Saturday, August 30, 2008

Will the sheep of America fall for the pro-life, anti-gay thing AGAIN?


New VP pick Sarah Palin has NO experience whatsoever for VP slot, but hey, she’s pro-life and she’s a woman! 'Nuff said

by Larry Simons
August 30, 2008

Once again, it seems, that America’s brain dead masses will fall for the 2004 trick used by George W. Bush; that being pro-life and anti-gay marriage is somehow more important than…..well, any other issue you can think of.

Senator, Presidential Candidate, never tortured, Neo-con and fossil, John McCain announced Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin today as his choice for his running mate in the 2008 Presidential election.

I’ll give McCain credit, at least, for not choosing one of the many Neo-cons in his arsenal like Giuliani, Romney or Lieberman. I’m really not bothered too much with the "no experience to Washington" angle as much as I’m bothered about the fact that Palin has no experience with major issues like foreign policy or economics on a national level. I would have thought McCain would have picked a running mate who would fill the void on issues that McCain lacked experience on like Obama did (in picking Biden). But no, McCain’s pick obviously stems from panic and not what this country needs.

Here’s the facts: McCain picked a pro-lifer so he could secure the votes from the religious nuts in this country who still think that having someone in the White House who is pro-life will magically overturn the 35 year old Roe v. Wade abortion case. We’ve had several pro-life Presidents and Vice Presidents in the White House since 1973 and guess what? Roe v. Wade still stands! These are the same religious nutballs who believe in talking snakes but when they see footage of WTC 7 collapse, say it's not a controlled demolition. In other words, their faith in the impossible trumps their ability to accept the laws of physics even when it's caught on film.

McCain picked a woman so he could possibly secure the votes from all the female voters who are pissed off that Hillary dropped out of the race because he knows that most women in this country will vote for gender over issues. And of course, let’s not forget that McCain has that O’ Reilly obsession with the younger ladies and no doubt would love to stare at her nice rack for the next four years.

I do commend Palin on two things: Her stance on guns and the fact that she has a son who will be going to Iraq in 12 days. Of course, it will be no surprise that if McCain is elected President, Palin’s son will be either given the opportunity to come home or be heavily protected if he stays. So, it would be a stretch to say that Palin will be personally affected by the war if she becomes VP.

What is no surprise whatsoever is that the McCain camp obviously did ZERO research on Palin before choosing her. She is currently under investigation for firing Public Safety Comissioner Walt Monegan for not firing a trooper who went through a messy divorce with her sister.

Palin seems to have some Bush-like mental disabilities, like not being able to pronouce "nuclear" correctly and not knowing what exactly the Vice President’s job is. She did an interview just last month and said the VP job didn’t seem very productive, then said, "As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Also, it is very hard to see where she stands on most issues. A search at the website ontheissues.org here finds that of the 25 main issues listed, over half of them say "No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org."

MSNBC has a very provocative look at the pros and cons of Sarah Palin here.

My personal feeling is that none of the candidates running or their running mates will lift America up from the ashes that George W. Bush has buried her in.

Here are our choices:
  • A Neo-con Kissinger-ite who was never tortured but has fooled most of America into believing he was because he can hardly move one of his arms. Has so many different personalities that he doesn’t know what he’s saying 90% of the time and has agreed with George W. Bush over 90% of the time. Not eligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
  • A first term governor from the state of Alaska who virtually has no political experience….but she’s hot!
  • A Neo-con Brzezinski-ite who has the eloquence of Martin Luther King, Jr, but hardly differs on John McCain on the major issues. He wants troops in Afghanistan (McCain does too) and will not stop this war. He virtually has no experience in Washington being a first term Senator from Illinois. A lawsuit is now under way claiming that he, too, is not eligible to be President of the United States.
  • A 6-term Senator from Delaware who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and has the most experience among anyone in the 2008 Presidential race on either ticket. He supports the Constitution on certain things and not on others. (Ex: he is for the Patriot Act [unconstitutional] and for Habeas Corpus[constitutional])
300 million people in this country and THESE are our choices!

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Inside Edition Smears Jones For Malkin Confrontation


Tabloid TV show characterizes confrontation as "hateful attack", establishment media portrays vile concentration camp maven Malkin as poor sweet little victim

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 28, 2008

Despite promises to remain impartial and tell the truth about what really happened, Inside Edition unsurprisingly characterized Alex Jones’ DNC confrontation of Michelle Malkin as a "hateful attack," while the Dallas Morning News engaged in outright libel by claiming Jones had chanted "kill Michelle Malkin," a brazen lie that is still doing the rounds on neo-con blogs.

Alex Jones and his crew filmed their meeting with the Inside Edition team and it was broadcast live on the Internet yesterday. The Inside Edition reporters were uninterested in footage which clearly shows provocateurs completely unaffiliated with Alex Jones chanting inflammatory statements, as well as Malkin’s own photographer making a false report to Denver police claiming Jones had made death threats toward Malkin and punched her bodyguard, when her bodyguard is on tape assaulting Jones and his crew.

Inside Edition characterized the incident as a "hateful attack" on Malkin, the poor little victim, while failing to explain any of the reasons behind why Jones confronted her in the first place - namely the fact that she is an advocate of torture, runs defense for puppy killers, and argues in her own book that dissidents and other undesirables, including Arab-Americans, should be rounded up and jailed in internment camps.

