Thursday, December 30, 2010
“No refusal” DUI stops soon to expand nationwide
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
December 30, 2010
In a shocking, but not unprecedented, turn of events drivers in Florida will be mandated to allow police to jab a needle in their arm and extract blood at DUI checkpoints should they refuse to submit to breath tests.
At what have been described as “no refusal” checkpoints, judges will be on hand to issue a warrant allowing police to demand blood.
DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett told 10 News WTSP that the mandatory blood tests are a clear violation of constitutional rights:
“It’s a slippery slope and it’s got to stop somewhere,” Hayslett explained, “what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?”
Watch the report:
The program is gathering pace and has already been instituted in other States. As we have previously highlighted, police in Texas and Idaho are already forcibly jabbing needles into people’s arms and taking their blood at DUI checkpoints, even if they are merely “suspected” of being drunk.
The Associated Press reported last year that officers in Texas and Idaho are training to withdraw blood from “suspects” as a replacement for the standard breathalyzer test, primarily because police can’t make anyone breathe into a tube but apparently, in the “land of the free,” they can forcibly hold someone down and jab a needle into their arm and take their blood, “a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court,”.
Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers, described how the process would unfold.
“Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.”
The practice of cops drawing blood at the side of the road has been in place in some areas since 1995 but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that the program is ultimately intended to be introduced nationwide.
As Alex Jones exposed over a decade ago, the eventual plan, under a 1993 executive order signed by Bill Clinton, is to institute mandatory blood and urine testing at the DMV:
In October of this year, Washington DC introduced a voluntary program offering free HIV testing at the Department of Motor of Vehicles office in Penn Branch in Southeast Washington for those renewing their licenses. Participants received up to $15 to help defray their DMV costs.
The program was clearly intended to acclimatize drivers to the idea of providing blood samples when applying for a new license.
Of course, once Americans are trained to accept authority figures jabbing them with needles against their will on a whim, programs for mandatory mass vaccination will be all the more easier to implement.
As we covered earlier this year, the government is harvesting samples of DNA from every newborn child in the country, storing them in monolithic bio banks and providing them to outside researchers and other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, all without the consent or knowledge of parents.
In April 2008, President Bush signed into law a bill which formerly announced the process that the federal government has been engaged in for years, screening the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months of birth.
Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”
The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the internet and is updated at least quarterly”.
Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests, both by the government and by researchers chosen to handle the DNA samples and the information that goes with them.
Allowing the government to illegally obtain and store Americans’ blood is a total invasion of privacy and completely unconstitutional. Every effort should be made by citizens to resist this tyranny and prevent the bloodsucking state from building their national DNA database.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
by Larry Simons
December 22, 2010
Four months ago, I would not have imagined that Obama-worshipping liberal blogger Andy Ostroy would be taking home his second Fraudie award in as many years, for several reasons: 1. I have not written much about him this year [mostly because a majority of his stories were strictly partisan political rhetoric centered on non-issues]. 2. I thought Glenn Beck was going to snatch his first Fraudie [and he would have if not for the reason Ostroy won the tie-breaker. I will get to that soon]. 3. I wanted some new blood to win their first award.
Nevertheless, Ostroy has won it again. Here’s why:
Ostroy began 2010 by writing an article titled, “The Problem with Democrats” [Jan. 27, 2010], in which he criticized a Facebook user who voted for Republican Scott Brown [who also had voted for Obama in the 2008 election] because the voter wanted change. Ostroy responded by suggesting that Obama had not been given enough time to change anything, when in fact Obama had more than enough time to continue a plethora of Bush policies [which Ostroy failed to mention…naturally].
In the same article, Ostroy claimed, “I’m no Obama groupie….” despite the fact that in the previous 19 months before his current article, he had written countless articles about Obama that were filled with so much adoration and praise, you would think that Obama died for our sins.
What makes Ostroy the colossal fraud he is is not necessarily that he condemned another voter for requiring quick change from Obama that never came, but that just 41 days before….yes, I said before Ostroy condemned another voter for saying Obama has not changed anything, Ostroy HIMSELF admitted Obama failed miserably to bring change.
In Ostroy’s December 17, 2009 article titled, “Why is My Party So Spineless?”, he said this:
“Have Democrats so thoroughly and so quickly blown their unprecedented seat at the controls? Has Obama failed so miserably to deliver on his promise of change? Have Republicans demonstrated once again that in the political equivalent of a street fight they know how to kick the crap out of liberals? Yes, yes, and yes.”
There you have it. Ostroy is allowed to admit that Obama has not changed shit, but when another voter [although voting for Obama for President, but voted Republican after realizing Obama lied and changed nothing] says Obama has not changed shit, Ostroy will have none of that, will he? And why? Simple. Because the voter voted for a Democrat because he was duped into believing that things would actually change. When they didn’t, he voted Republican, and that makes Ostroy’s blood boil.
You see, what should make Ostroy irate is the fact the he himself was duped into believing the guy he voted for would change things and he did not. Instead [because Ostroy’s total allegiance is in his party, not his country] he is angry at people who admit they were wrong and switch up on what party they vote for because they feel it is the individual candidate who will bring about change, not the party itself. This alone could have won Ostroy the Fraudie, but there’s more.
In March, I wrote about the fact that Ostroy had called an angry tea party protester’s actions [who he claimed “spit” on Congressman Emanuel Clever at a Health Care protest] “vile”, “despicable” and “unacceptable” even after Ostroy admitted that he was unsure that the protester intentionally spit on Clever.
In Ostroy’s article about this incident, titled, “Spitgate: It Was All Just Projectile Drool, I Swear!" [March 30], Ostroy blatantly lies by saying [about the protester]:
“notice how the protester's hands are strategically cupped over his mouth, which would conveniently conceal the act of spitting. Keep in mind that both men at this point are perhaps two feet away from each other, which would mean the rabid protester's vein-popping shouting at Cleaver would easily be heard sans hand-cupping, and that such distance might also make the "spray it" theory a bit of a stretch”
What Ostroy conveniently leaves out is the fact that the protester was cupping his mouth with both hands long before Congressmen Clever walked by him and in my article I provide pictures as proof. Ostroy is not deterred by pictures and proof now is he? Oh heavens no!
In May, Ostroy lied again by saying that Rand Paul [now Senator Rand Paul], in a discussion with Rachel Maddow about civil rights, said the word “Yes” to Maddow right after she asked him the question, “Do you think that a private business has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people?’”, insinuating that Paul is a racist.
Maddow did ask the question, “Do you think that a private business has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people?’”, but during Maddow’s words, “….has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’”, Paul was cross-talking with Maddow saying, “I, I, I’m not in, I’m not in, I’m not in…” and then said the word “Yeah” as a way to say “Yeah, I hear you”.
