Saturday, April 26, 2008

Congressman Ron Paul Wants A Free Market in Gasoline

(PressMediaWire) - Congressman Ron Paul's writings on free market on gasoline - Many Americans understandably are upset with the sharp spike in gas prices since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in August, and are concerned by reports of oil company profits.  But we must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market.  On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries.  Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.

Consider Marathon Oil, which operates a refinery in Texas City.  Marathon recently announced the construction of new refinery that will bring several hundred thousand barrels of oil online every day- which is exactly what the nation needs.  But building a new refinery is a daunting task that requires billions of dollars in capital investment.  The process of obtaining federal permits alone can take several years.  As a result, we won't see a drop of refined gasoline from the new Marathon facility until 2009.  

Federal subsidies and regulations are largely responsible for limiting the supply of refined gasoline in this country.  The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due to population growth in recent decades, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added.  Basic economics tells us that rising demand and a fixed supply will lead to higher prices.  No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality.  We must increase domestic exploration, drilling, and refining if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices.  We need more competition, which means we need less government. 

Most Americans agree that the American economy should not be dependent upon Middle East oil.  Economist George Reisman, however, explains that our own domestic regulations make us slaves to OPEC: "Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil- indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s.  And it could begin right away.  All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government's restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement." 

Reisman also explains how abolishing restrictions on coal production, natural gas production, and nuclear power would further reduce the OPEC stranglehold.  By increasing the supply of these other energy sources, demand for oil would decrease and prices would drop.

Note that much of the support for unrealistic environmental regulations comes from northeastern politicians and media, who weren't nearly as interested in oil fortunes when the business hit rock bottom in the 1980s.  Texas and the gulf coast have always been willing to supply the nation's energy, and it's a bit disingenuous to hear criticism from those who are happy to use oil but don't want refineries in their backyards.

Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics.  In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it.  Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand.  High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations.  Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much. 

Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas.  The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages.  By contrast, the Reagan administration's immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember.

What can Congress do to provide Americans with some relief at the pump?  First it can suspend federal gas taxes, which would save consumers nearly 20 cents per gallon.  In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month.  HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production.  If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate.



Dangerous pattern emerges as activists framed, calls for violence declared for Denver DNC

A dangerous pattern has emerged as We are Change activists are framed for assault, and open calls for violence at the upcoming Democratic National Convention are proclaimed.

Rush Limbaugh has openly called for mass riots in "operation chaos" at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver Colorado. "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver," said Limbaugh. Limbaugh stated that he hopes for a replay of the Chicago riots.

This follows the revelation that the anarchist group recreate 68 is preparing to stage violent acts at the DNC. reports,

"ReCreate 68 has a massive anti war protest planned for the DNC on the 24th, to which they were never issued a permit for. Sparking the press to cover the story, Glenn Spagnuolo, the organizer of the group, threatened the City of Denver and all who visit the Democratic National Convention with potential violence, making a direct threat regarding his un-permited plan to occupy the Civic Center, "If the cops try to stop us, we'll see what happens." The threat estimates there will be 50,000 anti-war demonstrators who will overwhelm law enforcement. Re-create 68 is now on a collision course with law enforcement to re-create the violence of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago."

In addition to the danger of violence at the DNC, the peaceful activist group We are Change has been the target of multiple frame up attempts.

Luke Rudkowski, founder of We are Change, was called a "terrorist" by police for standing in front of the new World Trade Center 7 building and threatened with being put "…in the hole for 30 days".

"A terrorist act– I guess they go away for about 30 days," said the officer. Rudkowski responds, saying that he is an American citizen, when the officer states, "You're right. But by the time the government figures it out, you'll be in the hole for 30 days."

In August of last year, peaceful protesters who gathered in Montebello Canada to protest the SPP encountered police posing as protesters with threatening rocks, but the peaceful activists were wise enough to spot them and denounce their tactics.

Members of We are Change Ireland were smeared recently in a supposed attack on a European MEP. Paul Watson writes,

"During an attempt to assault activists who asked him a question in Dublin, a European MEP tripped and fell on his face and the entire incident was caught on camera, but that didn't stop the media from reporting that an "anti-EU gang" of thugs had screamed abuse and assaulted Proinsias de Rossa - in a crass attempt to smear opposition to the European Union."

Now, We are Change activist Gary Talis has been smeared for supposedly attacking a wheelchair bound girl. Cowardly calls for violence against Mr. Talis are prevalent in the wake of this most recent frame up.

As this current pattern unfolds, peaceful groups need to be wary of provocateurs attempting to incite violence or frame peaceful activists for committing criminal acts. Keep your cameras rolling and stand strong. Attempts to frame and provocateur peaceful groups only serve to demonstrate the frustration and fear the establishment is feeling.

If violence does ensue at the DNC or elsewhere, the expanding police state will be empowered even further. The provocateurs' goal is to fulfill the image that the mainstream media is attempting to create surrounding peaceful activists as being violent anarchists who damage America's image. Violence will only tighten the grip of the already tightening system.



Outspoken Arizona Senator Questions 9/11 Official Version Of Events

Republican attacked for expressing opinion on September 11th cover-up

State Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, has come under fierce criticism for going on record with her doubts over the government's version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Following a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Arizona's 9/11 Memorial, Johnson told Capitol reporters "There are many of us that believe there's been a cover-up."

Details of Johnson's comments come in an vicious hit piece article in the Arizona Republic entitled Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid:

The senator gave details about her theories. The World Trade Center buildings could have been rigged with thermite to melt girders. The aircraft could have been drones rather than the commercial airliners most of us thought we saw crashing into the Twin Towers. As to what became of the missing passengers in the aircraft that (theoretically) did not explode against the towers: "That's what I would like to know," she said.

Citing no research whatsoever on such theories, and without referring to the hundreds of engineers, scientists, professors, former government and intelligence officials and prominent public figures who have voiced similar concerns over the official version of the attacks, which is about as water tight as a paper bag, the Arizona Republic continues the attack:

Now, we take no issue with private citizens believing whatever fever-swamp nonsense, however outlandish, they wish about their government.

We do take serious issue, however, with a public official affecting public policy on such grounds.

The conservative Republican senator, who has represented Mesa's District 18 for nearly two decades, is renowned for her outspoken politics and devotion to the US constitution.