The Inside Edition blerb describes Malkin as a "conservative author and political commentator," while it labels Jones as a "controversial radio personality" who "ranted and raved" and engaged in "virulent verbal bashing" while "on the attack".

Sounds about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

Did Alex Jones shout at Michelle Malkin? During some parts of the incident yes, during others he attempted to talk to her rationally. The point is, Inside Edition, as well as every other establishment press outlet that has reported on the incident, has uniformly failed to highlight why Michelle Malkin deserved every earful she got.

An Associated Content article describes Malkin as, "A short, attractive, pleasant lady of Philippine descent."

Pleasant? This is the same woman who went too far even for Bill O’Reilly’s liking when she infamously proclaimed "boo-hoo!" in response to news that Guantanamo Bay detainees (many of whom are innocent children) had killed themselves.

Just look at what even arch-neo-con Geraldo Rivera had to say about her.

"Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in NY. I’d spit on her if I saw her."

Malkin’s journalistic prowess has been off-target so many times that her website, Hot Air, is a laughing stock on the Internet.

In November 2006, Malkin embarked on a campaign to question the existence of an Iraqi policeman, Jamil Hussein, who has been used as a source by the Associated Press. Hussein turned out to be very real and Malkin was forced to retract her bizarre inference that he was imaginary.

Likewise, when footage emerged of Marines throwing a puppy off a cliff in Iraq, Malkin suggested that the puppy was in fact already dead or even a CGI-manipulated fake. The fact that the Marines who admitted killing the puppy were later disciplined and expelled by the Marine Corps was quietly ignored and no retraction appeared on her website.

In May 2008, Malkin claimed that a Dunkin’ Donuts commercial was terrorist propaganda because it featured a woman wearing a neck scarf.

The Associated Content piece again attempts to smear Jones by claiming a mob affiliated with him chanted "kill Michelle Malkin," when the individuals involved were actually provocateurs which were then cited by Malkin’s stooge in a false report he made to Denver police claiming Alex Jones was threatening Malkin.

The Dallas Morning News went one further. In a blog that appears on the DMN website, radio host Mark Davis claims it was Jones himself who chanted "Kill Michelle Malkin!" - a completely false and libelous charge. Respondents to the blog are advising the Dallas Morning News to call their lawyers and prepare for a pretty expensive lawsuit. A full retraction and apology has not been issued at time of press.

Neo-Con news outlets continue to embarrass themselves by falsely claiming that Jones or people affiliated with him advocated the murder of Michelle Malkin. In doing so they are only shaming themselves and letting everyone know exactly what they are - lying hacks whose only agenda is to smear those that dare question their jack-booted propagandist Fox News idols like Michelle Malkin.

Simons in '08!

Elect me! Elect me!

Watch the clip

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

And I thought I hated Bill O’ Reilly! Wow!

Boston-based rap group East Coast Avengers hates Billo just a tad more than I do

by Larry Simons
August 27, 2008

I will admit, there have been dozens of times where I have heard the news of a celebrity’s death (such as George Carlin or Tim Russert) and said to myself, “Why couldn’t that have been Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger or David Rockefeller?” I don’t think it’s a big sin to wish someone evil dies, but to actually promote the willful assassination of someone you just don’t like? That’s too radical even for me.

God knows I hate Bill O’ Reilly. But, to want him killed? No. I don’t go that far. I’m not the CIA. If Billo were killed, would I shed a tear? Of course not. But, that’s far from the same thing as wanting someone to murder him. Unlike Billo himself, I believe in free speech, even when the speech comes from Bill O’ Reilly. I disagree profoundly with 99.9% of what he spouts off, but I will fight wholeheartedly for his right to say it.

The rap group East Coast Avengers doesn’t share my views. They want Billo dead. With their proclamation to “Kill Bill O’ Reilly” (which happens to be the title of their song), not only are they threatening the man, but at the same time being hypocritical for the mere fact that Billo himself has wished death on others on numerous occasions.

On the July 11, 2006 telecast of “The O’ Reilly Factor”, Billo wished for the death of 9/11 truther and professor Kevin Barrett when he said this: “This guy would have been gone at Boston University, my alma mater, in a heartbeat. The Chancellor there, John Silber, would have--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor.”

On the February 19, 2008 airing of Billo’s radio show, Billo wished for the death of Michelle Obama (wife of Presidential Candidate Barack Obama), when he said this: “I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence.” [the key word being “unless”]

On the August 19, 2008 telecast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, ECA earned the silver on the Worst Person in the World segment. Olbermann stated, “Our runners up, the rap group East Coast Avengers. One of their new pick-to-click songs is entitled Kill Bill O'Reilly. Sampling it, as the kiddos say, you will find lyrics that call him a chickenhawk, a lying coward, a sexist, a racist, and a whore who, quote, needs a facelift [end quote]. But the song also calls for him to be, quote, hanged like Benito Mussolini [end quote], and otherwise killed. Gentlemen, I'm the last person to disagree with you on the chickenhawk, lying coward, sexist, racist, needs a facelift, whore stuff... but you really need to re-cut this stuff. Nobody's life should be threatened, not even in the hyperbole of the moment. Besides, you are rappers; you have better ethics than Bill O'Reilly does. Live up to them; don't live down to him. Word to your mother.”

I have posted the song “Kill Bill O’ Reilly” not as a promotion or endorsement of the song, but only as evidence that the song does exist for any would-be skeptics out there that might think this is made up.