Ostroy completely omits what Rand Paul’s complete statement to Maddow was after Maddow finished the question. His complete statement was:
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race, but I think what’s important about this debate is not getting into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’. Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of things freedom requires, is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it. The implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don’t in any form or fashion.”
Why would Ostroy include Paul’s entire statement? Because Ostroy is not the least bit interested in facts and Paul’s complete statement makes Ostroy’s article null and void.
I wrote about Ostroy in September as well regarding his support for a stupid comment made by Lady Gaga, but that story was not about Ostroy being a fraud. He simply supported a ridiculous comment she made about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
I mentioned above that Andy Ostroy beat Glenn Beck in a tiebreaker for the Fraudie winner. Amazingly, the one thing that catapulted Ostroy to victory was an article that he wrote last month that I did not even write about at the time.
That article [from November 23, 2010] titled, “I Wanna Be Scanned and Groped”, which discusses the public outrage at the TSA and full body scanners at airports, could not be any more contradictory from past Ostroy articles if it was written by a completely different person. From “I Wanna Be Scanned and Groped”, Ostroy says:
“I can only speak for myself. After the horrific 9/11 attacks and the failed missions of both the shoe and underwear bombers, as well as the general daily threats we face from those who wish to blow us out of the sky, I say do whatever the hell you want to me if it means I get to go home alive at the end of the day. And if that means stripping me naked, so be it. Truth is, we're all half-naked at the X-rays now anyway. No jackets, no belts, no shoes...it's just a short hop to no pants or shirt. If you need to put a hand down my pants to check for explosives, grope away. In fact, dim the lights and serve me a glass of Chardonnay and I just might even enjoy it. When you consider all the indignities we already suffer at airports, a little groping is actually a fitting reward, no?”
Odd, that with Obama now in the White House, Ostroy is in full support of being scanned and groped at airports. When Bush was President, a completely different Andy Ostroy was at his keyboard typing this:
From “It’s Time to Start Profiling and Stop F***ing Around” [August 11, 2006], Ostroy said this:
“…our main enemy today just happens to be Muslim extremists. I don't give a crap about being politically correct, and I wish the U.S. government wouldn't either. If we truly want to keep America as safe as possible--at airports, train and bus stations, major sporting events, concerts, public buildings and elsewhere--then it's time to start profiling our enemy and stop wasting our time and money on those who don't fit this profile.
The unfortunate truth is that it is Muslim extremists who strap on bombs and blow themselves and everyone else around them to smithereens. It is Muslim extremists who kill innocent men, women, and children. It is Muslim extremists who've terrorized students, travelers, beach-goers, diners, worshippers everywhere. It is Muslim extremists who attacked us in New York and Washington, DC. It is Muslim extremists who hate Westerners and America, hate capitalism, hate Democracy, hate freedom, and plot our destruction from the minute they awaken until the minute they lay their barbaric heads to sleep. It is these Muslim extremists who place no value whatsoever on human life, including their own, in their fantastical journey to Allah to receive their 72 virgin reward.
We did not get attacked by, or live in fear of, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, young White families, 3-year-olds, blue-haired old women with canes, homosexual couples, middle-aged salesmen with bad suits and pot-bellies, rappers or acned teenagers with their pants hanging off their asses. Yet if I see one more of these non-terrorists getting frisked at the airport and pulled aside for a near strip-search, I think I may blow a gasket.”
Hmmmm. So, let’s get this straight. Under Bush, Ostroy was vehemently against anyone except Muslim extremists getting frisked and being pulled aside for a strip search. Now, under Obama he is unequivocally, 100% in full support of it? Interesting.
Under Bush, Ostroy minimized any talk of “terror” and threats by anyone who is not a Muslim. Ostroy even questioned the term “war on terror” by putting the term in quotations. In his article, “Lies, Lies and More Lies. Bush Fires More Weapons of Mass Deception at American Legion Propaganda Speech” [August 31, 2006], Ostroy says this:
“More important is that voters will not likely accept the new round of incendiary rhetoric about Iraq, the war on terror, and calculated comparisons to World War II. The simple fact is, we've been fighting terrorists for decades. It's nothing new. Terrorists killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983; tossed Leon Klinghoffer off of the Achille Lauro in 1985; and have been committing random acts of violence since. George Bush did not invent the battle against terrorists despite coining the grammatically-challenged phrase, "war on terror.”
Under Bush, the “war on terror” is made up and terrorism is no big deal since it’s been around for decades. But under Obama, Ostroy is willing to evoke 9-11 to Giuliani levels and have TSA agents stick their arms up his asshole even though he is not a Muslim extremist.
Here are other articles by Ostroy in which he downplayed terrorism during Bush’s tenure:
In his article, “Fear-Mongering Giuliani Losing Ground to Clinton” [June 13, 2007] he says this:
“Giuliani still invokes the 9/11 attacks at every possible turn, especially when justifying his delusional position on the war. Despite the facts on the ground that would indicate the war is out of control, that the Bush "surge" has been a lesson in futility, and that victory is but a fantasy, Giuliani's been pounding the hawkish table on this debacle. And it's all about fear, fear, fear. Big bad scary terrorists are swallowing up Iraq. "We gotta fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" is the popular refrain of the GOP fear-mongers. "If we pull out of Iraq they'll follow us home." Puh-leeze. Somebody get me a barf bag.”
Ostroy’s message is clear: Under Bush, terrorism was not a big issue and whenever any Republican mentioned terrorism or 9-11, they were doing so for political points. Under Obama, terrorism is a worldwide crisis that needs to be dealt with using any possible means, even if those means are TSA agents fondling his balls [an act in which he said, under Bush, he would “blow a gasket” if he saw again].
It just so happens, my exposé on Ostroy is not about whether I think he was wrong before and correct now, or vise versa. I agreed with his articles during the Bush years [because he was right]; I am simply pointing out blatant contradictions in his views for the mere fact that a Democrat is in office now. Ostroy hammered Republicans [and rightly so] for evoking 9-11 at every turn. He was right for doing that. Now that his Lord and savior Barack Obama is Prez, Ostroy has no problems with Giuliani-style references to 9-11 and saying Muslims are evil with every breath he takes.
As I have pointed out, the liberal fraudamopolous does not even require long periods of time to pass before he spews forth another major contradiction. In a few cases he only needed a month to flip flop like a fish out of water.
Ostroy also questioned the “war on terror” [using quotations] in his article, “Dems End Troop Withdrawal Debate, Setting the Stage for the Next Great Big Bushevik Lie Come September” [July 19, 2007] when he said:
“Forget the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate released this week stated that al Qaeda is a major threat still, indicating that six years after 911 we seem to have made no material progress in the ridiculously coined “war on terror.””