In the past she has chastised big government initiatives and social programs such as No Child Left Behind, saying they infringe on state's rights.

She has previously come under attack, as "nutty" for voicing concerns on the secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership, which she, like many others, has warned represents a bureaucratic undermining of national sovereignty.

"It's all because it's going to be open," Johnson has previously told Capitol Media Services. "It's all going to be a 'North American community,' just like the European Union," complete with the creation of a single currency just like the Euro.

"We will have no sovereignty, we will have no Constitution left... we are going to be ruled by unelected tribunals, bureaucrats that are unelected," she said.

In February 2007 Johnson introduced Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002, a bill urging U.S. withdrawal from the SPP, and a North American Union. The text of the legislation is similar to other resolutions offered in South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

Johnson has also worked hard to introduce bills to overturn legislature outlawing carry concealed weapons on community college and public university campuses, a move that would give students, teachers and administrators a chance to protect themselves during a mass shooting.

She has also introduced a bill prohibiting schools from collecting fingerprints, hand geometry, voice recognition, facial recognition, iris scans and retinal scans
from students. Bill 1216 passed the Senate earlier this year. Johnson has also fought against REAL ID and the biometrically enhanced driver's license.

Johnson has also been criticized in the past for holding a position on the board of the Church of Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights. The sum of her work here has consisted of sponsoring bills on its behalf to limit use of psychotropic drugs on children and to oppose mandatory mental health screenings for children.

A senator that actually cares about constitution law and US sovereignty, questions big corporate infested government and promotes freedom? Karen Johnson is undoubtedly kooky and most possibly evil.




BBC Anchor Who Reported on WTC7 Collapse Early: There May Be a ’Conspiracy’

We Are Change UK Question former BBC Report Phil Hayton-- who is 'amazed' that such a 'significant' event has no official explanation

Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7's collapse during a speaking appearance.

Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11-- at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.

"A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers.

Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. "This sounds so significant-- I'm just amazed I didn't know about this... This is completely news to me."

"So, is there no official explanation?" Hayton further probed.

We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were "lost" in a 'cock-up.'

"I sense that you think there's a conspiracy here-- but you might be right," Hayton concluded.

On a previous occasion, We Are Change UK reporters contacted Jane Standley by phone about the telling incident. Standley, unlike Hayton, was not surprised by the revelation, but became uncomfortable and hurriedly ended the conversation, only commenting that she had been "harassed" about the situation already.

Surely, it is clear that neither Standley nor Hayton were 'in on a conspiracy'-- rather they were used and fed information. However, Hayton seems willing to admit it while Standley has thus far been unable to answer for the suspicious incident ahead of the unexplained collapse.

The suspicion surrounding early media reporting of WTC7's collapse-- which Aaron Brown of CNN also announced-- only exacerbates the demolition apparent that many police, fire fighters and other emergency workers were told about in advance and which many other news anchors described as being like a 'deliberately destroyed' building.

Further, WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein said that the building was "pulled" and rescue worker Kevin McPadden has reported hearing a countdown to Building 7's demolition.



Friday, April 25, 2008

We Are Change Activist Framed for Assaulting Handicapped Girl

It was apparently not enough Gary Talis was attacked and punched by John Lovetro for making the mistake of asking the women of the Bush crime family a question about 9/11 truth and the illegal and immoral Iraq occupation.

ice core

Witness Dianne Lipson took this photo of John Lovetro, restrained after attacking We Are Change activist Gary "German" Talis.

Now, according to the neocon newspaper the New York Post, Talis was "arrested after he punched" the "wheelchair-bound girl whose parents had told him to shut up" for "heckling," i.e., asking questions of the Bush women.

As Jason Bermas noted on the Alex Jones Show today, Gary Talis is non-violent and not likely to attack or yell obscenities at a girl with cerebral palsy confined to a wheelchair. But this is precisely what the New York Post and a gaggle of neocon blogs and websites cl..

They [Talis and We Are Change activists] had been in the audience to hear the Bushes talk about their children's book, "Read All About It."

"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "

The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen - a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004.

"I heard my daughter hysterical yelling, 'He's hitting me!' " said Wendy Lovetro.

"He punched her on the shoulder blades, but that wasn't enough," she said.

"My husband pushed the wheelchair away from him and he reached beyond my husband and began pounding my daughter in the thigh."

The two men fought as the president's family drove off. Cops broke them up and busted Talis on charges of assault and resisting arrest.

Maureen was not seriously injured.

Stock market

According to Gary Talis, Maureen Lovetro, who suffers from cerebral palsy, was used by her father as a weapon.

This account is at odds with a version presented by other witnesses. Dianne Lipson emailed the following account to Jones Report editor and journalist, Aaron Dykes:

The event was over but the Bush ladies were still in the venue, the 92nd Street Y. I was with Gary and another member of WAC. People were being told to wait behind a secret service agent or to cross the street. A small group of people were gathered behind the agent to catch a glimpse of the Bush ladies when they would be going from the building into a waiting black van.

Gary was exercising his free speech rights, talking to the crowd. The mood of the crowd was hostile toward Gary. Among the waiting crowd was a man in a blue jacket and a woman, obviously his wife, and their teenage daughters, one of whom was in a wheelchair. The man in the blue jacket was taking particular offense at what Gary was saying. He even made threatening gestures at Gary. At one point he cocked his fist at Gary, with an odd little half smile on his face, like he wanted trouble. Gary and the man had words. I was very surprised to see this man make threatening gestures at Gary while his family, including his daughter in the wheelchair, were right there.

The Bush ladies came out. Gary asked them how they felt knowing that people thought that Bush was responsible for 9/11. He had to shout, as the Bush ladies were some yards away.

Then it was all over, the van pulled out and people were walking away.

The man in the blue jacket was pushing his daughter's wheelchair. Instead of going straight up the street, he veered over to the side of the building to where Gary was. Next thing I know, he caught Gary in a corner of the building and was whaling on him, saying that Gary had touched his daughter. I know Gary, and he would never do something like that. Gary's instinct is to protect women and children.

He had Gary in the corner, and was punching him and punching him. If Gary managed to defend himself I did not see it. The man's wife was pleading with him to stop. The daughter in the wheelchair was in tears.