Let’s make one thing clear: I do NOT endorse anyone being killed. Even the most vile, despicable human beings have the right to practice free speech without being threatened with violence or worse, death.


One thing I found myself surprised over is the fact that despite ECA’s album being titled “Prison Planet”, no Neocon attack dog (to my knowledge) has made any reference or attempt to connect the album’s title with Alex Jones’ website of the same name. Sometimes the attack dogs are slow, so I’m not ruling the possibility of this happening in the near future completely out.

My message to East Coast Avengers is this: Don’t become Bill O’ Reilly in order to express your condemnation of the man. This is what the Neocons do. They threaten to kill people. You’re no different than the Glenn Beck’s, the Sean Hannity’s and the Bill O Reilly’s of the world when you threaten someone’s life. You should apologize and can the song….you know, something Billo wouldn’t do (and has not done) when he has threatened others”

Here is the song “Kill Bill O’ Reilly”

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Provocateurs Call For Violence To Demonize Legitimate Protesters At DNC

Media reports attempt to link individuals who screamed "Kill Michelle Malkin" to talk show host Alex Jones

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
August 26, 2008

The spectacle of two individuals caught on camera calling for violence and then affiliating themselves with peaceful demonstrators in Denver has raised questions about who is behind apparent "agent provocateurs," intent on demonizing legitimate protest groups at the Democratic National Convention.

Several news outlets reported that nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones had "threatened" neo-conservative pundit Michelle Malkin during a confrontation between the two yesterday.

The same websites then claimed that people affiliated with Jones had screamed "Kill Michelle Malkin" and advocated violence against the columnist.

"Jones and his lackeys chased Michelle around the protest threatening to kill her!" claims the Gateway Pundit blog.

Other news sources, including People’s Press Collective and Political Byline, re-iterated the false charge and alleged that Jones had threatened Malkin.

In reality, the You Tube video of the incident shows two young men in court jester outfits approach Jones, claim they are fans of his and then put their arms around him for a photo opportunity. They then go off camera and advocate the murder of Malkin, continuing their threats despite the best efforts of Jones’ colleague Luke Rudkowski to make them cease their outburst.

Tellingly, the man in green (and Jones’ "lackey" according to the reports) also shouts, "Alex Jones is a capitalist stooge."


This incident was clearly a staged set-up to fool the watching media into thinking that people affiliated with Jones were calling for violence, thus demonizing Jones himself and the rest of the peaceful protesters who were confronting Malkin.

It was "frat-boy type" instigators, notes Aaron Dykes, editor of The Jones Report, "wearing court jester hats and making inflammatory statements." Dykes further states that, after chanting for Malkin’s death, these instigators asked why Alex had called for violence against Malkin.

Alex Jones nor any of his colleagues have ever called for violence against Michelle Malkin or any other individual. Confrontational protest is one thing, but assault and death threats are something that Alex Jones has vehemently denounced throughout his years of activism.

For clues about who the mysterious "court jesters" really belong to, consider the fact that members of the Re-Create 68 protest group, a self-proclaimed left-wing anarchist organization, voiced their support for right-wing Malkin throughout the confrontation with Jones, with one member, Kenneth Sanchez, at one point yelling "Michelle Malkin is a true patriot!"

According to other protest groups, Re-Create 68 is a COINTELPRO-style project designed to discredit legitimate antiwar groups by instigating violence in Denver during the DNC. According to Alex Jones, members of Re-Create 68 have habitually attempted to taunt police and provoke riots during the first few days of the convention.

Discovering the true identity and affiliation of the two individuals seen in the video calling for violence is key to preventing the wholesale demonization of legitimate protest groups as well as stopping a potential police crackdown which may come as a result of these instigators provoking riots.

Friday, August 22, 2008

NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely Flawed


NIST Claims "New Phenomenon" Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7

Yet fails to address why ground zero workers and media outlets had prior knowledge of an "extraordinary event" never before observed an hour in advance, plus myriad of other ignored issues


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 22, 2008

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting "puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed," NIST claims that the never before observed "new phenomenon" of "thermal expansion" was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, "Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon."

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a "new phenomenon" and an "extraordinary event" that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a "new phenomenon" was responsible for the collapse.

Which is the more likely scenario - that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be "pulled" - or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is "The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."

"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.

Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.

"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."
The core of NIST’s explanation, that an "extraordinary event" called "thermal expansion" was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.

NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.

As the George Washington blog points out, "NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal."

The George Washington blog has compiled a list of experts in structural engineering and demolition who have all questioned NIST’s conclusion. None of these individuals were approached by NIST to partake in their final report.

* The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

* Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).

* Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

* A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

* A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is "no longer a mystery," as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder stated yesterday smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable "new phenomenon" claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.

Related:

As federal agency declares ‘new phenomenon’ downed WTC 7, activists cry foul

Debunking NIST’s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

NIST: "Then a Miracle Occurs"

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Bill Maher on his new film “Religulous”

Bill Maher’s quest to find the truth in his new movie “Religulous” begins October 3, 2008

by Larry Simons
August 21, 2008

This looks like a pretty funny and enlightening film, and I’m not saying that as a huge Bill Maher fan. I’m a moderate fan of Bill Maher. I agree with Maher on certain things and I disagree with him on others. One area we both agree: Religion. I’m not one of those people who, just because I disagree with Maher on 9/11, throw the baby out with the bath water. I usually give credit where credit is due when people are right, sensible or logical on a particular issue.