Ostroy continually minimized terrorism and scoffed at the mention of 9-11 when Republicans ran the White House. With a Democrat in power now, terrorism and 9-11 are of the utmost importance to Ostroy. In fact, they are so important it has made him sound like the very Republicans he bashed in his Bush-era articles. Here is another excerpt from his recent article, “I Wanna Be Scanned and Groped” which could easily be mistaken for the words of Cheney, Bush or Giuliani prior to November 4, 2008:
“To be honest, I don't get all the outrage. I think it's quite foolish, actually. Have these Americans forgotten about the carnage of 9/11? Have the images of planes crashing into buildings, of bloodied dust-covered New Yorkers running for their lives, been erased from their collective brains? Are they so arrogant and in denial that they're gonna now stage boycotts and other planned disruptions at airports to protest the new measures? Like there's not enough frustrating inconveniences and delays as it is? What are they protesting against anyway, safety?”
No, Andy, they are protesting the EXACT SAME THING you protested in your 2006 article, “It’s Time to Start Profiling and Stop F***ing Around” when you said:
“What the hell has happened to America's resolve? Have we gotten so politically correct that we're too afraid to do the right thing anymore? For every old woman, toddler or gawky White teenager that's searched at the airport, we're wasting a ton of time, effort and money that could be spent on who we've identified as our primary enemy. For crap's sake, this is war, and we need to start fighting like it is one on every possible front instead of squandering resources and assets in the interest of political correctness. We were attacked and killed by Muslim extremists, we live in fear of Muslim extremists, and it is Muslim extremists who we need to find at airports and elsewhere. I want every cop, every guard, every screener, every ID checker and everyone else involved in the security process to have their eyes trained on the enemy; the profiled enemy. Until the profile should change and we therefore need to change and/or expand our focus. But until then, it's Muslim extremists we must be on the lookout for almost exclusively.”
Well, Andy, the profile has NOT changed. The whole body scanner fiasco began after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [who is a Muslim from Nigeria] attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 last Christmas by putting explosives in his underwear. So, you see, Ostroy’s view should not have changed. He should still be supporting the notion that Muslims be the profiled target. But no, he now fully supports EVERY American citizen to be scanned and groped.
Another glaring contradiction on Ostroy's part is his continual use of the term "Muslim" when referring to who attacked us and who we should profile, yet in his artcile titled "Muslims Killed Us On 9/11?" [from October 15, 2010] he attacks Bill O' Reilly for using the very same term. In that article, Ostroy says:
"So Muslims killed us on 9/11? Was it Jews who killed innocent New Yorkers in the Son of Sam murders in the 70's? Was it blacks who killed 29 Atlanta children in the early 80's? Was it Christians who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City in 1995?
O'Reilly and his fear-mongering cohorts know very well what they're doing as they regurgitate their incendiary rhetoric to the masses. There's nothing like a little good old fashioned racist propaganda to scare the bajeesus out of the blissfully unaware and bolster one's position. And for those despicable ignoramuses who oppose the building of the Islamic Community Center, that includes demonizing an entire religion."
Yet Ostroy is permitted to demonize an entire religion when he defends body scanners to fight the "war on terror". It is people like Andy Ostroy, as well as Neocons on both sides [Republican and Democrat] who make me sick to my stomach with their partisan hackery and undying devotion to party over country. How many contradictions do I have to expose from one person to make my point clear that they are a colossal fraud?
Andy continues [from his 2006 article]:
“Additionally, I want more and better technology at airports, train and bus stations. Our current security and screening equipment and mechanisms are so antiquated and inconsistent from airport to airport (and non-existent at train/bus stations and ports) it's pathetic. I want universal ID cards for U.S. citizens who, after going through an initial extensive security check, can avoid long lines, unnecessary searches and frustrating delays. I want profiling. What I don't want is to be told that everyone's safer because I can't bring my coveted Snapple on board for a 6-hour flight to California even though I'm about as far from fitting the Muslim extremist profile as Richard Simmons.”
It’s crystal clear: Under Bush, Ostroy was against every American citizen being scanned and searched. Under Obama, safety and terrorism is Ostroy’s top concern and now he wants every citizen searched, despite the fact that nothing changed whatsoever that would have caused his profiling policy to change.
In his current article, Ostroy speaks as if he could have been Bush or Giuliani's speechwriter:
“This is about safety and security. Mine, yours, and that of everyone who travels. It's about the safety and security of those working in office buildings, who don't want planes crashing into them. It's about winning. Winning the war against those who wish to destroy us wherever and whenever they can. And that includes the skies. I'm getting sick of hearing about how the new scanners and pat-downs "have gone too far." Funny how no one said that on September 12, 2001. How quickly some forget.”
“Winning?” “Winning the war against those who wish to destroy us wherever and whenever they can?” Sounds like excerpts from George W. Bush’s State of the Union addresses!
Under the comment section of Ostroy’s 2006 article, “It’s Time to Start Profiling and Stop F***ing Around”, Ostroy said this to a reader who was offended at Ostroy’s idea of profiling:
“Frank, you, like all of my readers, are very important to me so i'll take a few minutes to try to explain my position a bit more for you. I do believe I'm saying what a lot of people feel but are afraid to say. The simple fact is, after 9/11, I, like everyone around me at airports and train stations, were looking over their shoulders at people of Arab descent. If they sat near us on planes, we were nervous. If they sat next to us in the terminal carrying a knapsack, we were nervous. And under the ciurcumstances, this was a normal reaction. C'mon, we all know who "fits the profile" of the terrorists we're supposedly fighting in this Global War on Terror. I'll make it easy: they look like bin Laden, Zarqawi, Zawarhiri, Atta, etc. They look like the guys who attacked us on 911. You mention Jose Padilla? Sure, he's hispanic, but he looks like he fits this profile, so yeah, he's be detained and screened. Tomithy McVeigh? He was a random kook not attached to any international terror cell whom we're fighting in the Global War on Terror. He's the exception, not the rule. He's not who we're fearing right now. My main point, Frank, is that...let's say Joe Blow security agent at the airport, in his 8 hour shift, can only check 100 people. If right now he checks 50 people who fit the profile, and 50 who do not (gays, old people, young white families, black businessmen, etc), then we here in the U.S. are wasting precious time and resources. With that, I think you could agree.”
TSA agents would have been “wasting precious time” in 2006, but now Ostroy wants everyone scanned and groped [which would take more time]. I could understand Ostroy changing his view if since 2006 there was at least ONE incident of someone trying to explode a plane that did not fit the profile Ostroy mentions above. That has not happened. The only thing that has changed in 4 years is the party that runs the White House [oh, and Andy Ostroy’s stances on major political issues!].
Ostroy should want Bush back in the White House, because it seems as if Bush wasn’t the only thing that disappeared on January 20, 2009....so did Andy Ostroy’s integrity. Congrats Andy. You deserve this award hands down. Can you say “Three-peat?”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Ron Paul Destroys the Myth That Wikileaks Frontman Julian Assange Is A Traitor on the Floor of Congress
As if anyone needed more proof that Ron Paul is a no-holds-barred champion of the Constitution
by Larry Simons
December 14, 2010
In a powerful display of courage, honesty and patriotism, Texas Congressman Ron Paul once again delivered another power-punch of American empire-shattering cogency that can only be matched by the likes of Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine.
