their spouses on the campaign trail.

Then Billo said this, “That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.”

UNLESS Billo? UNLESS? So, in other words, you are JUSTIFYING joining a lynching party for the wife of a presidential candidate if there is evidence that she really meant that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country?”

Listen to the clip:



Definition of “lynching”: “the practice in the 19th and 20th centuries of the humiliation and killing of people by mobs acting outside the law. These murders, most of them unpunished, often took the form of hanging and burning. To demonstrate a ritual of power, mobs sometimes tortured the victim.”

Let’s make this very very clear. On February 19, 2008, Bill O’ Reilly, on his national radio show, said that if he found evidence that Michelle Obama (the wife of a presidential candidate) really meant to say a negative thing about her country by saying, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country”, then he would KILL her by joining a lynching party to either hang her, burn her or torture her.

And this bastard still has a job???

Am I over-reacting? Did O’Reilly NOT say that UNLESS he found evidence that Michelle Obama thinks America is bad then he would not join a lynching party to go after her? Does lynching NOT mean to join a mob to torture, burn or hang a victim until they are dead? What am I misinterpreting?

Then, to top it all off, this son of a bitch goes back on the radio two nights later (Feb 21) and attacks a caller who asks if O’Reilly should apologize for the comment he made.

CALLER: “Hey, Bill. Big fan. I have a question for you. Do you think you owe Michelle Obama an apology for that disrespectful lynching analogy?”

O'REILLY: “Of course not. I stuck up for the man -- the woman, I'm sorry. Just to point out that Bill in Boca Raton on the sheet says, "New York Times worried McCain will beat Obama." That's what Bill in Boca Raton wanted to talk about, according to what he told our screener. So then Bill from Boca Raton gets on the air and tries to say, do I owe Michelle Obama, who I stuck up for, obviously, everyone knows that, an apology. So Bill in Boca Raton Florida is a liar. He is a far-left loon. And this is what that crew does. Hey, Bill, and this is -- I'm looking out for you, man, you need to rethink your life. You are a dishonest person, you're a loon, and you really need to rethink your life, sir.”

Are you kidding me Billo? You stuck up for her? By saying you would KILL her UNLESS you found evidence that she wasn’t bad-mouthing America? Then he attacks a caller who simply asks him if he owes Mrs. Obama an apology? Just because he told the screener he would talk about something else? Are you freaking kidding me? Why would that make him attack a caller even if the caller DID lie to get on the air? It’s not like the screeners would have let him through if the caller had told them the REAL reason for his call!

If Billo really was sympathetic to Michelle Obama and he really WAS sticking up for her, why wouldn’t Billo tell the caller, “well, maybe it was the wrong word and if that offended anyone, I’m sorry”. But no, he didn’t say this, did he? Instead, he attacks a caller who even identified himself as a “big fan” and said he was a “far-left loon”. (To Billo, a “far-left loon” is anyone who listens to and quotes Billo’s EXACT words in its EXACT context and calls him out on it)

Here's the clip of the caller (mentioned above) (courtesy of Real Truth Films)


Then, later in the same segment Billo blatantly LIES and says this, “The word "lynching" was used because I said it quite clearly. I'm not going to go on some lynching party against Michelle Obama; that's ridiculous. You remember that Judge Clarence Thomas used the "high-tech lynching" when he was promoting his book, and I think that that was a very interesting way for Clarence Thomas to put it. Said, "I'm not going to participate in anything like that."

First of all, Billo did NOT say, “I'm not going to go on some lynching party against Michelle Obama.” (PERIOD). He said THIS-----the COMPLETE LINE (IN CONTEXT BY THE WAY): “"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama UNLESS there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels.” UNLESS. UNLESS. The use of the word “UNLESS” means that he WILL go on a lynching party if he finds evidence to the contrary. THERE’S YOUR CONTEXT BILLO!

Then, he uses Clarence Thomas’ reference to the word “lynching” as a way to defend his use of the word. Clarence Thomas used the phrase “’high-tech’ lynching” to describe what was being done to HIM during his confirmation hearings (for the Supreme Court) in 1991 when he was accused of sexual harrassment by Anita Hill. Bill O’Reilly was using the term “lynching” by saying he would be PARTICIPATING IN the lynching.

So, not only does Billo FALSELY connect his use of the word with Clarence Thomas’ use of the word, but Billo never used the EXACT term “high-tech lynching” that Thomas used. In both cases Billo is lying and spinning to cover up for his despicable reference to “lynching”.

Also, Billo purposely leaves out the fact that Thomas was highly criticized for using that term in 1991. Of course, Billo’s faithful sheep have no interest in facts nor do they have the capacity to remember what Billo says from day to day, let alone remembering something that was said in 1991 that 99.9% of them didn’t even watch anyway.

The very same night on his TV show, “The O’Reilly Factor”, Billo said this in response to people who had been offended by his comments, “While talking to a radio caller, I said there should be no lynching in the case -- that comment off Clarence Thomas saying he was the victim of a high-tech lynching. He said that on 60 Minutes, you may remember. I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything."

LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. I counted 4 lies. Here they are:

1. “While talking to a radio caller, I said there should be no lynching in the case”----LIE. As already pointed out, he said there wouldn't be lynching UNLESS he found evidence……meaning: if he DID find evidence, yes, there WOULD be a lynching.

2. “that comment off Clarence Thomas saying he was the victim of a high-tech lynching”----LIE. Thomas said HE was the victim. O’Reilly said he would PARTICIPATE in the lynching. Two DIFFERENT things. One is being murdered, the other is the murderer.