Bill Maher appeared on Larry King Live a few days ago to discuss the new film. Several highlights of the clip (below) is when Maher says, “The idea that any person on Earth can tell you with such specifics what happens when you die just blows my mind. That somebody on Earth, another person, can just say to you, ‘Oh yes, and what happens when you get to heaven---yeah, you’ll meet Jesus, he’s wearing a white robe, there’s a little gold piping on the sleeve, and then you go in this room, we eat eggs, you watch F Troop.’ Are you kidding? What are you talking about? You’re just a person like I am. You are clueless. You have no idea what happens”.

Watch the clip



Maher then says (about religious people), “Unless a god told you personally what happens when you die… It all came from another person with no more mental powers than you have, and you don’t know…so just man up and say ‘I don’t know’.

The most interesting thing Maher says is when he’s talking about how the film is not trying to be judgmental and not pointing fingers and says, “At some point mankind is going to have to shed this skin if he’s going to move forward. I do have a serious intellectual problem with it. And on a mental level, it just ticks me off. It’s just the ultimate hustle. I asked Jesus (the actor who plays Jesus in the movie) this, ‘Why can’t God just defeat the Devil and get rid of evil? You know, it’s the same reason the comic book character can’t get rid of his nemesis---then there’s no story. If God gets rid of the Devil, and he could, he’s all powerful, well, then there’s no fear, there’s no reason to come to church, there’s no reason to pass the plate, we’re all out of a job…ya know, it’s gotta go on.”

I agree 100%. It makes absolutely no sense. The Bible says God is selfish and the Bible says God is jealous. It also says that God is love. Is love selfish and jealous? Seems to me, those should be #1 and #2 on the list of things that make it NOT love.

I have just recently become agnostic after years of believing in the Bible word for word. What changed in me? I began to THINK. After years of being very heavily involved in political and social activism, I began to grow sick and tired of the current administrations use of FEAR to make the blind masses submit. It didn’t take me long to realize that this is exactly what God does in the Bible. So I began to question things. Yes, I know, just as questioning 9/11 makes me an America-hater, questioning the Bible makes me a child of Satan himself. I know that is what the average religious person would deduct from that.

My christian friends of yesteryear would say that I’ve strayed and the Devil ‘got to me’. Well, obviously I don’t think I’m evil or I wouldn’t be an activist against evil institutions like the Federal Reserve, the CFR and the Bilderberg group, or against the pure evil of attacking other sovereign countries who did nothing at all to us, killing their innocent citizens and then continually lying about it.

You see, it’s the majority of the religious, “christian” population who support the fact that we are over in Iraq fighting “terror” because of 9/11. It doesn’t phase them that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it phase these people that one of Jesus’ central teachings was that we are supposed to turn the other cheek against our enemies. I have intertwined religion with politics because I can’t separate the two anymore. I just can’t and I won’t do it. Our world and more importantly, this country, have been ruined by religion.

I’ve always struggled with certain questions that I don’t believe anyone can answer, at least logically, without the same old mundane “we can’t comprehend God’s ways” bullcrap answer. One question is this: Let’s say one has a child who is just pure evil. They lie, curse, cheat, steal, shout profanities, break the law on a daily basis or even commit crimes. They are the worst of the worst. I’m pretty confident that the majority of parents would admit they would still love their own children despite the fact that they turned out to be the most rotten, God-awful person one could imagine. Even though their child may deserve to be locked up away from society, most parents would not want them tortured, beaten, treated inhumanely and definitely not put to death.

My question: Why does a loving God do this then? If we as mere mortals could love our own children despite the horrendous things they’ve done and not want them to suffer, why does God (who is supposed to be all loving, with a love that is supposed to transcend that of mere mortals) send people to Hell---not just to suffer and burn, mind you, but to suffer and burn FOREVER?

I can hear the bullcrap responses now: “God didn’t send them there, they did”. God is all-powerful right? He’s all loving right? Obviously not all loving enough to not want someone to suffer FOREVER, and not all powerful enough to reach into Hell to snag them out of the flames before FOREVER was over.

If someone has a logical answer to this question, I’d love to hear it. Until then, I’ll be looking forward to the new Bill Maher film “Religulous” which opens October 3.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Jim Marrs joins Coast to Coast with George Noory


Marrs discusses his new book “The Rise of the Fourth Reich”

August 16, 2008

Throw out everything you think you know about history. Close the approved textbooks, turn off the corporate mass media, and whatever you do, don't believe anything you hear from the government—The Rise of the Fourth Reich reveals the truth about American power. In this explosive new book, the legendary Jim Marrs, author of the underground bestseller Rule by Secrecy, reveals the frighteningly real possibility that today the United States is becoming the Fourth Reich, the continuation of an ideology thought to have been vanquished more than a half century ago.

This concept may seem absurd to those who cannot see past the rose-colored spin, hype, and disinformation poured out daily by the media conglomerates—most of which are owned by the very same families and corporations who supported the Nazis before World War II. But as Marrs precisely explains, National Socialism never died, but rather its hideous philosophy is alive and active in modern America. Unfortunately, most people cannot understand the shadowy links between fascism and corporate power, the military, and our elected leaders.