Congressman Paul asserts that the real reason why Wikileaks frontman Julian Assange is being attacked, charged and threatened is not about the release of classified government information, but the fact that the release of this information is an embarrassment to the neoconservatives in support of perpetual war in order to maintain the American empire.
Paul makes the excellent point that military analyst Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for leaking classified information about the Vietnam war [Pentagon Papers] and The New York Times was not found guilty of releasing the information in 1971. What is interesting is that Ellsberg was charged with stealing the Pentagon Papers, although never convicted of it. Assange did not steal the documents he released through Wikileaks and he is being set up to be charged with espionage.
Naturally, Congressman Paul’s words received hardly any press and was virtually ignored by FOX News [except for this mention on Judge Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch] and every other neoconservative news outlet.
Here is the complete transcript of Congressman Paul’s speech
WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention worldwide in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.
But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.
Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.
Questions to consider:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’
watch the video
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Interview from Dec. 7, 2010. Noory talks with Alex Jones about Wikileaks, censorship and spying
Coast to Coast with George Noory
December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Billo and the War on Christmas 2010: Now Billo Has A Problem with Atheists Not Celebrating Christmas
Billo also says the funniest thing he’s ever said: He’s a “Christian”
by Larry Simons
December 8, 2010
Ahhhh yes, it wouldn’t be Christmas without Billo’s annual rundown of the half a dozen people in America who don’t celebrate Christmas and his inflating of that number to 200 million. A few days ago on FOX News’ #2 comedy The O’ Reilly Factor [Beck is #1], Billo resumed his annual role as the Grinch police by informing his zombie viewers of a new sign that can be seen in North Bergen, N.J. outside the Lincoln tunnel [that connects N.J. to New York City].
The sign [see below] was put up by the organization American Atheists and it depicts the three wise men on camels approaching the baby Jesus’ birth. The sign reads, “You KNOW it's a myth. This season, celebrate REASON!”
Billo, never missing a chance to look across his desk at two blonde FOX News bimbos, decided this would be a perfect time to have on Fox and Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover [great-granddaughter of former President Herbert Hoover, one of America’s worst President’s ever] who, apparently are experts in religious discourse.
watch the clip
Billo says, “Now I don’t object to being an atheist”. No, Billo, you don’t object at all. I guess the primary reason that Billo is even doing this segment at all is because he fully believes in freedom of religion, freedom of expression and independent thought.
Billo adds, “But why would you want to run down….people’s sincere beliefs by this kind of an exposition, do they think that this is going to create more atheists?” Well, why is Billo attacking the atheists’ sincere belief of calling the birth of Christ a myth? Didn’t Billo just say 10 seconds earlier that he doesn’t object to being an atheist? Well, Billo, this is what atheists believe in…that Christmas is a myth. Why is he putting that down?
As far as it being “this kind of an exposition” as Billo dubbed it, well, what kind of exposition does Billo expect from an atheist? How does Billo think it makes atheists feel when they see nativity scenes and hear religious Christmas songs? I guess he believes they should just accept it because the “majority” of Americans do. A majority’s acceptance and beliefs makes it right?? Well, I guess the Earth really is flat since at one time that’s what the majority believed!
Billo then says, “But it makes people angrier against atheists, that’s what it does.” Only if you are NOT an atheist or you are an advocate of free and independent thought Billo [which you are not]!
Carlson says, “They [atheists] never put up these billboards in July, do they? They always have to try and hijack the Christmas season”. What a ridiculous comment. Do Christians put up nativity scenes in July? There isn’t a more perfect time for an atheist to put up an anti-Christmas billboard than at Christmas! FOX News idiocy at its peak.
Billo then asks why people [atheists] want to put these signs up when they know it will offend people who believe in Jesus. Brilliant Margaret Hoover chimes in and has the answer. “I know why. I will tell you why. I went to the website…and it says... here’s why they do it at Christmas: They do it at Christmas Bill, because atheists feel alone during Christmas, ‘cause everybody else is religious and together.”
Brilliant. You heard it from FOX first….that atheists attack Christianity because they are jealous of them because they are a part of a religion and they are the only ones who have families and are together at Christmas! That may very well be the most ridiculous statement I have heard anyone say in my adult life.
Hoover then reveals what the second reason is [that atheists attack Christianity at Christmas]. Because “they feel closeted, because they feel like they can’t come out to the people they ought to…”. Hoover is simply lying and spinning [on the “No Spin” Zone…and of course, O’ Reilly puts no stop to it]. If atheists are not allowed to "come out", then why are Christians allowed to? Do not Christians go around "witnessing" to spread their faith to others? Can that be interpreted as "not wanting to be alone" in their faith as well?
Here are the facts from the American Atheists website as to the purpose of the billboard.
The purpose of the billboard is threefold:
1) To address those atheists who “go along to get along”, and to encourage them to come out of their closets
To “feel closeted” is much different than being encouraged to “come out of their closets”. One does not have to “feel” a certain way to be encouraged to do something. I could simply want to be with other people because I don’t want to be alone. It doesn’t mean I “feel” alone.
2) To attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season
This is a good point since December 25 has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. Why doesn't any of these goons talk about the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25 or that Christmas is celebrated on the 25th because of the pagan festival Saturnalia?
3) To raise the awareness of the organization and the movement
Notice none of these three reasons mentions anything about “feeling alone” at Christmas. This was simply made up, along with the entire “war on Christmas” issue in the first place.
I personally find atheism to be equally as nutty as believing because both views show a conclusive certainty about something in which there is no possibility of attaining certainty.
Then, Billo says the funniest thing I have ever heard him say. Billo says, “I don’t feel alone and I’m a Christian”. Really Billo?
Let’s look at Billo’s exemplary Christian behavior
Remember the outstanding Christian behavior he showed to intern Andrea Mackris 6 years ago?
Jon Stewart has the breakdown on the War on Christmas here
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Gretch Who Saved the War on Christmas|
by Larry Simons
December 8, 2010
It is hard to believe thirty years have come and gone since my favorite Beatle, John Lennon, was murdered in New York City by a deranged shitbag [whose name I won’t even mention].
He was not just one of my favorite musicians, but one of my favorite activists and humanitarians. He was truly one of a kind and there will never be another like him.
Here are just a few of my favorite songs with John on vocals
“A Day In the Life”
“Watching the Wheels”
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Geraldo admits that “those loathsome, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ protesters may have some reason to have adherence of people more mainstream…”
by Larry Simons
December 2, 2010
I admit, I missed these two shows in which the following two clips [below] come from, Geraldo at Large on November 13 and Judge Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch on November 19, in which Building 7 was brought the most national attention I have ever seen.