3. “I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody.”----LIE. If Billo was sorry, why did he attack a caller that wanted him to apologize for it?

4. “That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything.”----LIE. Of course it was the intention, because you’re a racist and you hate black people. You scream and cry, "they took me out of context, they took me out of context!", but the context incriminates you Billo! When you repeated what you said on several occasions, YOU left out things you said. Context is OBVIOUSLY not everything-----because even YOU didn’t quote your own context!

Here’s the clip:



Billo, the “context” bullshit is getting pretty damned old and tiring. If you cared so much about people NOT taking you out of context-----then don’t say anything EVER that would make someone even question what you meant! You’ve played the “context card” how many times now? 100? At least? By now, wouldn’t you be watching EVERY damned word you said?

The answer is---NO. You don’t care about what you say because it’s not enough that you are just racist. You have to be arrogant about it and admit it to the world---then when you’re called on it, you claim, “I’m taken out of context…..boo hoo….woe is me….I’m the victim!”

You’re a RACIST PIG that should be forced to stand in an unemployment line somewhere in Harlem. As you’re getting the shit beat out of you, let’s see how how many of them care about “context”.

The bottom line is, in this day and age, in the 21st century, if you mention the word “lynching” in reference to anyone but especially to the African-American community, given the history of this country, you should be IMMEDIATELY fired and forced to make an apology. Not just suspension, not just a fine------FIRED. PERIOD.

We are on the brink of having our first African-American president in this country’s history. This is progress. For a racist TV personality to not only say things like this but to also get away with it is a stab in the back to that progress. For Michelle Obama to keep quiet about this and not demand at least an apology shows the profoundness of her character.

We all know this piece of shit, O’Reilly, will never ever apologize. I don’t even want him to, because it would be fake. The racist remarks he has made in the past 6 months alone shows us all that his racism is so rooted inside him that an apology would be worthless.

I found this clip of radio host Mike Malloy talking about the “lynching” remark. It’s pretty great. If you don't recall, Bill O’Reilly did a segment on his show in November 2007 condemning Mike Malloy about comments he made concerning Press Secretary Dana Perino that O’Reilly viewed as threatening. In the O’Reilly clip, O’Reilly asks his guest if Malloy could be arrested by the FBI for making threatening remarks about a public official.

Now O’Reilly has made a threatening remark about a public official. Funny, I didn’t see Billo do a segment on himself demanding that HE be arrested.




Here is O’Reilly’s segment from Nov 2007 on Mike Malloy

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Former Congressman Warns Of Martial Law Camps In America


San Francisco Chronicle article outlines Homeland Security ENDGAME

Steve Watson
InfoWars.net
February 21, 2008

An article co-written by a former Congressman and carried by the San Francisco Chronicle has gained much attention recently as it shines light on a coordinated federal government program to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States.

"Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." write Lewis Seiler and former Congressman Dan Hamburg of the watchdog group Voice of the Environment, Inc.

Voice of the Environment's mission is to educate the public regarding the transfer of public trust assets into private, mostly corporate, hands.

The article continues:

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Seiler and Hamburg also warn of the alarming and numerous freedom killing pieces of legislation that have been passed recently, dovetailing with the build up of infrastructure of tyranny inside the US.

We have previously highlighted the shocking details behind this shining example of modern day corporate fascism.

The issue gained national attention two years ago when it was announced that Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."

Following the story, first given wide attention by Prisonplanet.com, the Alternet website put together an alarming report that collated all the latest information on plans to initiate internment of political subversives and Muslims after the next major terror attack in the US.

The article highlighted the disturbing comments of Sen. Lindsey Graham, who encouraged torture supporting then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to target, "Fifth Columnists" Americans who show disloyalty and sympathize with "the enemy," whoever that enemy may be.

It is important to stress that the historical precedent mirrors exactly what the Halliburton camp deal outlines. Oliver North's Reagan era Rex 84 plan proposed rounding up 400,000 refugees, under FEMA, in the event of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.

The real agenda, just as it is with Halliburton's gulags, was to use the cover of rounding up immigrants and illegal aliens as a smokescreen for targeting political dissidents. From 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the "ADEX" list.

According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center today holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

Discussions of federal concentration camps are no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, they are mainstream news.

Halliburton, through their KBR subsidiary, is the same company that built most of the major new detention camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. KBR have been embroiled in a human sex slave trade that their representatives have lobbied to continue.

We have a company that has been handed a contract to build prison camps in America that is engaged in trafficking young girls and women. Can this horror movie get any more frightening?

Sadly, yes.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program, has recently been updated and the revision details a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations."

The plan is clearly to swallow up disenfranchised groups like prisoners, immigrants and Muslims at first and then extend the policy to include 'Fifth Columnists,' otherwise known as anyone who disagrees with the government or exercises their Constitutional rights.

Respected author Peter Dale Scott speculated that the "detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law."

Daniel Ellsberg, former Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense, called the plan, "preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."

George Bush has declared himself to be dictator and to have supreme power over and above the limitations of the US Constitution. Bush administration officials like Alberto Gonzales have declared Bush to be "above the law." White House advisors are openly discussing the legality of crushing a child's testicles as part of the war on terror. Preparation for the internment of thousands of Americans who are 'disloyal' in times of emergency are afoot.

Under the enemy combatant designation anyone at the behest of the US government, even if they are a US citizen, can be kidnapped and placed in an internment facility forever without trial. Jose Padilla, an American citizen, spent over four years in a Navy brig before being brought to trial.