While the United States helped defeat the Germans in World War II, we failed to defeat the Nazis. At the end of the war, ranking Nazis, along with their young and fanatical protégés, used the loot of Europe to create corporate front companies in many countries, including the United States of America. Utilizing their stolen wealth, men with Nazi backgrounds and mentalities wormed their way into corporate America, slowly buying up and consolidating companies into giant multinational conglomerates. Many thousands of other Nazis came to the United States under classified programs such as Project Paperclip. They brought with them miraculous weapon technology that helped win the space race but they also brought their insidious Nazi philosophy within our borders. This ideology based on the authoritarian premise that the end justifies the means—including unprovoked wars of aggression and curtailment of individual liberties—has gained an iron hold in the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

Listen to the interview (from August 15, 2008)












Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama Fanatics Slam Author For Questioning 9/11


Establishment phonies, NY Times attempt to stoke feigned controversy over Corsi’s skepticism of official story, seemingly unaware that his doubts are shared by the majority of Americans

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 15, 2008

An army of frenzied Barack Obama acolytes have been busy attempting to smear writer Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, by citing his skepticism towards the official 9/11 story, seemingly ignorant of the fact that such doubts are shared by the majority of Americans.

The New York Times also got in on the act with a sneering attempt to validate the attack on Corsi, which is being supported by Obama’s own campaign staff.

The coordinated smear attempt is obviously born out of the concern that Corsi’s 2004 book, Unfit for Command, basically sank John Kerry’s presidential bid because it was the inspiration behind the Swift Boat Veteran’s For Truth campaign.

The Times cites Corsi’s appearance "On Alex Jones’s radio show, a forum for those who take a deeply skeptical view of government claims about the attacks" and says that the video is "making the rounds, especially among Obama supporters".

Well it mustn’t be making it very far because as of writing the You Tube clip has little over 5,000 views which in terms of "viral" status is a drop in the ocean.

"The clip has Mr. Corsi discussing the findings of Steven Jones, physicist and hero of the "9/11 Truth" movement who claims to have evidence that the World Trade Center towers collapsed due to explosives inside the building, not just the planes hitting them, during the attacks," reports the Times.

"The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced," Mr. Corsi said. "So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust."

The NY Times simply reprints Corsi’s quotes verbatim as if the words alone are enough to shame him.

"Every day we learn something new that completely undercuts Corsi’s credibility," said Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, in light of Mr. Corsi’s remarks about 9/11.

Here’s a newsflash for the New York Times and the mindless Obama cult members who think that questioning 9/11 is "controversial" and "undercuts credibility" - skepticism of the official 9/11 story is shared by the majority of Americans - according to the New York Times’ own poll on the subject!

In fact, it undercuts Obama’s credibility, in particular his meaningless sound bite platitude to stand for change, that he and his minions would so aggressively support an establishment position on 9/11 that even the government-appointed 9/11 Commission disbelieved.

An October 2006 CBS/New York Times poll found that a mere 16% of Americans thought the U.S. government was telling the truth about 9/11. A further 53% thought the White House was "hiding something" and 28% said they were "mostly lying".

That’s 81% who do not trust the official version of events and 16% who do - with a further 3% in the "don’t know" category.

In case Obama’s campaign and its delirious followers are not too smart with their math - 16 per cent is not a majority. 81 per cent is a fairly clear indication of where the majority of Americans stand with regard to the official 9/11 story.

So Obama supporters and campaign managers - please stop it already with the feigned controversy and the hot air about Corsi questioning 9/11, he is simply voicing doubts shared by the majority of Americans, and as such, attempting to smear him on this issue is the height of stupidity.

Now go back to chanting your mindless empty slogans about "change" while attacking anyone who questions the status quo you seem so rabidly eager to protect.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

NYC Police Commissioner plans to scan and surveil every nook and cranny of lower Manhattan EXCEPT where the 9/11 attackers were…..the SKY

The terrorists win AGAIN in New York City

by Larry Simons
August 14, 2008

As it gets closer to the reopening of the World Trade Center complex scheduled to be in 2010, the NYPD has discovered what it will take to prevent the next terror attack. A new security plan called "Operation Sentinel".

This plan includes radiation sensors and surveillance cameras that will be used to screen and follow every vehicle entering lower Manhattan as well as photographing and scanning license plates of all the cars and trucks entering every bridge and tunnel.

Of course, the NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, has failed to tell us all how tracking license plates and scanning all activity in lower Manhattan will stop airplanes from slamming into skyscrapers.

Christopher Dunn, of the New York Civil Liberties Union says, "The New York City Police Department is creating a huge computer database of the movement of everyone in a vehicle in Manhattan."

Correct me if I’m wrong or not thinking straight, but did the 19 hijackers use vehicles to destroy the twin towers? Were they even on foot in New York City?

I seem to recall the famous quote from George W. Bush as to why the terrorists attacked us on 9/11: They hate us for our freedoms. Thank you Ray Kelly, for giving back to the 19 men who ruined your city by stripping away the freedoms of your citizens, something the terrorists would dance a jig of glee over.

Commissioner Kelly, since 9/11 was an air attack, you might want to begin your security and surveillance plans in the air! Hell, 9/11 is not even the most recent event where an airplane has crashed into one of your buildings! (Referencing the 2006 plane crash of New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, when his Cirrus SR-20 plane crashed into a NYC high-rise apartment complex)

Mr. Kelly, you also might want to start with keeping tabs on the next time Larry Silverstein (leaseholder of the WTC complex) takes out a 99-year insurance policy on his property (that specifically covers terror attacks). Also, keep tabs of when the President fails to read Presidential Daily Briefings titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" and specifically mentions YOUR city as one of the targets! These things might prevent an attack.