Then the police came and put Gary, not the man who assaulted him, but Gary, in handcuffs.
I went to the 19th precinct to make a statement. They told me to wait. The man who assaulted Gary was in the lobby area where I was, not back where Gary was in custody.

A policeman photographed Gary's assailant several times, then let him go.

I did not see a mark on this man. Later I heard he had a split lip, but I did not see a mark on him. Gary, I heard, was bruised up. I am not surprised. The man punched Gary over and over again.

So I waited over 2 hours, only to be told that I could not make a statement. I still don't quite fully understand why.

From what I observed, the man who assaulted Gary was looking for a fight, and he actually exploited his physically challenged daughter, steering her wheelchair toward Gary, in order to fabricate an excuse to physically vent his anger.

Lipson's account is completely at odds with the version published in the New York Post, a well known venue for attacking truth and patriot movement activists.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show, Dianne Lipson reiterated her account and told Jason Bermas she fears for Gary in the wake of the New York Post's hit piece.

Gary Talis also appeared on Jones' show. He emphatically stated he did not assault the handicapped girl. In fact, he said, John Lovetro used his daughter "as a weapon" against him, ramming the wheelchair into his kneecaps and accusing him of attacking the girl. Talis told Bermas he believes the attack was coordinated.

Now that the neocon media network and blogs have kicked into high gear, the larger, neocon-friendly corporate media will likely characterize Talis and We Are Change at large as violent and dangerous, exactly as Glenn Beck, Morning Joe, Geraldo Rivera, and Bill O'Reilly have suggested, sans any evidence whatsoever. Now they have "evidence" in the form of a skewered and biased report published in the New York Post and swiftly echoed by the likes of Michelle Malkin, the concentration camp apologist and neocon who routinely appears on Faux News.

Note: the author of the New York Post article is Philip Messing. His email is: Please write him and ask him to tell both sides of the story in the name of objective journalism. I know, this is the New York Post, after all. Remember to be polite and to the point.

Update: As expected, Fox News wasted no time carrying the New York Post's slanderous article.



Missing Nukes, Dead Soldiers, Poisoned Witnesses, What Do They All Have In Common?

Dr. David Graham, a dentist in Shreveport, Louisiana, said that he had met three of the 9/11 hijackers a year before the attacks at a home in Shreveport. He became suspicious of them (he thought they were planning attacks on nearby Barksdale AFB) and contacted the FBI.

The man who hosted the hijackers in Shreveport was a Pakistani named Jamal Khan. In 2004, Khan pled guilty to hiding cash transfers to Pakistan, and in an unusual plea deal the government stated that nothing in this deal would absolve Khan from any future prosecution regarding the attacks of September 11.

Dr. Graham apparently met Khan in conjunction with the 9/11 conspirators and was set to testify against him at a deportation hearing sometime in 2004, following Khan's conviction on the money transfer charge. He was also trying to publish a manuscript about meeting the three men and his contacts with the FBI.

Then, Dr. Graham fell seriously ill from what his family says was poison. Shortly thereafter, Jamal Khan disappeared.

The story fell silent for a couple years until Buck's site did some more digging.

Dr. David Graham is dead.

Jamal Khan has vanished.

And the FBI claims that Graham never contacted them until after 9/11 — except that one guy says that he knows personally that Graham talked to the FBI in 2000, and he can even tell you the specific name of the G-Man he spoke to (Agent Spoon of the Shreveport FBI office, if you must know).

So who killed Dr. David Graham? Was it Jamal Khan? Was Khan a co-conspirator of 9/11? And where is he now? How did the FBI let him get away (one comment suggests that they didn't)? Did the FBI really have prior warning of these three 9/11 conspirators? And if so, why do they deny it now...

Well, remember how this was all about a fear revolving around Barsdale Airforce Base?

Funny how the story begins to flow into another series of mysterious deaths...

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations, according to a retired B-52 pilot and friend of Truth Alliance. According to him, the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site. Why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can't imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran?

There is no way the weapons would have moved without a top-level directive to do so, because of treaty obligations dating to the Cold War, because of the potential for really big problems in the wrong hands, or if there's a crash during transport. There are radiological reports needed because of the gamma activity inherent from the design of these things, dealing with where they went, who was exposed, how much dose, etc., which requires a monitored crew. Things like this are most vulnerable to interdiction in transit.

The "joy ride" or mistake scenarios would end the careers of every person even remotely attached to the weapons, because of the many layers of control and clearances even to remove them from storage. There are ways to ID these things if you see them and know what to look for. It is hard to do as a casual observer hanging around inside a B-52 on either airbase, so this was a "cry for help" leak (if it wasn't orchestrated) like the GAO report was to highlight the White House "tweaking" to come.

Since the Minot story broke about the missing nuke clandestine operation from Minot:

1. All six people listed below are from Minot Airforce base
2. All were directly involved as loaders or as pilots
3. All are now dead
4. All within the last 7 days in 'accidents' [Not all of them --LRP]

Take a Closer Look:

Minot Base Officials Say Airman Dies While On Leave 12 Sep 2007 The Minot Air Force Base said an airman has died while on leave in Virginia. Airman First Class Todd Blue, who was 20 years old, died Monday while visiting with family members. The statement did not say how he died. The base said Blue was a response force member assigned to the 5th Security Forces Squadron. [The primary mission of the 5th Security Forces Squadron is to 'provide 24-hour law enforcement and security services for the 5th Bomb Wing and all tenant units assigned to Minot AFB.' "Guardians of the Upper Realm" --The host wing on Minot Air Force Base, the 5th Bomb Wing operates the B-52H Stratofortress aircraft to provide global strike and combat-support capabilities to geographic commanders. B-52 Stratofortress - Mission --Air Combat Command's B-52 is a long-range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions... It can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance with worldwide precision navigation capability.]

AF Secretary Visits MAFB 14 Sep 2007 The top civilian in the Air Force spent the afternoon at Minot Air Force Base today. Michael Wynne, the Secretary of the Air Force, arrived at the base about 1 PM to get a personal look at how nuclear weapons are stored, protected, and handled. His visit comes two weeks after a B-52 bomber loaded with six nuclear warheads was flown from Minot to Barksdale Air Force Base.


Dan Rather Reneges On WTC 7 Statements

Dan Rather, while watching the collapse of World Trade Center 7, clearly states: "...for the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen pretty much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down."