In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz went public three years ago with his contention that his county was set to be a location for one of the camps.

Furthermore, in May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.

A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.

The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.

It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the "cowboy mentality" of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.

It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."

Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.

Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story was later confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admitted to the existence of the program.

Watch the video:


What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens? ask Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg in the conclusion to their article.

The answer clearly lies in the fact that over the past decade we have witnessed an extreme acceleration of the physical implementation of a framework and infrastructure ready to receive those who will not go along with a coordinated destruction of traditional American values and freedom.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

O’ Liar FINALLY admits that his own network [FOX News] is IRRESPONSIBLE

12 years too late, O’ Reilly FINALLY admits that FOX News is irresponsible when they do the EXACT same thing he condemns another news network for

by Larry Simons
February 20, 2008



Of course, this was an indirect admittance since O’ Reilly NEVER actually admits to any wrongdoing, lies or hypocrisy directly. On last night’s telecast of FOX’s #1 comedy “The O’ Reilly Factor”, O’ Liar condemned NBC for having the audacity to stoop so low as to give airtime to Obama supporter Robert Holeman, who was in a confrontation with Bill Clinton on Hillary’s campaign trail in Ohio, on Sunday.

O’ Liar: “…and this video surfaced of President Clinton pointing his finger at an Obama supporter who was apparently baiting him. Now there are plenty of nuts on the campaign trail, but you don’t legitimize them if you are a responsible news agency. However, NBC news gave the Clinton guy airtime..”

Then, no less than one hour later on the White House's...oooops, I mean FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes", the very SAME, CONDEMNED clip was given airtime by the partners in propaganda, Sean Hannity & Alan Colmes, when they not only AIRED the clip, but had an interview with Holeman. Geesh Billo, at least Joe Scarborough didn't interview Holeman!

So, FIXED News gets the hypocrisy award for giving the story airtime, and the "we are worse than a hypocrite" award for interviewing the guy. Double trophies....well deserved.

Here is the clip from “Morning Joe” on MSNBC (the airtime O’ Loofah condemns):



Here is O’ Reilly slamming NBC for giving Holeman airtime:



Here is Holeman on “Hannity & Colmes” an HOUR after O’ Reilly slammed NBC for giving him airtime:



Of course, this story is no big deal but it serves at yet ANOTHER example among the never-ending list of distortions and hypocritical remarks that come straight from the O’ Reilly handbook. It is simply amazing how easier and easier it gets to expose the lies, spin and hypocrisy of FOX News.

To be fair, all networks are bought and paid for and do their fair share of bias reporting, distorting facts and dishing out hypocrisy. It’s very rare that you get to see hypocrisy this blatant and so poorly timed as what was displayed on FIXED News last night.

FOX News is making this WAY too easy for me. Exposing these liars is now easier to do than wiping my ass!

I smell another Worst Person in the World award for FOX News in the near future----I say tomorrow!

UPDATE: Yep! I was right! Billo gets the gold!



Naturally, this leads to yet another great film from Real Truth Films---my first of 2008! Enjoy!



Once again, thanks to PrisonPlanet for posting my story
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/200208liar.htm

Monday, February 18, 2008

Willie Nelson: Impeach Bush, "Throw The Bastards Out"


"If you break the law, you have to pay for it," American icon tells Alex Jones Show

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
February 18, 2008

American icon Willie Nelson says he supports efforts to impeach President Bush and "throw the bastards out," adding that the administration will do anything to stay in power, including staging an event to cancel the election.

In his second appearance this month, Nelson told The Alex Jones Show today that he supported Dennis Kucinich's attempt to impeach Bush, adding, "If you break the law you have to pay for it one way or another and if these guys haven't broke the law nobody has."

"The deck's been stacked and we need to figure out a way to get a new fresh deck in there in the deal and I don't know how else to do it except throw the bastards out," said Nelson.

But the award winning star of stage and screen was quick to clarify that he didn't see the Democrats as any kind of viable alternative.

"We went through a couple of elections now and we didn't do anything, we thought we did but come to find out that the voting machines are crooked, everything's stacked against us, the politicians that we vote for won't stay and fight and they won't count the votes."

Nelson agreed that an elite cherry picked presidents and leaders to do their bidding against the interests of the people.

"They find them and they groom them and they put them in office and tell them exactly what to do and you give the speeches will small words and big letters and let them go," said Nelson.

"I really believe that George Bush believes he's right, he believes what he's saying and that makes it even more pathetic because to have someone that wrong think they're right and have him be the leader of our country - that's a scary thought," he added.

The star also re-iterated a warning made during his last appearance on the show, that the Bush administration could potentially stage an event to postpone or cancel the presidential election.

"It could be anything and anything will work because they have everyone scared to death, I just think there are people out there who will do anything to stay in power, anything to keep what they have, they've already proven they'll do anything to keep it," he said.

Reacting to the big response his last appearance on The Alex Jones Show generated, Nelson said "I think it would take courage not to say something, I usually say what I think and it's harder for me to shut up."

"I don't have the ability to remain quiet when all this stuff is going on all around us," he added.

Nelson clarified his previous comments about Building 7 after the news media attempted to skew his words and claim he said that no planes hit the WTC on 9/11. Nelson made it clear he was talking about WTC 7, which imploded symmetrically within seven seconds on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite the fact that it was only hit by minimal debris from the falling towers and not a commercial airliner.

"I was talking about the third building that nothing hit and yet it fell as if it was hit the same way, all three buildings fell the same way, but the third building wasn't hit by anything," said the country music star.