Of course, being that 9/11 was an inside job, I guess there’s really not a damned thing you can do. If the Bilderbergers, the CFR or the CIA wants an attack to happen in your city, it will happen….no matter how many millions are spent on your high-tech gizmos.

Congrats to Ray Kelly for capturing the Bronze in Worst Person

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Largest Naval Deployment Since 1991 Heads For Persian Gulf


Kuwait activates emergency war plan as three U.S. warships steam towards Iran

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 12, 2008

The largest naval deployment since 1991 is unfolding as no less than three U.S. warships make their way towards the Persian Gulf in what observers are calling an "unprecedented" build-up, while Kuwait has activated its highest war alert in anticipation of a potential attack on Iran.

According to reports, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima are steaming towards Middle East waters to reinforce the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu which are already in the region.

They will be joined by a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

The maneuvers represent the largest movement of warships into the region since the 1991 Gulf War and come just a week after Operation Brimstone, a drill "which saw more than a dozen warships from US, British and French naval forces conduct war games in the Atlantic Ocean in preparation for a possible confrontation with Iran," reports Press TV.

The deployment has fueled rumors that Georgia’s sneak attack on Russia in South Ossetia, backed by the U.S. and Israel, was a shot across the bow to warn Russia against interfering in a strike on Iran which could be imminent.

Kuwait has activated its highest priority Emergency War Plan in response to the naval deployment.

"Kuwait was caught by surprise last time, when Iraqi troops invaded the small emirate and routed the Kuwaiti army in just a few hours," a former US diplomat to Kuwait told the Middle East Times.

The Israeli news source Debka File speculates that the U.S. naval deployment could have five alternate implications.

1. The US, aided also by France, Britain and Canada, is finalizing preparations for a partial naval blockade to deny Iran imports of benzene and other refined oil products. This action would indicate that the Bush administration had thrown in the towel on stiff United Nations sanctions and decided to take matters in its own hands.

2. Iran, which imports 40 percent of its refined fuel products from Gulf neighbors, will retaliate for the embargo by shutting the Strait of Hormuz oil route chokepoint, in which case the US naval and air force stand ready to reopen the Strait and fight back any Iranian attempt to break through the blockade.

3. Washington is deploying forces as back-up for a possible Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.

4. A potential rush of events in which a US-led blockade, Israeli attack and Iranian reprisals pile up in a very short time and precipitate a major military crisis.

5. While a massive deployment of this nature calls for long planning, its occurrence at this time cannot be divorced from the flare-up of the Caucasian war between Russia and Georgia. While Russia has strengthened its stake in Caspian oil resources by its overwhelming military intervention against Georgia, the Americans are investing might in defending the primary Persian Gulf oil sources of the West and the Far East.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Civilian Genocide, Dead Americans Cost Of U.S.-Russia Proxy War


Media portrays US/NATO client state Georgia as victim despite war crimes provocation to launch conflict

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 11, 2008

The truth behind who is primarily responsible for the bloodshed unfolding in South Ossetia and surrounding areas has been buried by the western corporate media. Georgian forces, with a green light from NATO and the support of American and Ukrainian mercenaries, launched a brutal attack targeting civilians and Russian peacekeepers timed to coincide with the opening of the Beijing Olympics so as to temporarily deflect attention before the inevitable Russian response, by which time the global media machine kicked into high gear to smear Russia as the villains of the entire piece.

To accept such a characterization is not parroting Russian military propaganda, it is a reflection of the stone cold fact that Georgia was responsible for the first provocation - which itself amounted to a war crime - that launched the conflict.

That is not to hide from the fact that Russia’s unrelenting response continues to slaughter untold numbers of innocent people.

The initial Georgian bombardment of the provincial capital Tskhinvali was primarily directed to achieve maximum civilian casualties, with residential areas, hospitals and the university being targeted, leading to at least 1500 civilian deaths according to both western and Russian sources.

"The air and artillery bombardment left the provincial capital without water, food, electricity and gas. Horrified civilians crawled out of the basements into the streets as fighting eased, looking for supplies," reported the Associated Press.

Reports of the initial carnage metered out by Georgian forces and the slaughter of Russian peacekeepers are difficult to find, because they have already been buried under the deluge of condemnation about Russia’s heavy-handed response.

American citizen and resident of South Ossetia Joe Mestas described the war crimes he witnessed being carried out by Georgian forces, back by U.S. support, against innocent civilians.

Watch the clip.

"I thought that since U.S. is supporting Georgia there would be some control over the situation in South Ossetia and that there would be a peaceful solution to the conflict. But what is happening there now it’s not just war, but war crimes. George Bush and [Georgian president] Mikhail Saakashvili should answer to the crimes that are being committed – the killing of innocent people, running over by tanks of children and women, throwing grenades into cellars where people are hiding," Mestas said.

"The war is when military fight against military. But the Georgian army is killing innocent civilians. This is genocide," he added.

A prime example of media bias in shielding Georgia from responsibility for the carnage is the fact that news outlets like the BBC continue to report that 1500 civilians have been killed in Georgia, with the obvious inference being that these are victims of the Russian onslaught. But these victims were not killed in Georgia, they were killed in Ossetia - by Georgian forces.

As the Chimes of Freedom Blog elaborates, "While the Ossetians claimed over 1000 dead the BBC neither reported this or any newsreel coming out of Ossetia showing the destruction caused by the Georgian shelling of the breakaway republic. All we are getting is one-sided reports of the destruction being caused by the Russians."