It’s not only NY that is affected

NYC Mayor's Office has compiled a map showing the number of volunteers and retired responders residing in each state. Everyone is encouraged to write to their members of Congress to advocate for 9/11 health funding

Click here to see the map in it's original PDF file for a closer-up view.




Christie Todd Whitman Not Liable For Telling Residents That WTC Air Was Safe To Breathe

Christie Todd Whitman Not Liable For Telling Residents That World Trade Center Air Was Safe To Breathe, Judge Rules

NEW YORK — Former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman cannot be held liable for telling residents near the World Trade Center site that the air was safe to breathe after the 2001 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Whitman apparently made comments reassuring people about the safety around the site based on conflicting information and reassurances by the White House.

The appeals court said legal remedies are not always available for every instance of arguably deficient governmental performance.

A Department of Justice lawyer had argued late last year that holding the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency liable would set a dangerous precedent in future disasters because public officials would fear making public statements.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous dust and debris from the fallen twin towers after Sept. 11.

They said Whitman, who also is a former New Jersey governor, should be forced to pay damages to properly clean homes, schools and businesses.

A lower court judge had earlier refused to dismiss Whitman as a defendant, saying her actions were "conscience-shocking."




Al-CIAda Sock Puppet Zawahiri Claims Iran Behind 9/11 Conspiracy Theories


Intelligence stooge unleashes another PR stunt on behalf of Neo-Cons

Al-CIAda sock puppet Ayman al-Zawahiri was quoted in an audiotape released today accusing Iran of behind behind 9/11 conspiracy theories, in another crude public relations stunt designed to generate hostile opinion towards the 9/11 Truth Movement. The tape had been promised three weeks ago by monitoring group IntelCenter, who have been caught in the past putting out fake and misleading "Al-Qaeda" material via the alleged media arm of the terrorist organization As-Sahab, and was finally released today. The set-up revolved around Al-Zawahiri's responding to questions submitted by the public via the Internet.

One of the questioners asked about the theory that has circulated in the Middle East and elsewhere that Israel was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," reports the Associated Press.

Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollah's Al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

"The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.
As anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the 9/11 truth movement can attest to, the sock puppet Zawahiri's claim that Iran were the first to question the official 9/11 story is completely ludicrous.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent bumbling comments about 9/11, the date of which he cannot even accurately remember, were music to the ears of Neo-Cons who seized upon the statements as fodder to debunk the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Zawahiri's single sentence retort, and the fact that it has been used to generate headlines that link alternative theories about 9/11 with 'those evil Iranians' in a clear smear effort, is highly suspicious considering the history of these "Al-Qaeda tapes" and Zawahiri's own background.

Is this Neo-Con friendly Al-Zawahiri a different person to the real Al-Zawahiri who was reported to have been captured in Tehran in February 2002?

Is this a different Al-Zawahiri to the one reportedly captured near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in September 2004?

Or is this the same Al-Zawahiri who, as the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, fought for the CIA in Bosnia?

Is this the same Al-Zawahiri who, according to January 2000 U.S. Congressional testimony, was granted U.S. residence by the Immigration and Naturalization Service - something almost impossible for many legitimate immigrants to obtain?

Is this the same Al-Zawahiri whose brother Zaiman is running terrorist camps under NATO protection in the U.S. zone in Kosovo?

Previous tapes which featured Ayman al-Zawahiri were found to be cobbled together from old footage but that doesn't bother a lapdog media well versed in manufacturing consent and never offering retractions when said tapes turn out to be questionable frauds.

A 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape was studied by a computer expert, who discovered that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that "monitors terrorist activity") were both added to the video at the same time - meaning the Pentagon-affiliated group releasing the tapes were slapping on the Al-Qaeda brand right before they released them to the media. The expert suspiciously reversed his stance a day later despite producing detailed technical analysis to justify his claim.

Any credibility that these so-called "Al-Qaeda tapes" had was devastated after our investigation revealed that the people putting them out had connections into the highest ranks of the military-industrial complex.

In our exposé, we unveiled the ties between IntelCenter, a group that regularly 'obtains' Al-Qaeda tapes and the Pentagon. IntelCenter is an offshoot of IDEFENSE, which was staffed by a senior military psy-op intelligence officer, Jim Melnick, who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld.

IntelCenter were behind the October 2006 release of the "laughing hijackers" tape that showed Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah allegedly attending a 2000 Al-Qaeda meeting and reading their last will and testament.

Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the "laughing hijackers," Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts described as surveillance footage taken by a "security agency."

News reports at the time contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend of September 31/October 1 by "Al-Qaeda".

The video also contained segments that were first broadcast in a British documentary called The Road to Guantanamo, which was originally aired in March 2006. The context of the corresponding scene in the dramatized documentary featured U.S. interrogators attempting to coerce Gitmo detainees into confessing Al-Qaeda membership by showing them fake videos where their likeness had been computer generated to appear as if they were in attendance during Bin Laden's January 8 2000 speech.

IntelCenter were also behind the release of the July 2007 "new" Bin Laden tape, which in actual fact was old footage filmed in 2001 and had been released, including by IntelCenter itself, on no less than two previous occasions spanning back five years.

Al-Zawahiri has a history of popping up at the most politically expedient times, most notably when he appeared right before State of the Union speeches two years running, to attack Bush's policy in Iraq and allow him to use Al-Zawahiri's words as a rallying call to prolong the occupation, following in the footsteps of Dick Cheney and former Press Secretary Tony Snow, who had compared troop surge skeptics to Al-Qaeda sympathizers.

His latest comments linking the questioning of the official 9/11 story with America's supposed enemy, Iran, are transparently part of a crude ploy to allow the media to embark on a fresh round of demonizing legitimate 9/11 truth activists.


WeAreCHANGE activists physically assaulted at Ground Zero

Luke Rudkowski is reporting that WeAreChange activists are being verbally and physically assaulted when they go down to Ground Zero to engage in peaceful activism;

"After the Time Square Bombing that took place at the very place that WeAreCHANGE does their street actions each Saturday night, Nico [Haupt] came out to our Ground Zero Vigil with a huge sign saying "We Did The Time Square Bombing." Nico tried to associate us with the terrorists who committed a horrendous and cowardly act on this city of New York. He continued for weeks with the police department ignoring him, and decided to raise his efforts in trying to destroy our message of peace and truth..."