Nelson's contention that the twin towers were deliberately imploded received media attention after his first appearance on the radio show two weeks ago.

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the interview.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Olbermann finally uses the “F” word and calls Bush what he is: A fascist

Olbermann slams Bush for vetoing the FISA bill that endangers Americans and using the “fear” card once again.

Olbermann: We will not fear any longer

by Keith Olbermann
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
February 14, 2008

A part of what I will say, was said here on Jan. 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then.

“Who’s to blame?” Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, “Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer.... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?”

Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.



Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability! You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act. You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You’ve got to have this law, or we’re all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail. But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn’t even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.

“The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.” Believed? Don’t you know? Don’t you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.

You’re a fascist — get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism? Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November? Mark Klein was the AT&T whistleblower who explained in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood IT desk how he personally attached all AT&T circuits, everything, carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your Web browsing into a secure room, room No. 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it. Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff some spy, a spy both patriotic and telepathic, might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything! Every time you looked at a naked picture. Every time you bid on eBay. Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat. “My thought was,” Mr. Klein told us last November, “George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ And here I am, forced to connect the Big Brother machine.”

And if there’s one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it is that he is — you are — a liar.

“This Saturday at midnight,” you said Thursday, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised.” You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on your getting your way.

This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled by even the greatest political felons of our history.

Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir: He was one of the counterterror pros you inherited from President Clinton, before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. “If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”

You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.
And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country.

For they and you, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom “freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.

Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”

Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring only of “terrorist communications.”

Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done isn’t unlawful; it’s just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!

Richard Clarke is on the money, as usual. That the president was willing to veto this eavesdropping means there is no threat to the legitimate counterterror efforts under way.

As Sen. Edward Kennedy reminded us in December:

“The president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the president at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”

And that literally cannot be. Even Mr. Bush could not overtly take a step that actually aids the terrorists. I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame. If the president seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water, it means we can safely conclude there is no baby.

Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of this eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists. You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people. You would not merely be guilty of stupidity. You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir.

You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again — it is that you are never responsible.

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation. The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.

We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush.

Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

A LIAR exposed: Flip-flopping HYPOCRITE John McCain is now FOR torture!


Anti-torture bill still passes but not before we are shown John McCain’s TRUE colors…..that he is PRO-torture!

by Larry Simons
February 14, 2008

Yesterday the Senate voted on a bill that would no longer allow the CIA to use harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects. By a vote of 51-45 (in favor of the bill), it was passed Wednesday. One vote you didn’t see in FAVOR of the bill was that of warmongering, Neo-con, flip-flopping, hypocrite John McCain, who, despite claiming to be a victim of torture HIMSELF, voted FOR torture.

Also, as if it wasn’t enough that McCain is a “so-called” victim of torture (so he says), he also claimed to be AGAINST torture at one time. Ten years ago? Five years ago? ONE year ago? Nope. Try 2 ½ months ago! John McCain stood on a stage in St. Petersburg, Florida on November 28, 2007 during the CNN YouTube debate and gave an anti-torture speech so convincing that it almost made me think he was actually against it! Here’s what hypocrite McCain said in this debate: (the bad grammar in the dialogue isn't my writing. This is how McCain talks)

“Well Governor (Romney), I’m astonished that you haven’t found out what waterboarding is. …I’m astonished that you would think such a torture would be inflicted upon anybody in our cap---who we are held captive, and anyone could believe that’s not torture. It’s in violation of the Geneva Conventions..it’s in violation of existing law, and Governor, let me tell you, if we’re going to get the high ground in this world and we’re gonna be America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years---we’re not going to torture people. We’re not gonna do what Pol Pot did. We’re not gonna do what’s being done to Burmese monks as we speak. And I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others---and how in the world can anybody think that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.”

Then, in the same debate (about 1 minute later) McCain said this, “I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue. And clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, then take a definite and positive position on, and that is we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.”

Don’t believe me? Watch the video:

Here is the lying prick John McCain pretending to be vehemently against torture



Keep in mind he said this just 78 days ago.

You can go to the U.S. Senate website here to view yesterday’s vote and see for yourself that hypocrite McCain voted NO on the anti-torture bill.

Here is a partial screen shot from the website for the sheeple that are too lazy or apathetic to click a link

What kind of person is so adamant about an issue like torture and then just 78 days later votes against a bill that would outlaw the CIA from using waterboarding as an interrogation technique? I’ll tell you what kind of person it is: A deranged sycophant that has completely lost his damned mind (if one was ever there to begin with). And THIS is who people are voting for? Someone who completely trashes and disregards his own morals and principles in less than 3 months? Bush isn’t even THIS bad!

McCain has even rebuked Rudy Giuliani on this same issue. Now he votes FOR people to be waterboarded? This is a very dangerous man. This is who people want in control of this country? I wouldn’t put him in control of a damned Taco Bell!

McCain has not only betrayed the American people, but his country, his party and himself. He’s a liar, a hypocrite, a sell-out, a psychopath and a COWARD. He should be locked up in an asylum----straight jacket and all. This is exactly why his own fellow soldiers in Vietnam are going public now and telling the truth about him; that he was never tortured and that he would gladly tell the enemy any information they asked for, to avoid torture. It’s all making sense now.

Thank God the bill still passed, even without a vote from this country’s biggest betrayer and coward, John “PUSSY” McCain. Of course, our lunatic-in-chief will no doubt veto the bill----making this whole thing moot. But that brings up another point, and more proof that John McCain is, by every definition of the word, INSANE….why did he vote “no” on a bill that he should highly suspect that his psycho buddy (Bush) will veto?