"The BBC is giving carte blanche to the Georgian point-of-view to be aired on its services while nothing whatsoever is being heard from the Ossetian side. The BBC’s repetitive playing of a statement by George Bush, given several days ago, without balancing these against statements from the Russian side indicates where the BBC is coming from."

Other mainstream news outlets are either aping the portrayal of Georgia, which enjoys the support of the American empire and NATO, as a poor isolated little country under brutal assault by the big bully Russia, or simply ignoring events altogether and obsessing about John Edwards’ extramarital affair.

In reality, Georgia is being used as a proxy client state through which the U.S. and NATO are advancing their geopolitical motives - to the cost of Ossetian, Georgian and Russian civilians alike caught in the middle of the carnage.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky explains, "Georgia is an outpost of US and NATO forces, on the immediate border of the Russian Federation and within proximity of the Middle East Central Asian war theater. South Ossetia is also at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes."

"Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate."

The price of the U.S. and NATO’s latest proxy war is already being paid with the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians - along with American mercenaries supporting Georgian forces.

According to the president of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity, the bodies of black men were found at the site of one battle near a school.

Russian envoy Dmitry Medoyev indicated the men may have been American mercenaries.

"In yesterday’s attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today are said to have black skin. Possibly they are Americans but we can’t say for sure yet. We will be able to publish the official conclusions after carrying out special tests," Medoyev said.

Last month, the United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Ukraine conducted Immediate Response 2008, a joint training exercise said to be in "spirit of the NATO Partnership for Peace program," according to Blackanthem Military News. Immediate Response 2008 was held at the Vaziani Military Base in Georgia.

In another report, a woman interviewed by Russia Today in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, talked about the presence of Georgian troops with American insignias. "There are lots of bodies over there, a lot of people have been killed, mostly Ossetians, but also Georgians, they had American emblems on their forearms and they were in black uniforms," she said.

Black uniforms are a trademark of Blackwater and DynCorp mercenaries (see Chris Hedges, America’s Holy Warriors). DynCorp’s presence in Eastern Europe is well documented, particularly in occupied Bosnia where it engaged in sex-trafficking and prostitution.

In a Friday press conference, Chairman of Russia’s State Duma Security Committee Vladimir Vasilyev said without U.S. aid, Tbilisi would have been unable to start military operation in South Ossetia. "The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America," said Vasilyev. "In essence, the Americans have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals."

It is entirely feasible the U.S. has "prepared the force" with mercenaries as well.

Michel Chossudovsky explores the reasoning behind Georgia’s act of provocation that launched the conflict.

US-NATO military and intelligence planners invariably examine various "scenarios" of a proposed military operation– i.e. in this case, a limited Georgian attack largely directed against civilian targets, with a view to inflicting civilian casualties.

The examination of scenarios is a routine practice. With limited military capabilities, a Georgian victory and occupation of Tskhinvali, was an impossibility from the outset. And this was known and understood to US-NATO military planners.

A humanitarian disaster rather than a military victory was an integral part of the scenario. The objective was to destroy the provincial capital, while also inflicting a significant loss of human life.

If the objective were to restore Georgian political control over the provincial government, the operation would have been undertaken in a very different fashion, with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial institutions, rather than waging an all out bombing raid on residential areas, hospitals, not to mention Tskhinvali’s University.

The Russian response was entirely predictable.

Georgia was "encouraged" by NATO and the US. Both Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels were acutely aware of what would happen in the case of a Russian counterattack.

The question is: was this a deliberate provocation intended to trigger a Russian military response and suck the Russians into a broader military confrontation with Georgia (and allied forces) which could potentially escalate into an all out war?

With rhetoric from figures like President Bush and Condoleezza Rice becoming increasingly heated towards Russia, the potential for an escalation in tensions is readily apparent.

Only the most naive would believe that the U.S. missile defense shield is anything other than a bulwark against Russian military expansion, and Russia’s response in resuming bomber patrols across the Atlantic sends a clear message.

Knowing that Americans remain completely unconvinced about the necessity of attacking Iran, have the Neo-Cons in control of the White House lit the blue touch paper for a wider war that could swing the U.S. election in favor of pro-war candidate John McCain?

Or is this merely payback for Russia lending their expertise in building Iranian nuclear reactors?

The motives will become clear in due course but what’s certain is that innocent lives will continue to be lost as the American empire lurches into its next theatre of conflict and the Neo-Cons play a deadly game that could have devastating wider consequences.

Related Stories

‘This Is Genocide’: American Witness Says U.S. and Georgia to Answer for Violence

Russia points to media bias in coverage of S.Ossetia conflict

Did mercenaries help Georgia?

Georgian troops burn South Ossetian refugees alive

The Pipeline War: Russian bear goes for West’s jugular

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Alex Jones schools yet another Neo-con on government fraud


This time, it’s Neo-con Scott Allen Miller on the receiving end of Alex Jones’ fact beatdown

by Larry Simons
August 7, 2008

Talk show host and filmmaker Alex Jones was a guest on John Gibson’s radio show (the ONLY show he has now) Monday to discuss the story of Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, the microbiologist and vaccinologist who committed suicide on July 29, 2008, who the FBI now says was the only one behind the 2001 anthrax attacks. Gibson’s fill-in for that day was fellow Neo-con Scott Allen Miller (above left), a talk radio personality on WROW out of Albany, New York.