Apparently, we don't need to worry as much about Geraldo Rivera, who said on FOX and Friends, on March 7, 2008, "I think that this bomber isn't Al Qaeda, isn't anything like that... He's more like those '9/11 was an inside job' kind of guys...". Rather, we have to be concerned about people generating videos that attempt to tie 9/11 Truth to violent acts, and then proceed to commit acts of violence against 9/11 Truth activists like WeAreCHANGE.

It's strange how once seemingly rational individuals seem to metamorph into extreme proponents of theories that are by and large rejected by a majority of 9/11 researchers and activists. Although you would never know this by visiting YouTube, where a disproportionate number of YouTube users generate an endless stream of absurdities that reflect most unfavorably upon 9/11 researchers in general.

A majority of users at this site have taken deep offense to the proponents of "TV Fakery", and now that the leading proponent of this rejected theory has apparently taken to committing intimidating acts of violence to gain attention, those who have embraced "TV Fakery", (and the associated branching theories), now find themselves keeping some very questionable company indeed. The decision I made as editor of this site to not tolerate "TV Fakery" was driven by the user base opinion of this site, expressed in comments and down-votes.

It doesn't surprise me a great deal to see that absurd theories like "TV Fakery" seem to be prime vehicles for disruption and division within the 9/11 Truth community. Website editors and administrators of 9/11-related communities will all have to deal with this in their own ways.

Ignoring it has failed.



Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Flight 93 Data Provided By US Government Does Not Support Observed Events

Contact: Robert Balsamo

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain United Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder information, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict observed events in several significant ways:

  1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.

  2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.

  3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.

  4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.

  5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

In May, 2007, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that United Airlines Flight 93 created the impact crater as reported, in Somerset County, PA on the morning of September 11, 2001. According to the US Govt, United Airlines Flight 93 approached Somerset County from the North-Northwest at a high altitude on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, many witnesses contradict altitude as well as approach path. Also according to reports, and as the impact crater suggests, United Airlines Flight 93 impacted terrain at an almost vertical 90 degree angle, while the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle.

The information provided by the US Government does not support reports of United Airlines Flight 93 approach, impact angles, and lack of jet fuel at Somerset Country, PA.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of United Flight 93 and the events observed. As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information and in depth analysis please visit

Members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth at



Saturday, April 19, 2008

Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have "published in the literature," a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

Read Complete Paper




Omar Bin Laden: Did They Make a “Copy” of My Father?

On April 17, the son of Osama bin Laden appeared on Belgian Public Television. He said "they" made a "copy of my father and they say he says this and he says that."

No word on who Osama's son thinks "they" are. But that is simple enough if we do a bit of history reading. It was the CIA, in cahoots with Pakistan's ISI.

In fact, after Osama died of complications associated with diabetes (see Health & Medical History of Osama bin Laden), the CIA made several "copies" of the supposed terrorist, the former "freedom fighter" against the Soviets, and paraded these on television and the internet. We were subjected to the Fat Osama and then the Grecian Formula Osama and these "copies" were poor reproductions of the original, although a lot of people didn't seem to notice.

Earlier this year, Omar told CNN "he hasn't spoken to his father since 2000, when he walked away from an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan with his father's blessings. He said he has no idea where his father is, but is confident he will never be caught because locals support him."

No doubt Osama bin Laden will never be caught. He died in December, 2001, as Egyptian newspaper al-Wafd reported, although this was not reported by the corporate media in the United States.



Libertarians For 9/11 Justice Caucus Growing

Dear Fellow American,

More than 6 years after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, those responsible have still not been brought to justice. And, the 9/11 Commission did not even look at the unprecedented collapse of building 7.

Usama Bin Laden has not been apprehended and the FBI has no hard evidence linking him to the attacks.

If it brings just one terrorist to justice, we need to conduct a full and complete investigation into the attacks of September 11th. The Republicans and Democrats have not and will not allow that to happen while they are in power. Or it would already be done.

We saw the unfair treatment Ron Paul got from the Republican Party. The same was true of Kucinich and Gravel's treatment by the Democratic leadership. So change must come from outside these organizations.

The Libertarian Party is America's Third Party. Ron Paul was our Presidential nominee in 1988.

Dylan Avery, director of Loose Change, was the keynote luncheon speaker at the 2008 Libertarian State Chairs Conference, held in Las Vegas Nevada. Much of the leadership of the Libertarian Party respectfully listened to Dylan's research, asked him difficult questions, and many eyes were opened to the need for a new investigation into the attacks of 9/11. is the online portal for the growing movement within the Libertarian Party to finally get a real investigation for the Jersey Girls, for the first responders, for every victim and relative, and for the American people. Because all of us deserve justice for the attacks on 9/11.

The Libertarian Party has Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidates on the ballot in 2008 who are all calling for a new investigation into the attacks on 9/11 until we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorists have been brought to justice.

Please go to, watch the short video explaining our common cause, and sign the Justice Pledge demanding a new investigation.

In liberty, with eternal vigilance,

Jim Duensing

2008 Candidate for U.S. Congress (NV-1)
State Chair Libertarian Party of Nevada
Founding Member of Libertarians for Justice – because Truth is not enough!
(702) 967-0763



Friday, April 18, 2008

NORAD Releases Mother Lode of 9/11 Tapes

Source: Danger Room - Media Monarchy

The Web site says NORAD and U.S. Northern Command "have released a copy of their audio files, telephone conversations and situation room discussions, from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

And has posted them all to its site, in .zip files linked within a .pdf document&183;

It was a little labor intensive getting to the files & i think they're mislabeled. so i've sorted them out & saved you some headaches. here are the direct download links:

Big Thanks To Media Monarchy For All The Leg Work!!!


Steven Jones’ dust analysis shown at Sydney truth event

This is a clip shown at the Sydney truth event last month. This will give everyone an idea of what the Between The Lines documentary will look like. Not many people were able to see it when I posted it before, and it had to be hastily taken down. Enjoy.



Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Footage from 911 Truthstock 2008

Truthstock 2008 Q&A session with (from left to right) Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery and Daniel Sunjata:

It seems some people came to the party without doing their homework. Some came with a chip on their shoulder accusing the panel of fabricating facts, yet unable to prove so.