Who in the hell wants 4 years of this? Or 4 minutes for that matter? The utter irony here is that if McCain is elected President---we will have to suffer through 4 years of what McCain now advocates…..torture.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

John McCain is not eligible to run for President


U.S. Constitution clearly states that one must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States to be eligible

by Larry Simons
February 12, 2008

John McCain was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama to U.S. citizens while his father served as an Admiral in the U.S. Navy. How is it possible that he is even running for President? Better question: How is he even being allowed to run? This is yet another example of how the establishment hates our own Constitution; by ignoring what it says.

The Constitution is very clear that one must be an “natural born citizen” of the United States. Natural born does NOT mean one can be born in a United States controlled territory, a military base overseas, an embassy or any other piece of land that is under U.S. rule, control or occupation. Period. There are no “yeah buts” “what abouts” or “well maybes”. It’s clear: you have to be born HERE, in this country.

McCain is a “naturalized” U.S. citizen, not a “natural born” citizen. Meaning: he is automatically a U.S. citizen because he was born to U.S. citizens. He is NOT natural born, because he was not born in the U.S. The Constitution clearly states that one must be “natural born”. It clearly says in Article 2, section 1, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The Panama Canal Zone was never owned by the U.S. and never sovereign U.S. territory. It was only LEASED to the U.S. That does not make it U.S. territory. People will also argue that the Naturalization Act of 1790 that was approved by Congress on March 26, 1790 gives American citizens the right to be called “natural born” if they are born overseas or anywhere outside the borders of the United States. This is also a falsehood on two counts: First, Congress, the Supreme Court nor the President has any authority to change the Constitution. Congress only has the authority to make rules for the naturalization process; they can’t change what the authors of the Constitution wrote.

Second, the Naturalization Act of 1790 states, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. Notice the terms “shall be” and “considered” (future tense----in other words, yet to happen). It says “shall be” not “IS”. It says “considered”, not “you are”. The 1790 Act was repealed and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795 on January 29, 1795, which states, “…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

At the time of the writing of the Constitution there was no military, therefore no military bases, so the founders couldn’t have possibly been referring to a military base as being American soil. Many might say, ‘yes but since then we have called military bases American soil’, and I say simply say to that, “We're wrong for doing so.” Contrary to popular belief, military bases in foreign countries are not sovereign U.S. territories. Even if they were, fine, then why isn’t there an amendment to the Constitution that includes military bases as being considered American soil? No such amendment has been made, so therefore, if we are strictly following the Constitution then John McCain is not a natural born citizen. It’s just another thing in the long list of myths (such as income taxes being constitutional) that people accept as fact.

People would argue that since McCain’s parents are both U.S. citizens, that automatically makes John McCain a U.S. Citizen, therefore that makes him American born. They would be half right. Being born to U.S. citizens makes you a U.S. citizen, that doesn’t make you American born.

This is not McCain-bashing. It is simply stating the law. I have made no secret to the fact that I think McCain will be our worst President ever (and to surpass Bush takes some doing!), but the purpose of this story is not to condemn McCain per se, but simply to point out facts. This would be no different than if McCain was 33 years old or had only lived in the United States for 10 years. People wouldn’t object to me doing a story about those 2 things would they? McCain’s age and length of citizenship would be a tad bit harder for McCain to hide behind. But his birth status? Especially when 95% of this country have no clue what the Constitution says about “natural born” birth status---and even more than 95% don’t give a shit. And even if people did know, they just assume that having U.S. citizenship alone makes you eligible to run for President.

Like I said, this is about law…period. Whether you like McCain or think he’s a great guy, or whether you feel that someone shouldn’t be denied “natural born” status because their father was serving in the military at the time and you can’t hold that against McCain or whether you just feel it doesn’t make sense. None of this matters. It’s about the law. You can argue all day that there shouldn’t be a “no right on red” sign because you can clearly see the entire length of the adjoining road and see that no cars are coming. It’s not about whether it makes sense, whether you feel it’s a dumb law or whether you feel it should just be allowed. It’s the law, and until it is amended, it is a violation to go against it.

Of course, like everything else in the Constitution that is ignored, this will go on being ignored too, and nobody will care. They will follow the heard of sheep, ask no questions and continue their daily walk along life’s journey in their continual slumber….following, never leading, never standing up to anything, never being angry about anything (unless their team loses the Super Bowl) and never caring about injustices.

Most people don’t care what the Constitution says. Go out on the street and ask people. You’ll feel like Jay Leno during a “Jaywalking” segment. People only care when they are directly affected, and even then, don’t care that much. A true patriot is caring about the well-being of the country over the well-being of ourselves.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Chertoff Warns Of "Earth Shattering" Events


DHS Head's guts giving him trouble once more

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
February 11, 2008

Department of Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff has repeated the same fearmongering warning he made last year - he is worried "earth shattering" terror events are likely to be carried out soon.

Once again, Chertoff provides no specific details, he simply reminds Americans that they need to remain afraid of phantom terrorists:

"If you're asking me what keeps me up at night or what I most worry about -- in the short term, obviously, you worry about homegrown terrorists or somebody coming in with an explosive device or the kind of act of violence or terror that we've actually seen occasionally carried out in this country by people who are simply nuts or like a Timothy McVeigh." Chertoff told WTOP news.

"But in the longer run, in terms of something that would really be earth-shattering, the kinds of things I'm worried about are a nuclear or a dirty bomb attack or a nuclear or biological attack." Chertoff continued, citing the motive of toppling the already teetering US economy.