As Miller begins the segment and introduction of Alex Jones as his guest, he says to his audience, “What you’re about to hear is a gag….a set-up”, and then proceeds to inform his listeners that he is about to “bait” some of these “conspiracy theorists” (that believe, as Alex Jones does, that the government and FBI is lying about the Ivins story) to call into his show and then trick them into thinking that he (Miller) believes the conspiracy as well. Miller then admits, “It’s going to be a lot of fun”.

As you here Miller say “It’s going to be a lot of fun”, keep in mind that the Boston Radio Hall of Fame website has dubbed Miller as, “…for the most part, a fair and balanced talk show host with a deeply developed thought process and a slight chip-on-the-shoulder attitude”.

Of course, this ‘deeply developed thought process’ and his ability to be ‘fair and balanced’ seems to be nowhere in sight as all he can do throughout the entire interview is flood Alex Jones with endless sarcastic, “Uh-huh’s”, fake, sarcastic interest and, of course, as Alex hammers Miller with fact after fact from cited mainstream sources, Miller provides ZERO facts of his own.

The most unbelievable and laughable segment of this interview is Miller's glaring hypocrisy in continually mocking Alex Jones because he believes in "conspiracies" and "inside jobs" while Miller fully accepts, without reservation, the FBI's story that Ivins is the one responsible for the anthrax attacks, which, since Americans were killed from INSIDE America, makes it.......an INSIDE JOB!

This is what Neo-cons do best. When they have the researching skills of a billygoat and are being crushed with facts, all they are left to do is shower their well-informed opponent with fake non-interest and a shitload of sarcasm. They do this to make their zombie-like listeners believe that the only reason they aren’t in an evenly matched, intellectual debate with their opponents is because they are bored and have no interest in the discussion.

Miller fails on all levels.

Listen to the interview



Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Cops Stop And Search Vegas Couple For Having Ron Paul, Infowars Bumper Stickers

First amendment no longer exists in the new America

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
August 4, 2008

In the new America an endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul now gives the police probable cause to pull you over, ask you for identification and search your vehicle.

Much to their surprise Rick and Ingrid, friends from Las Vegas, discovered this recently when police pulled them over and cited a Ron Paul and an Infowars bumper sticker on the back of their car as having aroused suspicion.

The couple sent the following email explaining their experience:

It was late afternoon here Las Vegas and we were pulling into Sam's Town Casino and Hotel. As we were pulling into the parking lot of Sam's Town we heard what sounded like a fog horn type of horn. Anyway since I never have heard a police siren like that I figured it was some guy who was in a hurry going no where honking his weird horn. We drove a little further and we saw the colored lights of the police in the rear window. They were pulling us over!!!!

We pulled over and stopped and the police car pulled behind us. There were two officers in the car, one of the officers got out on the drivers side of the police car and walked over to my friends window (the drivers side) and he (my friend) asked the officer is there problem and he responded by saying "I just want to know what is going on". Next he wanted to see his ID and had he ever been arrested. He did not ask for the registration to the car or for proof of insurance. I thought that was strange since every officer I ever encountered wanted to see all of the paperwork.

Then he asked for my ID, and I handed it to him. Right after that another officer shows up on the passenger side and asked for my ID, I told him I gave it to the other officer and he said "Don't you have more than one ID".? I said no only one.Then they told us get out of the car and put our hands behind our backs, and to stand in front of the police car.

We complied with their request and never once gave them any trouble. Then one of the officers called me back to the side of the car, said he wanted to talk to me. He asked me if there was anything illegal in this car, I said no. He said you had better being telling the truth because we are going to search this car. He then asked where we were before we came here, I replied we just came from Big Lots shopping. Well, Alex they (the police) started searching my friend and myself. They then they went to the car and told us to stay there and not turn around. In the meantime Sam's Town security joined the cop sand they were eager to play "Lap Dogs" for the cops. Finally they emerged from the car and told us we could go now.

As we are walking to the car one officer comes walking towards me and says "You know why we had to do this right"?

I said pardon me officer, I don't know understand, he then repeated it. Then he pointed at our RON PAUL and INFOWARS stickers on our car. I was going to question his actions but my friend said let's just go. Our stickers are still on the car and will remain there.

Sincerely,

Rick and Ingrid from Las Vegas.

Rick and Ingrid clearly have not heard that in the new America you are not permitted to support a political figure such as Dr. Paul who rallies against big government, campaigns for individual liberty, as well as a strong economy free from endless borrowing and a fiat currency, has vehemently criticized aggressive and imperialistic U.S. foreign policy and the espouses the law according to the Constitution.

These views are now considered subversive.

Did the pair never see the reports of how fellow Ron Paul supporters were ordered to remove campaign signs from their own private property when the Congressman was running for President?

Moreover, to endorse people such as Alex Jones and the freedom movement, and engage in first amendment rights in general is most certainly outlawed in the new America.

Citizens should never attempt to inform others of their views and insights, or provide them with materials such as flyers and DVDs, this is an arrestable offence.

They should not attempt to engage in any form of protest against authorities or policies they do not agree with, this is also an arrestable offence.

A free press able to count on unimpeded documentation of events and occurrences in the new America is also now outlawed.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Vincent Bugliosi returns to the Alex Jones show

The former prosecutor revisits the Alex Jones show to discuss the book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” and other important issues

August 1, 2008