I guess the old saying is true... The truth hurts.


Everything Must Go: How to Fight Terrorism (And Shred the Constitution)

'Terror and Consent': brilliant, contrarian

James E. McWilliams / Austin-American Statesman | March 30, 2008

During the course of a long, intellectually demanding narrative, "Terror and Consent" pivots on several paradigm-shifting claims. One of them, which appears in the introduction, stands out for its humanitarian implications: "During the era of twentieth century industrial nation states … 80 percent of the dead and wounded in warfare were civilians."

For Philip Bobbitt, a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University, this is more than a gee-whiz factoid. It's the basis upon which he advances an ambitious argument for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century.

The prospect that the good old industrial nation state is a shrinking violet might rankle patriotic flag-wavers. But Bobbitt's statistic thrusts home an unsettling question: What does it say about the nation state that it has so often failed to provide, in the words of British statesman Douglas Hurd, "the security, prosperity, and the decent environment which the citizens demand"? Might it be time for something new?

In Bobbitt's view, the current wars against terror provide a shrill wake-up call to confront this question. The best way to protect citizens of modern democracies, he claims, is to fundamentally rethink the nation state as the guarantor of the freedoms that terrorists intend to obliterate.

Bobbitt's previous book, "The Shield of Achilles," explored the grand themes of warfare and state development, marking his penchant for the magnum opus. At nearly 700 pages (including more than 100 pages of notes), "Terror and Consent" follows suit, taking on a similarly big picture. If "we want to defeat state-shattering terror in the twenty-first century," Bobbitt writes, we will have to "transform the emerging constitutional order of the twenty-first century State."

Specifically, we must stop thinking like a nation state and start thinking like the "market state" that we are inevitably becoming. The nation state — a constitutional order dedicated to protecting and improving the material welfare of its citizens — served the United States well from the mid-19th century to the end of the Cold War. But Bobbitt contends it's vulnerable to a new battery of threats. The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the "universalization of culture" have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security.

What's needed is a constitutional order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations, relying "less on law and regulation and more on market incentives" to expand people's options. Such a market state keeps its finger on the pulse of consumer demand, advocates trade liberalization, is prone to the privatization of public works and "will outsource many functions." In the seminar rooms of political science departments this change is referred to as "neoliberalism" (on the streets, it is known as "globalization") — and Bobbitt, who is a geopolitical realist, believes we have no choice but to embrace it.

The market state, Bobbitt contends, has great potential for the cause of individual freedom, but it also has a dark side. Global terrorism has already taken advantage of its ethos of openness in order to undermine it. For example, the wide-open arms market that neoliberalism endorses has allowed terrorists to gain access to weapons of destruction that they then use to destabilize legitimate market states. "Market state terrorism," Bobbitt explains, thus feeds on the "ardently sought innovations" of the 20th century to exploit "the increasing vulnerability of market states to catastrophic events."

"One cannot say," Bobbitt warns, "precisely how long we have."

What is to be done

This is not fear-mongering but rather a sophisticated geopolitical assessment. Therefore, a great deal rests on the solutions Bobbitt offers. Fortunately, his suggestions are, if not entirely novel, largely sensible. But they are ambitious to the point of being unachievable without extraordinary political leadership and unprecedented corporate discipline.

First, Bobbitt argues that the market state must allow the timeworn strategies of deterrence and containment to yield to the more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare. In an "epochal war," which we're in, market states share the burden of employing power "preclusively rather than waiting for an acute crisis to set in that irrevocably puts us at a disadvantage." Venturing educated guesses about the behavior of future threats is no one's idea of an ideal tactical strategy, but Bobbitt argues that if we strengthen our alliances with other states, networks of shared intelligence could do an impressive job of it.

Of course, this would require a more invasive process of information gathering within and across national borders. In order to reduce the threat to civil liberties this would entail, Bobbitt highlights "(o)ur commitment to globalize the systems of human rights and government by consent." He insists that emerging market states must collectively, out of "self respect," define and protect our inalienable rights. What this means in concrete terms is that governments "must rethink ideas like 'Homeland Security,' when the threats to security cannot be neatly cabined as in or out of the homeland," that an "alliance of democracies" must form to discourage isolationism and that the United States must "change its role as hegemon" in NATO. Only then can a consortium of neoliberal democracies draw "a bright-line rule against the intentional infliction of pain on any person detained by government," one of the many human rights threats that Bobbitt believes we must address.

These developments — the acceptance of preclusionary war, the universalization of human rights — hinge on a revamping of international law. Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization, that the Geneva Conventions should be changed to forbid the indefinite containment of terrorist prisoners without trial and that we must, in cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as "counterforce measures."

The messy reality

These prescriptions provide a useful blueprint for fighting terror. As with any blueprint, however, there is the messy reality of filling in the details. Bobbitt presents his arguments persuasively; there is nothing dumbed down about "Terror and Consent." Nevertheless, one wonders if he concedes too much to the many virtues of neoliberalism without fully appreciating its negative impact. Two issues stand out.

First, Bobbitt admits that there will be no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise. In many situations, he explains, our only option is to vest faith in properly formulated international and constitutional systems of law. This sort of vagueness is frustrating, perhaps dangerously so.

Take one case that Bobbitt offers: What should a market state do when an Islamic state holds free elections that bring a bin Laden to power? This situation, after all, presents allied market states with a human rights quandary — some sort of ethical corner will have to be cut. Bobbitt's approach to these kinds of problems is often to dance a bit too delicately around them. He argues, "States must measure their tactical and strategic policies against the impact these policies are likely to have on their legitimacy," and "Whether (a) state is subject to intervention … ought to be measured by the relationship between the strategic interests of the states of consent and the severity of the deprivations of human rights." Both answers tell us we need to take measurements but offer no ruler with which to do so.

Further left unexplored in this response is the possibility that the market state offers a conception of inalienable rights that it has not yet developed the means to protect. One can't help but wonder, as globalization renders millions of people vulnerable to human rights violations, if the nation state and its emphasis on human welfare should be so thoroughly dismissed.

Second, there is the matter that Bobbitt does not spend much time addressing: the war in Iraq — specifically, the subcontracting tactics that a CEO president and his corporate-modeled Cabinet have embraced. The inefficiencies of Halliburton, the corruption of Bechtel and the violence perpetuated by Blackwater call into question Bobbitt's advocacy of privatizing public duties. How does a market state draw "bright-line" rules on human rights when the actors in charge of drawing those lines hold privately funded erasers?