The threat from "Al Qaeda" is not over, Chertoff is at pains to remind us, "Just look at what's happened in the last year." he adds, referring to the fact that two men, since proven to be totally unconnected to "Al Qaeda", set a jeep on fire and drove it towards Glasgow airport in Scotland last August.

It was just last July that Chertoff cited a "gut feeling" when warning that Al Qaeda may attack the US, at the same time admitting there was not enough evidence of a pending attack to raise the nation's threat level.

He then toured the country warning attendees to his speeches that his gut feelings included simultaneous Los Angeles / San Francisco dirty bomb attacks.

Chertoff's hunches were much maligned by critics and spurred MSNBC's Keith Olbermann to lay out possible explanations for "Mr. Chertoff's remarkable revelations about his transcendently important, counter-terrorism stomach."

In recent times Chertoff has expressed disdain for those who have described the "war on terror" as hype, even taking a swipe at the 9/11 truth movement.

He is always keen to focus on his assertion that the internet is a breeding ground for terror and has publicly predicted that the next attack will be carried out by home grown web radicalized terrorists.

"I also think that the preparations that we need to have in place to deal with this threat are going to take a while to build, and we're building them as we speak." Chertoff concludes in the interview.

"But they're not going to be done in six weeks or even six months. So what is important is to stay focused on making the investments now that we will be very grateful for in several years if someone does get their hands on nuclear materials or a biological agent."

In other words, be Afraid, and stay afraid America.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

McCain's Presidential Ambitions Set To Be Swiftboated


Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member set to launch counter-offensive to reclaim Republican Party

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
February 8, 2008

Remnants of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that contributed to torpedoing John Kerry's presidential ambitions in 2004 are set to derail John McCain's hopes of becoming the Republican nominee by forcing the GOP to jettison the Senator and instigating a revolution within the party to return it to its conservative roots.

It was McCain himself that leapt to Kerry's defense during the Swift Boat controversy four years ago and now the individuals that started the offensive against Kerry are set to turn on McCain.

The campaign is being led by Sergeant Ted Sampley who has devoted much of his post-military career to campaigning for the safe return of lost POW's stranded behind enemy lines. He is Vice President of Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Rally Washington, D.C., which has no less than half a million active members.

Sampley also runs Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain organization, which has been instrumental in exposing the fact that McCain's status as a war hero and the claim that he was tortured in Vietnam is a complete fabrication, as well as highlighting the fact that McCain poses as a veteran's advocate yet abandons them on every turnkey issue.

"We are planning right now a counter-offensive called GOP Tea Party, and in the spirit of 1773 when the colonists rebelled against the King of England and tossed all that tea over, we're going to rebel against the Republican Party and toss McCain over," Sampley told the Alex Jones Show.

"We hope to start a revolution within the Republican Party to cleanse it of all the left-leaning Republicans and McCain is a leftist if you look at his major activity," he added, pointing out that McCain has direct links to the Clintons and would be no different than having Hillary in the White House.

Sampley said that the move would consist of convincing around 10 per cent of Republicans to sign a pledge promising that they would not vote for McCain, and re-establish the real conservative roots of the Republican Party.

"We were the first to open up on John Kerry and we took a lot of crap," said Sampley, "the same stuff's going to be thrown at us about McCain that was thrown at us about John Kerry," said Sampley.

"McCain is a deceiver, he is the great deceiver, you can't trust him," he added.

Sampley dismissed the importance of McCain's delegate support, saying that as long as 10 per cent could be made to sign the pledge, the Republicans would be forced to jettison McCain, leading to a brokered convention and the selection of a different nominee.

"When the Republican establishment is confronted with the cold fact that if the party nominates McCain, all efforts to win the presidency will be in vain. It will be forced to "broker" the leftist McCain into oblivion where he rightfully belongs," reads the GOP Tea Party website.

Whether Sampley's efforts will be successful largely hinges on whether establishment Republican-leaning and Neo-Con news outlets and talk radio give the campaign any attention.

Can the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Glenn Beck really be relied upon to sink McCain's aspirations or will they mothball the story to ensure a completely staged McCain vs. Hillary contest ensues?

Related story:
Top Cop Says McCain Was Never Tortured

Thursday, February 7, 2008

O’Reilly calls Willie Nelson a “pinhead” and NOT a patriot for merely doing what true patriots actually do: DISSENT

On the other hand, Loofah boy says HE is the patriot----why? Because he can PREDICT SUPERBOWL WINNERS!

by Larry Simons
February 7, 2008

Well, it didn’t take long for Billo to attack singer and activist Willie Nelson for comments he made concerning 9-11 on the Alex Jones radio show on Monday. Although some had doubted that this story would be aired at all because of the fact that it cannot be refuted that Nelson is a true American icon, the story was mentioned on a few news programs. Last night the propaganda king himself Bill O’ Reilly briefly mentioned it in his idiotic segment, “Pinheads and Patriots”.

Watch the clip:



Congratulations Loofah boy. You once again managed to fool your sheep by providing a 20-second snippet from an hour-long interview, and from those 20 seconds you were able to provide sound, intellectual debate on this clip, right? Oh, wait….you provided NO debate, NO intellectual insight on this at ALL. Billo just played the clip above and afterward said, “Good grief……pinhead.” Now THAT’S really sticking it to Willie Nelson, Billo!