Geraldo admits that the thing that caught his eye about Building 7 is a new campaign called BuildingWhat? that is led by 9-11 victims’ families. Geraldo was also intrigued in finding out that over 1,200 architects and engineers publicly challenge the official story of Building 7 and believe explosives had to be used to bring the building down.
Although Geraldo should be applauded in now bringing Building 7 to the national spotlight, it is also this very reason that I have contempt for him and others like him in the controlled, bought-and-paid-for media. Yes, he is now admitting that 9-11 truthers may be validated in their beliefs if what they claim is true, but a few years ago he was calling truthers anarchists and giving them the finger like everyone else who accepts the official story hook, line and sinker and refused to do one minute of investigation.
If Geraldo had an interest in finding out why truthers were outraged and protested in New York City a few years ago, instead of sitting back calling them “nutjobs”, this issue may have been on the front burners a bit sooner. But he, like all the others major news outlets, called 9-11 truthers “whackjobs” and “kooks” and claimed they have no sympathy for 9-11 victims families, when in reality, truthers may have had the most sympathy for them, since our very own government recently voted no to giving money to helping the victims families. Now that Geraldo acknowledges that victims’ families make up a large number of what he called “kooks”, he seems to be listening.
I give credit to Geraldo for finally shedding light on this topic, but I still have feelings of contempt for him and his ilk for their irresponsible and lazy journalism over the past 9 years.
On November 13, Bob McIlvaine [who lost his son on 9-11] and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show “Geraldo At Large” on Fox News to talk about the “BuildingWhat?” TV ad campaign:
Geraldo Rivera appeared on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch on November 19, 2010 to reiterate his position:
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Dave Neiwert Embarrasses Himself by Being Clueless About the Natural Born Citizen Grandfather Clause
by Larry Simons
November 30, 2010
Leave it to the Bill O’Reilly of the Left, Dave Neiwert to make his points by completely ignoring facts and embarrassing himself in a grand display of ignorance for thousands to see. In his latest article [from the site ironically called Crooks and Liars] titled, “Birthers' newest claim: Obama not a 'natural born citizen' because father was Kenyan UPDATED”, Neiwert discusses the matter of a “new” claim made by “birthers” [which is actually an old claim] that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President because his father was a British citizen [Kenya was under British rule in 1961, the time of Obama’s birth].
Then, in sheer hilarity, Neiwert says this:
“What's really funny about this theory is that these fetishists of all things from the Founding Fathers would thus have disqualified one of the leading founders, Thomas Jefferson, from the presidency.”
Actually, the thing that is really, really funny is the fact that Neiwert apparently has never read the actual section of the Constitution that exempts all Americans who were American citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution [in 1787] from needing two American citizen parents.
Article II, Section I, clause 5 states:
“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.”
What is also equally rib-tickling is that after quoting attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is bringing a lawsuit against Barack Obama, as saying, “The courts and Congress have never changed the definition...the founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.”, Neiwert says, “This is pretty odd reasoning. Especially when you consider that the same standard would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson -- whose mother, Jane Randolph Jefferson, was born in London, England.” Although Neiwert is correct that Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England, she would have become an American citizen anyway by marriage to Peter Jefferson if America had been formed at the time of her marriage in 1739.
Turns out, Jane Jefferson did not have to be an American citizen anyway, because the Constitution’s grandfather clause clearly states that all American citizens [even those not natural born] who were alive at the adoption of the Constitution are eligible for the Presidency. Two Presidents were automatically grandfathered in: Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Four other presidents who were born after the adoption of the Constitution who some consider not to be natural born citizens are as follows:
James Buchanan ---father became American citizen upon marriage to Buchanan’s mother, Elizabeth Speer. The reason why Obama’s father cannot claim American citizenship status upon marriage to Ann Dunham is because he was a Kenyan national [therefore a British citizen] and the British Nationality Law of 1948 does NOT allow dual citizenship. He could not have enjoyed American citizenship after marriage to Ann Dunham while at the same time stayed a Kenyan national. [see Obama info below].
Chester Arthur---(1881-1885) Born: October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. Father- William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. Father did not become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Mother- Malvina Stone born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Chester Arthur born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. Burned all personal records upon his death.
Woodrow Wilson’s mother Jessie Janet Woodrow automatically became a US citizen upon her marriage to his US citizen father, Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson.
Herbert Hoover’s mother, Hulda Randall Minthorn, automatically gained US citizenship upon her marriage to Hoover’s father, Jesse Hoover in 1870.
Only one President [outside of Chester Arthur] has been questioned about the citizenship of his parents: Barack Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama II---(2009-) Born: August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Father- Barack Obama, Sr. was born in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District, Lake Victoria, Kendu Bay, Kenya (at the time a colony of the British Empire) in 1936. Mother- Stanley Ann Dunham, later know as Ann Dunham Soetoro after divorce from Obama II’s father, was born at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas on November 29, 1942. Father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Barack Obama II was born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. Possible adoption by Indonesian father coupled with continuance of Indonesian citizenship as an adult (travel to Pakistan, possible US college enrollment as a foreign student) could negate US citizenship or at least imply another dual citizenship. Circumstantial evidence exists Obama II born in Kenya and his parents later registered the birth in Hawaii. If born in Kenya, Obama II is not a US citizen at all due to 1952 statute not allowing mother to convey citizenship due to her age and time residing in United States past the age of 14.
Of all the comments posted under Neiwert’s story, only one [at the time of my writing] understood the grandfather clause while still dismissing that Obama is ineligible for the Presidency.
Let's clarify a few things. While the Birther argument is preposterous, we should be clear on the facts on which the argument is based, for easier refutation. Article II of the US Constitution states: “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.” As the Founders were Citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they were exempt from being natural born citizens to be eligible for the presidency. So arguing that the Birther theory would invalidate Jefferson's presidency gets us nowhere.
The Birther argument is that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the US of two parents who were citizens at the time of the birth. So someone born in the US, whose parents are citizens at the time of the birth, can be a "natural born citizen" (and therefore eligible for the presidency) even if one or both parents are merely citizens but not "natural born citizens." In other words, if you are born here, and both parents are naturalized citizens of foreign birth, you are eligibile for the presidency but your parents are not. So, if Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time he was born, their position is that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Again, everyone born here whose parents were citizens but not born here are still eligible for the presidency, so arguing that those people are no longer eligible gets us nowhere.
The real refutation of the Birther argument is that the courts have held that the citizenship status of the parents is irrelevant. "Natural born" means born here. The rest is noise.
Whether “dad23g” is correct about the courts deeming citizenship of the parents irrelevant or not does not mean that the true definition of “natural born” does not mean both parents of a presidential candidate must be American citizens.