These questions, like so many others that this book poses, lack easy answers. But the long century we face might demand that we answer them not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils. If this is so, then "Terror and Consent" offers the most we can expect from our blinkered vantage point: a dauntingly learned and occasionally infuriating manifesto.

Philip Bobbitt:

Phone: (512) 232-1376
Fax: (512) 471-6988



Teenage Skeptic Takes on Climate Scientists

If you're a scientist trying to convince people they are making the world warmer, Kristen Byrnes is your worst nightmare. She's articulate, intelligent, she has a Web site, and one day her people will be running the world. Her people, meaning 16-year-olds.

Kristen's Web site, "Ponder the Maunder," has made her a celebrity among climate skeptics. After she posted a critique of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, her Web site got so many hits the family's internet service provider sent them a warning.

Her story may dismay mainstream scientists, but plenty of people are friendly to her ideas.

In one poll last year, only about 50 percent of people agreed humans were contributing to global warming. The other half either disagreed, weren't sure or didn't believe the Earth was warming in the first place.

"I don't remember how old I was when I started getting into global warming," Kristen says. "In middle school I remember everyone was like: 'Global warming! The world is going to end!' Stuff like that ... so I never really believed in it."

On the March afternoon I visited, there was still snow on the ground in Maine, and Kristen padded around the house wearing green furry slippers. She earns top grades in school. (Her step-dad, Mike Carson, proudly shows them off.)

And she has a quality scientists try to cultivate: she is skeptical. Has someone made a claim? She wants to see the data.

So about a year ago, when she was 15, she started to look at the scientific evidence. When she got confused, she consulted Mike.

Soon they had printed out a mound of technical documents from the Internet.

Kristen was convinced by the skeptics and she began to write, summarizing their arguments adding her own touches. Yes, she says, the Earth is warming. But no, humans aren't causing it. She says it's part of the natural climate cycle.

At some point, Mike and Kristen decided to post her work online.

"I felt it was important to inform people that this wasn't completely true," Kristen says. "A public service to let people know."

Mike set up the Web site and Kristen's mom, Tammy Byrnes, typed. Soon "Ponder the Maunder" was born. Kristen admits the title is a little obscure. It's a reference to a dip in solar activity in the 1600s known as the "Maunder minimum."

Her Web site includes charts of temperature records, El Nino indexes, isotope measurements. Skeptics loved it: A 15-year-old attacking the mainstream scientific view.

"It took off like wildfire," Mike says, "But that was nothing compared to when her Al Gore critique went up."

Kristen had no fear. She took on Al Gore the Nobel laureate, Academy Award winner and former vice president. She went after Jim Hansen, one of NASA's top climate scientists. E-mail poured in, mostly from skeptics happy a young person had taken up the cause.

"I got a letter in the mail on my birthday from a senator," she says.

Someone runs off into another room to track it down and returns with an envelope from the office of Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican famous for calling global warming a hoax.

"Dear Kristen," the letter begins. "Thank you so much for your letter and e-mail and for your kind words. I appreciate your help in the fight against global warming alarmism. You are a common sense young lady and an inspiration to me. I want you to keep up the good work. We are winning."

Mainstream scientists would argue that many of the issues on her Web site are red herrings or have been put to rest — and Kristen did get emails from people challenging her science. But after a few exchanges, she says, her opponents backed down. "A few of them gave up and figured they can't win against a 15-year-old," she says. Mike laughs as she says this.

Kristen says when her determination sagged, Mike encouraged her.

"Kristen! MOTIVATION!" she remembers him saying. Mike is deeply skeptical humans are behind global warming and pulls up a graph on the computer to help make the case.

And the truth is, for people who want to get down into the details, climate change science can get very hairy. There are oceans to consider, which can absorb heat, water vapor and cloud cover to account for.

Much of the evidence comes from detailed computer models. Scientists disagree on some of the details. A handful do not think the case has been made. But the overwhelming consensus is that humans are causing global warming, and the consequences could be serious.

Despite Kristen's online celebrity, she doesn't talk about climate change much with her friends.

During lunch at a local chowder house with her friend Chrissy Flanders, they talked about food and friends and clothes.

So it came as somewhat of a surprise when Chrissy piped up to say she disagreed with Kristen on climate change.

"I think it's partly because of humans," she says. Asked why she believes that she says she doesn't know. Kristen chimes in: "She just believes what everyone else is making her believe."

It's probably fair to say that most people — even those who have strong opinions about global warming — couldn't make a strong scientific argument for why they believe what they believe.

Most of us delegate, decide to believe someone we trust. We don't actively seek out the other side. We probably wouldn't know what to make of it, or how to reconcile the two. Who has time? Or the expertise?

Kristen is getting out of the climate-change business. She thinks she would like to become an architect — maybe even build energy-efficient "green" buildings.

She does not see herself as an environmentalist, though. She says that makes her think of hippies.


The truth is easy to see when you educate yourself on the facts, rather than blindly follow others like Kristen's friend; who says "she doesn't know" why she believes what she believes.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Bond Girl Promotes 9/11 Truth


Bush: New 9/11 Being Planned in Pakistan

WASHINGTON: President George W Bush believes another 9/11 attack on the United Sates should be considered a reality, and warned that such an attack could originate from Pakistan.

Stating this in an interview to a news channel, Bush said: "If another September 11 style attack is being planned, it probably is being plotted in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan." (Watch)

Bush said if the terrorists were planning such attacks, they would be routed out.

"We've got plenty of firepower to take on Al-Qaida cells in Afghanistan," he said, although more US and NATO troops are headed to Afghanistan.

He also said that Washington had no intention of attacking Iran, but added that it was the responsibility of the US to convince the world of Iran's capacity to enrich its uranium capacities for a potentially threatening nuclear weapons program.

It was, therefore, in the interest of Washington to pressurize the Iranians to prevent them from enriching their uranium haul.

"I have always said that all options need to be on the table," Bush said, adding however, that his government's priority was to solve the issue through diplomatic means.

He also agreed with Defense Secretary Robert Gates that there was no chance that the number of US troops in Iraq would shrink to 100,000 by year's end.