Keep in mind one thing. I have no problem with the fact that O’ Reilly played just a short clip, because the clip that was played provided enough audio to gather that yes, Nelson does believe the twin towers may have been imploded. My problem comes from the fact that if this had been done to Billo (airing 20 seconds of a one-hour interview), he would be ready to hang the person reporting it from the highest noose and would claim, “THEY TOOK ME OUT OF CONTEXT!, THEY TOOK ME OUT OF CONTEXT!”, despite the fact that dozens of times in the past when O’Reilly has been criticized for controversial comments, COMPLETE transcripts were provided that showed the ENTIRE context of Billo’s dialogue and yet Billo would still cry, “Out of context!”

Of course, Billo can do this to others and he is completely justified for doing so. Mr. Falafel knows damned well that if he had played more of the interview or allowed 5-6 minutes to the segment and had a spokesman for Nelson on the show (ya know, since FOX is “fair and balanced”), then the public would have understood Nelson’s position a little more (even if they still had disagreed with him).

Billo leaves NO room for his sheep to objectionable about things like this. He is not happy unless EVERYONE believes the EXACT same thing he does, and he will do everything in his power to make that happen. If that means to censor, ignore, lie, twist, spin, manipulate, distort or ….yes, to even “take out of context”, Billo will do that.

Only Billo could call an American icon like Willie Nelson a pinhead and not be questioned by his devoted sheep. Dislike Willie Nelson all you want. Whether it’s because he smokes pot, or if you don’t like his music, or because of his tax evasion issues in the early 90’s. Regardless of what the reason is, none of this makes him un-American. Bill O’Reilly is a tool for a propaganda machine known as FOX News. Of course he will object to someone saying 9-11 was an inside job. That goes against the sole purpose of FOX News’ existence…..to be a mouthpiece for the White House.

If O’ Reilly disagrees with Nelson, why doesn’t he invite Nelson on the show? Why not a 5-6 minute segment on it and Billo can choose who he wants to be on his side? James Meigs (of Popular Mechanics) maybe? No, you won’t ever see that segment, because Billo only tells his sheep just enough information to have them think someone is nuts without providing any real debate, any specific information, any facts, any “fair and balanced” dialogue……nothing but “The seventy four year old singer counts himself among the 9/11 conspiracy nuts". Good job Billo….calling us “nuts”. We haven’t heard that one yet.

Billo has covered the 9-11 cover-up issue several times on his show. Personally, I have never seen O' Liar cover this topic fairly. In the rare instances where he actually has a member of 9-11 truth on the show, such as Jim Fetzer or Kevin Barrett, he has them on alone and usually it is at the end of the show. Billo is gracious enough to give them maybe 2 minutes, but even then Billo continually interrupts and talks over them so that their total talking time is roughly 20 seconds.

On the surface, it may appear as if O' Reilly gives 9-11 truth a platform for exposure because he doesn't have anyone who supports the official story on at the same time. But see, that's just it. Having another guest on with an opposing view would then make it a debate and it would require a longer segment, and of course Billo will never give 9-11 truth a long segment.

When Billo has defenders of the official story on, like James Meigs, he gives them much longer amounts of time (usually in the first 20-30 minutes of the show) and never has anyone from 9-11 truth on to defend their side. That's "fair and balanced" alright. One side of the story where both the host and the guest agree.

Then, if calling Nelson a “pinhead” wasn’t enough, Billo tops it off by calling himself a patriot! Wow, really? Billo must have done something noble. Did Billo protest the war or someone’s individual rights? Did he enlist to fight in the war? Did he become an activist? Uh..no, but what he did do was just as patriotic! Yes, that’s right…..Billo has predicted the winners of the last five Superbowls. Huh?

"I have the longest winning streak in the country. So in the Superbowl predicting category, I'm a Patriot", O’ Reilly bellowed. OK, nevermind how ridiculous that is. A 2nd grader could see just how stupid of a remark that is. Let’s actually analyze it. What does patriotism have to do with the Superbowl? Or picking winners? Where’s the connection? Just like the entire point of Billo’s show…….there IS none.

Besides, I thought you didn’t achieve patriot status until you correctly predicted at least TEN Superbowl winners! He’s only predicted FIVE! BILLO-----YOU’RE UN-AMERICAN! Hell, he didn’t even PICK the Patriots to win! You can’t actually BE a patriot and not pick a team CALLED the Patriots, can you??

I didn’t think so!

Does Billo even know what the MEANING to the word “patriot” is? In past segments of “Pinheads…” here are things that Billo has called “patriotic”:

*Julia Roberts for fighting back to paparazzi
*A mall Santa for having kids wish for their Daddy to come back from Iraq, and the father is there when they uncover their eyes
*Taye Diggs for singing in New Orleans
*A cop getting a woman out of a car on a railroad track before the train hit her

So, you see, Billo doesn’t know what a patriot even IS. He thinks being a patriot is simply just doing something good. All of the things above are good deeds, but not patriotic. Patriotism involves devotion and love for your country. Patriotism can also be dissent and disagreement with your government if you feel they are corrupt and not following your country’s rules or creed (or Constitution). To Bill O’ Reilly, you could be a patriot if you get your neighbor’s cat out of a tree.

Nelson, on the other hand, has done REAL patriotic deeds in his life, whether you agree that they are acts of patriotism or not. That doesn’t change the fact that they are. He has done benefit concerts for Earthquake victims, has defended and fought for his usage of marijuana (whether you think it’s immoral or not does not change the fact that fighting for this could be his Constitutional right to do so), has invested in bio-diesel plants that make fuel from vegetable oil and has given his money, time and efforts in numerous causes for animals, farmers and peace.