In my view, there would have been no need for the founders to include the grandfather clause, stating “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” if they simply meant that any U.S. citizen was eligible for the Presidency. They could have simply stated, “No person, except a United States citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Whether you believe that “natural born citizen” simply means being born in the United States or being born in the United States while having two American citizen parents, you must ask yourself why the founders chose not to make this a simplistic issue and state that any American-born citizen is eligible.
In any case, you have to come to the conclusion that Dave Neiwert is a lying fraud for omitting any mention of the grandfather clause and a complete moron for not comprehending the fact that two presidents are exempt from needing two American citizen parents. By leaving his story posted and unmolested, he also proves that he has no problem whatsoever with blatantly humiliating himself.
A screen shot of Neiwert’s omission of the grandfather clause, just incase he edits his story
UPDATE: I think it is noteworthy to add that Neiwert posted his story on Crooks and Liars on November 29 at 12:12 pm. When I posted my story this morning at 6:09 am, there were 103 comments posted under Neiwert's story. As I write this, it is now 5:06 pm [almost 11 hours later] and there are only 104 comments under Neiwert's story and there has been no comments posted after 8:49 am [on the 30th]. It is simply not believable that in the first 18 hours of Neiwert's story, 103 comments were posted and in the last 11 hours only 1 has been posted.
Seems either Neiwert or Crooks and Liars founder John Amato has frozen the comment thread because there have been too many people posting comments pointing out Neiwert's glaring error of not being aware of the grandfather clause that does not require Americans born before 1787 to have two American citizen parents.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Candace Cameron-Bure amazingly knows something that can only be known after death
by Larry Simons
November 23, 2010
On Thursday’s telecast of The 700 Club, former child star Candace Cameron-Bure [of Full House] revealed a shocking ability she has. Other than starring in lame TV shows and being equally lame at acting, she now has the ability to know she is going to heaven. I have proof she knows this. She simply said she knows.
In her interview with Michelle Wilson, Cameron-Bure says this:
"I loved God. I wanted to live for God, and yet I was completely living my life the way I wanted to and just using his forgiveness as a license to do that. It really woke me up. It was that moment where I needed to know that I’m going to go to heaven. How do I know that I’m not going to be left behind. I can’t just believe in Jesus but then do whatever I want, living my life however I think is right cause clearly that doesn’t work."
Of course, now that she is living for God, it can be assumed from the above quote that she now knows she is going to heaven. In other words, “living for God” and “knowing you will be in heaven" are synonymous to Cameron-Bure. I didn’t realize that all this time, all I had to do was live for God and somehow that would equip me with the supernatural ability to know that after I die, I will be in heaven.
Why can’t God give us give supernatural abilities that we could actually use? Like healing blind people, curing cancer, stopping insane dictators from wiping out millions of people or being able to stop planes from hitting skyscrapers? Nope. Not a chance. God is only interested in providing us with powers to know mundane pieces of information like we will be in heaven when we die if we “live for him”.
Watch mere mortal say she knows she will be in heaven
Attention all nutballs: Stop saying you KNOW you will be in heaven. You DON’T know. There is NO WAY to know if there even IS a heaven, let alone that you will be there. You don’t know that any more than I know that I will be kicked in the balls tomorrow by a mugger who then proceeds to steal the 5 dollars in my wallet. Stop it. Just stop it.
You can say, “I hope I will be in heaven [if there is one]”, or “I have faith in God that I will be in heaven with him [if there is one.....a God or a heaven]”. That would be fine. Stop saying you know. It pisses me off.
Cameron-Bure then says:
"I loved being on Full House," Bure tells The 700 Club. "It was an incredible experience for me. It was such a great group of people that I was working with."
Here is one of those “great people” Cameron-Bure is referring to: Bob Saget, who, incidentally is shown here singing the fine Christian tune “My Dog Licked My Balls”
Monday, November 22, 2010
Jesse Ventura takes on the JFK assassination on “Conspiracy Theory”
by Larry Simons
November 22, 2010
The death of John F. Kennedy was indeed America’s darkest day. It was a horrific message that was sent to all future presidents that they will not challenge the establishment, be a threat to the banking elite, the warmongers and the fascists and truly be for the American people.
He was our last truly great president and we will never see another like him, simply because all politicians, as well as all Americans, know that the ones who really call the shots in this country will not hesitate [even in broad daylight] to obliterate anyone who is a threat to their agenda.
47 years later, the major media and government still serve as shit shovelers and gatekeepers for the bullshit official story: that one man [Lee Harvey Oswald] acted alone in killing JFK. Of course, anyone with at least one brain cell knows this is utter crapola from beginning to end.
In the latest episode of “Conspiracy Theory” [in which this case is conspiracy FACT], Jesse Ventura reveals on national television [for the first time?] that former CIA agent and White House “plumber” E. Howard Hunt [who was also involved in the Watergate break-in] gave a deathbed confession that he and several others [including CIA agents Cord Meyer and Bill Harvey, David Sanchez Morales as well as Lyndon Johnson himself] were involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Hunt called the assassination “the big event”. Hunt revealed this to his son, Saint John Hunt.
Here is Jesse Ventura talking to Alex Jones about JFK and more.
Here are portions of the confession of E. Howard Hunt from "Coast to Coast with George Noory". Noory's guest is Saint John Hunt.
Friday, November 5, 2010
by Larry Simons
November 5, 2010
We turn 5 today here at RTO. Thanks to all my readers these past 5 years and even thanks to all who have posted comments either supporting the site or sharing your views. Thanks also to Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber [TLNL and Socrates] for solidifying my views by still failing to debunk one thing I have written.
Remember, remember the 5th of November!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Both Democrats and Republicans have proved themselves to be untrustworthy, Senator tells CNN, as he indicates intention to build a Tea Party caucus
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
November 3, 2010
On the same day that he swept to victory in the Kentucky Senate race, Rand Paul immediately contradicted doubters who warned that he would compromise and begin to support neo-con political policies by promising to challenge the GOP establishment while also working to cut the bloated US defense budget.
During an election day interview with CNN, Paul said that he would work to change “the whole government” because “both Democrats and Republicans have shown themselves to be untrustworthy,” calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and a sunset of “all regulations” passed by unelected bureaucrats unless they are approved by Congress.
Contradicting criticism that Paul would seek to prolong and expand US military operations abroad and that he was just another “neo-con,” the Senator to be promised to look at not just cutting the domestic budget, but also cutting waste in the military budget, which has ballooned under Obama as he continues the Bush-era occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while launching new drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen.
“I do believe national defense is the most important thing the federal government does, but I do think there is waste in the military budget, and I will be one of those who will reach across the aisle to the Democrats and say ‘we will tackle waste throughout the length and breadth of the budget,” said Paul.
As we repeatedly highlighted, Paul’s neo-con rhetoric on Israel, Afghanistan and other geopolitical issues was just him playing politics in order to secure victory over Democrat Jack Conway. As soon as Paul knew he was in the clear and destined to be victorious, he immediately made it clear that expanding unconstitutional wars would not characterize his tenure as Senator.