Full article here.


Saturday, April 12, 2008

Actor and pro-911 truth - Christine Ebersole, schools Bill Donaldson

From Christine Ebersole's Blog

Seated to the right of me was a familiar looking gentleman I recognized from a dinner party at Dina and Ted's home last summer in East Hampton. Dina, always the Queen of graciousness, introduced me to everyone at the table, and in true actor's form, I was thrilled that in spite of my tardiness, I was just in time for the meal.

As the endive and pear salad was put before me, I began chatting with the handsome man "on the right". He told me that he had just come from attending a Barack Obama hullabaloo at Cooper Union. He noted that it was at Cooper Union where Illinois' own Abraham Lincoln had spoken, and now Barack was Illinois' own.(Of course my barking ego hammered; am I Illinois' own too, being an entertainer from Winnetka?) He went on to say how he was impressed by Barack's economic strategy. He thought that the presidential candidate showed true leadership and if he did become President, he would with great resolve deliver us from the dire economic mess we're currently in. Matching his enthusiasm, I asked, "Well, did he propose abolishing the Federal Reserve and their stalwart collection agency, the IRS?" After a mutual chuckle,(well, I chuckled, he sort of half- smiled) I went on to proclaim that it was the very same Abraham Lincoln who declared that only the Government should issue Legal Tender, matched in Gold and Silver from its treasury. It was never the intention of our founding Fathers to borrow money with interest from a Private Banking Cartel like the Federal Reserve. I went on to say that this Central Bank that controls and manipulates the market, keeps printing more money which drives up inflation, and since we got rid of the gold standard in '71 we might as well start using the colorful paper from our Monopoly game to see how far that gets us, since the current value of the dollar and the money in the Parker Brother's game are just about equal.

It was at this point I remembered who it was I was talking to. The "man on the right" was none other than Bill Donaldson, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by George W. Bush in 2003, after the previous Chairman left under a cloud. Prior to that, at one point in his illustrious career, Bill was even Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange,(the rest of his impressive resume, I would find out after lunch when I was free to Google him). A revelation of this stature prompted me to qualify my prior speech about the value of the dollar by placing my hand on his shoulder and proclaiming, "But you know that!"

The day before, when the news broke that Brad Pitt was related to Barack Obama, I decided to do a little digging and connect the dots of my own family's history. The Ebersole's claim to fame through the bloodline on my father's side was a man named Elihu Root, a Nobel Prize winning Lawyer and Statesman, who worked as Secretary of State and Secretary of War under McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt. (My grandfather's name was Amos Root Ebersole…I figured we were the poor relations, as the Root/Ebersoles I knew of were German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania) I brought this bit of news up to Bill, partly because Elihu Root defended the 16th amendment,(the Federal tax) and he was a New York senator when a few powerful Wall Street Financiers, Bankers and Government big wigs created the Federal Reserve in 1913. "The sixteenth amendment was never ratified!" I chimed, "the Federal tax is un-constitutional! …but you know that! (He knew of Elihu Root, but didn't know that the ratifying of the 16th amendment was unofficially fraudulent.)

Genealogical sidebar aside, Barack remained on the front burner of our discussion. Like the cat out of the bag, or a horse out of the barn, my political passion ensued with engine speed. I went on to say that Barack, as charismatic and articulate as he appeared, was essentially bought and sold. Like every presidential candidate Democrat or Republican, with the exception of the marginalized Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, Barack Obama has a powerful connection with the Council on Foreign Relations. Even though this private, organization states that it is non-partisan, and "dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free and civil exchange of ideas", behind the curtain of this secret group is the CFR's loyalty to the New World Order, or one World Government, run by (its primary allegiance) a Central World Bank. George H.W."Poppy" Bush, talked about the New World Order on September 11, 1991(you-tube, look it up)shortly after the Bush family was implicated in the Savings and Loan scandal that cost the taxpayers 1.4 trillion dollars. Bill Clinton talked about the New World Order during his Presidency, and Barack Obama talked about it in 2007 in a speech in Chicago. Obama's biggest supporter is Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the architects of the Trilateral Commission, and a member of The Council on Foreign Relations. In his pursuit of US-UK World domination, Brzezinski knows that Obama will give a face-lift to US Imperialism, as we move stealth-like, to an increasingly debt ridden world of servitude. "You don't need Armies and tanks", I chirped, "all you need is debt. Debt is slavery!"

The Council on Foreign Relations' commitment to this Central Bank and its increasing power in the reordering of the world's economy, spells the end of United States Sovereignty. We are joining with Canada and Mexico to form the North American Union, the dollar will be replaced by the "amero", and we have the "Real ID" merrily headed our way under the banner of "security and safety".

At this point Mr. Donaldson looked at me and simply stated, " Your thoughts are mind-boggling!". As we both laughed, I felt a strange silent acknowledgement of the inevitable; all I could repeat was the mantra to this former Government/Wall street Titan; "You know that!". His mantra perhaps, though silent; "how does an entertainer formulate these thoughts?" Instead he pleaded, "I wish I could convince you otherwise!" I carried on, chastising the main stream media for being the biggest culprits in perpetuating this illusion of democracy, and keeping everyone distracted with the latest Brittany Spears escapade (talk about Lamb of God) as the American people along with our shriveling dollars are being sold down the river. By this time, we both had finished the first and second courses, and dodging the assorted glasses of red and white wine in front of me, I drank from the water goblet in the back.

I reassured Mr. Donaldson that even though it was the ending of America and our civil liberties, the dollar and the Constitution, our Sovereignty and our individual freedom, I said I was going to be all right, for I was sensing the information I was disseminating was causing concern to this kind man, like a father worried for one of his own. He asked me how I knew I was going to be alright and I said, "Because I'm not afraid of who I am. I ask myself 'What Would Toto Do?' While everyone was shaking in their boots at the great and powerful Oz, Toto was merely parting the curtain, and while we all stand shaking in our boots at the most corrupt and secretive Un-American administration in our nation's history, looking for a Messiah to deliver us from our foreign, domestic and economic evils, remember, it is the metaphoric Toto in all of us, the recognition of our innate curiosity and goodness; not afraid of Truth, not afraid of our Light; this alignment with our Divinity is a mighty force that is our ultimate Savior.

Complete blog entry

TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.

TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.