Nelson has also protested the IRS and at one time did not pay his taxes. Of course, we all know that the Income Tax is unconstitutional for an individuals’ labor. The tax code CLEARLY says the Income Tax is “voluntary compliance”. Voluntary, not mandatory. Yet Nelson was drug through the mud for years and insulted for this. Why? Because of the ignorance of the American people in not knowing what the Constitution says. What in the hell has Bill O’ Reilly done? I’ll tell you what he’s done……..NOTHING.

The bottom line is this: Bill O’ Reilly is a controlled media propagandist who wouldn’t know fairness and truth even if you could find them in a loofah. His job is to spew lies and spin to the American people on a daily basis. He’s a proven liar, neo-con and tool for the far-right. He has no interest in anything truthful or to “look out for you”. Only Bill O’ Reilly can call himself a patriot because he knows no one else will.

John McCain is winning primaries solely from anti-war and anti-Bush voters. What in the HELL is happening in this country?

John McCain has not won a single primary by people who say they are just Republicans. He’s winning the anti-war/anti-Bush vote. HOW??

by Larry Simons
February 7, 2008

When America breathes its last breath and dies, the official cause of death will not be “terrorist attack”, it will be suicide. That’s right. America is dying, and it’s dying at it’s own hands. America is pulling its own plug, biting its own bullet, kicking its own bucket. I’ve just read a statistic today that while it’s mind-numbingly unbelievable, it is not at all surprising given the fact that the level of utter stupidity in this country is at levels that dictators only dream of.

I believe America just might be the dumbest country in the world. I'm serious. And that even includes countries where it's citizens worship livestock and marry farm animals. After all, this is the country that produced "Beavis & Butt-head", "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?", the "Jackass" films and this girl:



(by the way, McCain WON South Carolina!)

John McCain won 9 states yesterday, more than Mitt Romney (7), and more than Mike Huckabee (5). All 3 of these candidates are very pro-Iraq war and pro-attacking Iran. (Yes, even the “Christian” guy wants to pre-emptively attack a country) What is particularly astonishing about John McCain according to author Matt Welch, in his new book, “McCain: The Myth of a Maverick”, is that McCain is not winning these states by people just claiming to be Republicans (according to exit polls), but he is winning from ANTI-war voters.

Welch recently appeared on Democracy Now and said this to host Amy Goodman

“It’s really interesting that in the primaries so far, if you look at the exit polls, among people who voted in the GOP primaries who consider themselves antiwar, anti-the-Iraq-war, and among voters who consider themselves angry at George Bush—and that’s a quote—and among independents, McCain is beating his opponents by two-to-one. If you actually look at people who describe themselves as just Republicans, McCain has not yet won a single primary. So he is basically winning the GOP primaries on the back of the antiwar vote, when in fact he would be the most explicitly interventionist president since Teddy Roosevelt, and he certainly makes George Bush look gun-shy by comparison.”

Watch the clip:



Of the 3 pro-war GOP candidates, John McCain is by far the most interventionalist and pro-war, yet he is winning primaries strictly from anti-war voters. What in the hell is going on here? Is there massive voter fraud going on here or massive ignorance of the American people? In 2006, voters elected Democrats to control the House and the Senate so they would do something about ending this war in Iraq. Of course, we know, the Democrats have done absolutely nothing and in most cases have even aided the President in continuing the war.

So how can John McCain be winning----anything? How can Romney and Huckabee be winning anything? Only GOP candidate Ron Paul is anti-war. How is he not winning? I could pick and choose the reasons but in reality, it’s a mixture of everything from voter fraud, ignorant Americans, mass media manipulation, smear campaigns and lies-----just to name a few.

Of course, only the well informed know the real reason: the New World Order has no intention of letting an anti-establishment, anti-war candidate in the White House. Ron Paul is the only candidate among both parties who would stop this war immediately and bring everyone home across the globe. The elite won’t let that happen.

Mentioning the New World Order and voter fraud tends to sound conspiratorial to the dumbed-down America crowd who watches the news media and actually believes what they hear. I’m well aware of the personal attacks that come with the territory of believing in the big conspiracy to silence one candidate. That being the case, let’s just cut through all the conspiratorial crap and go right to the footage.

If there is no conspiracy to silence Ron Paul and promote the anti-war candidates, then how else would you explain GOP candidates flat out telling the American people they will CONTINUE George Bush’s foreign policies of attacking other countries and staying in Iraq when over 70% of this country wants this war OVER??

For those of you with the attention span of a flea, here is John McCain telling us all how he will CONTINUE the war and attack Iran

McCain on staying in Iraq: “Make it 100” (referring to # of years we should stay there)



McCain singing “Bomb Iran” and people laughing about it



Tim Russert smoking McCain on Meet the Press about his OWN words he used in 1993 about getting out of Somalia. McCain says, “Well, if you want to compare Somalia with what’s going on in Iraq, then be my guest”. You’re right Johnny-boy, there is no comparison. We lost 43 in Somalia----we’ve lost nearly 100 times that in Iraq!



Here’s McCain condemning Ron Paul for wanting troops home from Iraq; calling him an “isolationist”



Although he attacks Ron Paul, here is John McCain in 1993 and 1994 talking EXACTLY like Ron Paul talks now---saying to get troops home NOW (from Somalia and Haiti) compared to what he says NOW in 2008



McCain saying an attack on Iran is close to reality (in other words----he is FOR it)



A nice montage on the flip-flopping and just plain insanity of John McCain



There were two people from both parties combined that I have always said would be worse than Bush: Giuliani (who has dropped out) and McCain. If McCain becomes President, America dies…..along with thousands and thousands more troops.