When the host attempted to question Paul’s commitment to his values by pointing out that he embraced the support of establishment Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, Paul said that he would challenge the GOP on a day to day basis.
Statists who helped to contrive smear after smear in an effort to derail Paul’s campaign were noticeably crestfallen when he was confirmed as the winner in Kentucky. MSNBC talking heads, including Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, ludicrously claimed that Paul’s commitment to a balanced budget would cause a “worldwide depression,” lead to global anarchy and the collapse of governments around the planet.
Given Paul’s commitment to offering an alternative to the devastation wrought by decades of Democrat and Republican deal-making, it’s vital that Rand Paul forms a caucus of like-minded lawmakers who will pursue a plethora of neglected issues that are imperative if America is to be saved from total economic and political collapse.
Chief amongst them, ending NAFTA and GATT, reducing the trade deficit, pushing through massive tax cuts, ending Obamacare, reversals of gun control laws, securing the border, and a workable plan for stabilizing the dollar.
Indeed, during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul already indicated that he will start a Tea Party caucus. We as observers need to make sure that it includes the right people and embraces the right issues. This needs to be more than a Tea Party caucus, it needs to be a save the Republic caucus. We cannot afford to have a Newt Gingrich lead the whole thing down the rabbit hole as happened in 1994.
We firmly believe that Paul’s political capital needs to be spent by building a powerful alliance of limited government proponents, which of course would be headed up by Rand himself along with his father, Congressman Ron Paul.
Now that the Tea Party has got its foot in the door of Washington, its most successful leaders need to make it clear that the anti-big government movement will not be compromised by the establishment GOP, and will not be hijacked by Republican insiders.
Rand Paul’s promise that we will take on the establishment GOP and cut military spending is the first salvo in a war of political attrition that will define whether the Tea Party movement is infiltrated and deflated, or whether it goes on to become a truly dominant force for driving peace and prosperity in America.
Also, Ron Paul wins big in Congressional re-election!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
EXCLUSIVE: Uncovered 9/11 Footage Shows FBI Director Asking Firefighters About “Secondary Hits” On WTC
Amazing video also shows city officials hurriedly leaving after South Tower collapse
October 27, 2010
An intriguing video has appeared on You Tube that appears to show a FDNY film crew being interviewed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks by the the director of the FBI’s New York office, who has suspicions that one of the World Trade Center towers took a “secondary hit” before collapsing.
The video appears to be part of NIST’s recent FOIA releases and therefore has not been seen before now.
On first viewing it appears to be nothing special, just the horribly familiar scenes of dust and rubble from the aftermath of the attacks. However, it contains a stunning exchange between officials and firefighters.
The action appears to be taking place immediately after the collapse of the South tower and before the collapse of the North tower.
The film crew exits a building and make their way along the dust and debris littered streets.
At around 2 mins 50, a man in a suit approaches the crew and announces himself as “FBI, Barry Mawn.”
Mawn (pictured below with Rudy Giuliani) was at that time the director of the FBI’s New York office.
Mawn then asks the FDNY crew a question in the form of a statement – “That tower got a secondary hit?”
The firefighters respond by saying they are unsure but they heard a rumbling and ran for their lives as the tower then collapsed.
The audio is difficult to hear but one of the firefighters then says he “saw it blow right out the side of the building” to which Mawn asks “that was the plane right?”.
The firefighter then states “I don’t know if it was a plane or an explosion.”
As they continue their description of events the noise of a jet overhead interrupts them as people begin to panic. Someone, presumably another FBI agent shouts “is that ours?” to which Mawn replies “yeah that should be ours”.
At this point a large gathering of suited individuals walks into view and a woman in the group yells “go to city hall.”
Mawn then asks “where is the mayor?”, from which it can be deduced that this group is affiliated with Rudy Giuliani and they are hurriedly leaving the scene.
The woman leading the mayor’s group then curses at reporters telling them to “get the f*** out of here”.
One commenter has speculated that the reporters are with Pat Dawson, the first NBC News correspondent to report from the scene of the attacks at the World Trade Center.
Watch the video.
We have previously covered the fact that Giuliani and his group were warned that the South tower was about to collapse, before it happened. This video of them leaving the scene just after the collapse of the South tower dovetails directly with that information – another huge finding to emerge from the NIST video releases.
The video is a fascinating piece of evidence to be added to the hundreds of other accounts and descriptions of secondary explosions in and around the WTC on 9/11. This clearly indicates that the FBI believed that a secondary attack, aside from the use of air planes was under way.
Indeed, this backs up previous evidence that the FBI’s initial working premise was that trucks packed with explosives aided the collapse of the twin towers. This fact was reported by USA today journalist Jack Kelly:
The details were also covered by MSNBC’s Rick Sanchez, who also reported that officials strongly believed a van packed with explosives parked underneath the towers had contributed to their collapse.
Barry Mawn has other intriguing connections to the events of 9/11. He was a close friend and associate of John O’ Neil, the former deputy director for the FBI who quit his job out of frustration that his investigations into Al Qaeda terrorist plots were being blocked. O’Neil became head of security for the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001. His body was discovered in the rubble after the attacks after he had helped people escape the towers before they collapsed.
Mawn was also the individual who explained to the media how police and the FBI found the passport of one of the alleged hijackers, Satam Al Suqami, in the rubble during a “grid search” of the area close to the World Trade Center.
Mawn was later involved in the investigation of the Anthrax attacks, which he initially believed originated from US military sources. Mawn resigned from the FBI in March 2002 following the break down of this investigation.
The information revealed in this short piece of footage once again goes to show that there is still masses of evidence regarding the 9/11 attack that we are yet to discover. It should encourage 9/11 researchers to continue to dig deeper and demand a new independent investigation.
Media Matters and Think Progress – owned by group committed to "promoting the policies of Barack Obama," completely fail to mention that Rand Paul supporter was also victim of assault
Paul Joseph Watson
October 26, 2010
The establishment media and the George Soros-funded White House press whores Media Matters and Think Progress are raging about how a Rand Paul supporter stomped on a female MoveOn activist following last night’s Paul-Conway debate in Lexington, while covering up the fact that a female Rand Paul activist was also the victim of a stomping metered out by a Conway supporter just moments before.
An Associated Press video of the incident seems to go to great lengths to slow down the stomping in order to increase shock value, while conveniently failing to capture on film an almost identical incident moments before where a female Rand Paul supporter had her bandaged foot sliced open by a Conway fan who stomped her in a similar fashion.
Lauren Valle, a liberal MoveOn activist, attempted to create a confrontation by moving towards Paul after the debate, only to be restrained by Rand Paul fans. The video shows one of them push his foot down on the woman’s upper back in a stomping motion. Other Rand Paul activists try to discourage the man from hurting the woman.
The Rand Paul supporter who assaulted the woman is clearly a thug and should be criminally charged, but the establishment media and the George Soros-funded blogs have hastily exploited this unfortunate incident in an effort to prop up the flailing political campaign of Democrat Jack Conway, by attempting to demonize Rand Paul supporters as a mob of angry brownshirts.
For some reason, they don’t seem as keen to report on allegations of criminal money being behind the Conway campaign, a far bigger scandal, neither have they bothered to highlight an almost identical situation which occurred last night where a Conway supporter stomped on a Rand Paul activist before the Rand Paul supporter did the same to Valle.
As the leftist blogs rage about the actions of the Rand Paul supporter, the Kentucky Post was one of barely a handful of publications to acknowledge that a Conway supporter assaulted a Rand Paul fan in precisely the same manner.
"The second occurred after a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery, according to police," states the report.
"The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report."
Think Progress, the website bankrolled by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a think tank headed by Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff John D. Podesta, who was also head of Barack Obama’s presidential transition team after the 2008 election, failed to mention that a Rand Paul activist was also stomped on by a Conway fan last night.
It’s unsurprising that Think Progress would run a cover-up for Democrat establishment candidate Conway, given the fact that Center for American Progress director Jennifer Palmieri admits that the goal of the organization is focused around "driving the White House’s message and agenda."
Neither does it come as a shock that Media Matters, who recently received a $1 million contribution from billionaire globalist Soros, would also fail to mention the Conway supporter’s stomp in the course of their coverage of the story. Media Matters is tied at the hip with Think Progress as part of Podesta’s Progressive Media propaganda campaign, described as a "war room for promoting the foreign and domestic policies of Barack Obama." Podesta also helped found Media Matters.
While being owned by organizations whose goal it is to ‘promote the policies of Barack Obama’ and ‘drive the White House’s message and agenda’, both Think Progress and Media Matters ludicrously claim to be "non-partisan," which is like suggesting that Karl Rove is non-partisan towards the Republican Party.
Media Matters and Think Progress are transparently nothing more than press whores for the Obama White House. That’s why their baseless smears against Alex Jones and others are written by anonymous cowards who refuse to even put their name to their stories.
After months of endless contrived smears against Rand Paul that failed miserably, leftist Obamanoids were probably licking their lips when the "stomping" story emerged this morning. But now it has emerged that a Rand Paul supporter was the victim of an identical stomping, the scandal has blown up in their face.
Lefitist publications like the Huffington Post, Media Matters and Think Progress have once again been exposed in their pathetic attempts to manufacture fake controversies to score political propaganda points, just as liberals were left red-faced after a Conway supporter attempted to pose as a racist Rand Paul fan in an underhanded and pathetic ploy to discredit the Kentucky Senatorial candidate.
The Conway incident was by no means the only example of Obamanoid thugs attacking Tea Party activists for daring to go against the Democrat borg. Indeed, there have been innumerable cases of leftists viciously assaulting conservatives, most of which have been caught on video, but the establishment media just isn’t interested.
That’s because you can’t sell a fearmongering campaign about the rise of the angry right and how critics of Obama are racist extremists intent on violence when the only racist extremists carrying out violence are all leftist Obama supporters.
Earlier this year, A group of local citizens in North Carolina protesting the Financial Reform bill and the Durbin BP Bailout amendment were approached by a man who disagreed with them that Obama was to blame.
After the small gathering of protesters chanted "no more bailouts," the man began to argue with the group about who was to blame for the financial collapse.
The man then appears to push away another man holding a video camera before putting his hands on the other man’s wife.
"Hey don’t touch my wife, you got it?," says the cameraman as the clip cuts to another video camera from a different angle which shows the pro-Obama thug wrestling with and then slamming the cameraman with a vicious punch to the face.
When the pro-Obama thug is asked to remain at the scene because the police want to talk to him, he states, "you get your camera, you shove it up your ass". He then threatens the cameraman with violence again saying, "If you don’t fuck around, you’ll get hurt". The man is subsequently seen standing near a police car but it is unclear whether any action was taken.
Watch the clip.
Over the course of the past year, we have documented numerous instances of pro-Obama thugs committing violence against Tea Party activists or anti-bailout protesters. While the establishment media constantly invokes violence in its demonization of anti-Obama protesters, there has barely been a single tangible example of this, indeed, last night’s stomping incident was the first, and yet anti-Obama thugs commit violence on a routine basis safe in the knowledge that the corporate media will never report on it.
During an August 2009 demonstration in Mehville, Missouri, Obamacare opponents were locked out of a town hall meeting before Union thugs viciously attacked patriot and Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was handing out Gadsden flags outside the stage-managed event, while hurling racist insults. According to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. the Gadsden flag is part of the extremist paraphernalia of dangerous anti-Obama right-wingers, and yet it was Gladney who was attacked by pro-Obama thugs merely for handing them out.
"Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County," wrote Gladney’s attorney, David B. Brown, in an email sent to Infowars. "Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags.
The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo."
The video clip below shows the aftermath of the attack.
Brown characterized the attack on Gladney, who was hospitalized with multiple injuries, as "a truly senseless hate crime," (Gladney is black) but you wouldn’t have heard the Huffington Post, Media Matters, or Think Progress talking about it, because it wasn’t carried out by Tea Party members, it was an attack by pro-Obamacare thugs furious at people for using their free speech to express opinions which differed to their own.
Elston McCowan, 47, of St. Louis, and Perry Molens, 50, of De Soto, were each later charged with assaulting Gladney.
But it doesn’t end there – here’s another example of Tea Party members being attacked by extreme pro-Obama leftists.
During a November 2009 immigration enforcement rally, A.N.S.W.E.R.-hired thugs attacked 62-year-old Dave Caulkett of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, pummeling him with their signs and kicking him in the face as other A.N.S.W.E.R. goons cheered.
Watch the clip below.
Before the event, A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida had sent out an email to their members calling for a "militant confrontation with the so-called "tea baggers."
"Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community," stated the email.
As this blog points out, "As can also be clearly seen on the video, A.N.S.W.E.R. organizers set their thugs loose on the two men and stood by until they heard police coming. Then they stopped their members and repositioned them to make it look like nothing happened. This was an orchestrated attack designed to make people fearful of protesting against their agenda."
Huffington Post, Media Matters, Think Progress and the rest of the Soros/White House mouthpieces need to think twice before attempting to generate contrived scandals about Rand Paul, because every time they launch another smear, it routinely backfires and only has the effect of increasing support for the Kentucky candidate.
Supporters of Paul’s campaign should welcome the efforts of the Soros borg media, because collectively they’ve been so vehemently discredited that being attacked by them is fast turning into some kind of badge of honor which denotes the trustworthiness and genuine threat posed to the establishment by genuine Tea Party candidates like Rand Paul.