the never ending space
Profile Blog Photos Subscribe Syndicate Search Contact Me  
Topics
9/11/2001
Bill Oreilly
bowling
deep thoughts
gaming
headlines
history
internet
jokes
Mike Filsaime
note to self
politics
quotes
reviews
Sports
tech
this just in
web
My Photos
Battlefield 1942
chads wedding
close ups
Company of Heroes
Cool Photos
family
Gaming
Guppy Troup Tribute
Katrina (hurricane)
Lord of the Rings
odds and ends
Pc Stuff
Pictures From Work
Richmond Flood
Signs
sky
Snowstorm 2009
test album
Wilfong Reunion 2005
Wilfong Reunion 2006
Windows Vista
Members
Sign In

Blog - Latest Entries
<< < | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | > >>
politics > Ron Paul For President 2008
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Jan.12.2007 @ 10:53 pm | Lasted edited: Jan.12.2007 @ 10:02 pm

Video of Ron Paul on the House floor here. Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 8, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

Some – even some in this body – have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.

Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.

Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:

Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."

Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh's article from Nov. 1993:

Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:

The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad...Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.

Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds...throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90–95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid – used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin – directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem..."

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

politics > America How To Know You Are Being Cheated
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Jan.11.2007 @ 9:21 am | Lasted edited: Jan.11.2007 @ 3:58 pm

The way that the United States prints money is important. The very privilege granted to our government by the Constitution states clearly that any form of currency must be backed by gold or silver. Seeing that neither of those is the case, it is worth any amount of time to take a look at how money is created in the USA.

We have all heard the name Federal Reserve Bank. Growing up and until recent years, just the name sounded like it was related to our government and that our government was in control of it.

In reality the Federal Reserve Bank is a private company of bankers. They are not part of the US government and yes it gets worse. There are no Reserves at the Federal Reserve Bank, the money has no backing. The Federal Reserve Bank is not the first privately owned Federal Bank in US history.

"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson

In 1789 Alexander Hamilton lobbied for the first privately own bank and Congress chartered that bank. In 1811, under President James Madison, Vice President George Clinton broke the tied vote in congress to cast the bankers out, refusing to renew the charter for the bankers. James Madison purposed a second united states privately owned central bank and it came into existence in 1816.

In 1863 President Andrew Jackson, overriding Congress, closed the bank saying, "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." Andrew Jackson also said to the bankers, "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out and by the eternal God i will rout you out."

Henry Ford  once said, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Why do founding figures in American history talk bad about a private banking system that prints the governments money? Because money controls the world, it controls everything.

The kick in the balls is this, Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution reads:
The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof. Nowhere in the constitution does it give Congress the authority to delegate this responsibility to anyone, much less a group of private bankers.

The Federal Reserve has no silver or gold to back the bills it prints. So one could ask, what is it backed by? It is backed by nothing. The federal reserve creates money out of thin air, thin air, and then loans it to our government with an interest fee. That is like you or me printing up money and then loaning it to people and then make them pay interest on money that cost nothing to create. This is not something that a private company with no oversight should be able to do when it affects everything in our country.

What does the Federal Reserve Bank interest rate effect? Your house loan, your car loan, any kind of loan from any bank trickles down to the interest rate set by the Federal Reserve. Why should private banks control our country? The simple answer is they should not, it goes against what our founding fathers warned us against.

When the federal reserve act was passed by Woodrow Wilson, it created the IRS. The IRS collects taxes. The creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS is what started the income tax. Before the Federal Reserve Act there was no income tax. What do our income taxes have to do with the Federal Reserve Bank?

Our federal income tax dollars go to pay the interest on the money our government borrows from the Federal Reserve Bank.

Of all the things our government should controls or regulate, the printing of our money is not, and that is a direct contradiction to our Constitution. There is no oversight at the Federal Reserve Bank there are no checks and balances.

I urge you to find out more about the Federal Reserve. Money is the root of almost all evil.

Mayer Amchel Rothchild once said, "Let me issue and control a nations money, and I care not who writes its laws."

tech > Internet Explorer Hidden Temporary Folder Bug
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Jan.10.2007 @ 10:48 pm | Lasted edited: Jan.11.2007 @ 7:53 am

When running a defrag I noticed a large file located at:
"C:\Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Ie5\\sometempfile.avi"

I tried to browse to the folder and I could not see it. The option to view hidden files and system files was changed and the folder still did not show.

After searching around I have come to find out that either ie6 or ie7 created this hidden temp folder that not even an administrator can modify.

To delete the hidden folder and file I used a program called PurgeIE. Using this program to delete temporary internet files and folder, it deletes the hidden temp folder and files.

This is a pretty bad bug for IE. I think it was ie7. Ie7 crashes a lot. It does not seem to like multiple tabs using youtube or google video.

*I have found out that this is an IE 7 problem. For some reason IE7 saves temp files to a hidden folder that I have not yet been able to make visible. I can delete it I just can not seee it. What sucks even more about the error is that it gives the false impression that you are running IE5 for some reason. I am sure microsoft might have a good reason why they are doing this. I am sure, I wont buy that reason.

There are alternatives to IE like firefox.

politics > Non-Mexican Illegals Fueling Border Violence
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Jan.08.2007 @ 10:03 pm

By Mike Blair
While President George Bush is trying to hoodwink Americans about taking a firm position to halt the large numbers of aliens illegally entering the nation, the truth is, according to American Free Press sources, the flow of undocumented immigrants is worsening.

In addition, the crossover of illegals who are classified as “other than Mexicans” (OTMs) has worsened, which is particularly embarrassing for the post 9-11 Bush administration.

Although the establishment media is giving it little attention, last year there were 88,000 OTMs who were caught in the United States by customs and immigration authorities.

No one knows how many remain in the United States. Of the 88,000 who were caught, about 72 percent were released from custody with a notice to appear in court later for a deportation hearing. Of that 72 percent, 75 percent of them did not show up for their court date, making a mockery of the proceedings.

Ninety-four foreign-born nationals have been arrested or convicted on terror-related charges. Of these, 22 were in the United States legally with student visas, 17 had visitor visas and 13 simply overstayed their visas and no one bothered to look for them.

Along the border, the situation grows worse daily. The Bush administration doesn’t seem to care that assaults on U.S. Border Patrol agents have increased in 12 months from 354 to 687 last year. There have been reports that either the illegal aliens or the guides who are paid to take them across the border have been attacking agents with a variety of weapons—everything from slingshots propelling marbles to Molotov cocktails and semiautomatic weapons.a

In some cases, drug smugglers are more heavily armed than Border Patrol officers and have been known to carry machineguns, hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades—weapons usually reserved for the military.

But the Bushites insist placing U.S. troops on the border would be overreacting to the problem. While guarding the borders of countless other countries, the president refuses to use troops to guard the U.S. border.

AFP has learned that in patrol areas in Tucson and San Diego, Border Patrol agents were shot at 43 times last year. Twenty agents were hospitalized for wounds. Military magazine has reported that Mexican troops, who are supporting narcoterrorists, frequently fire across the border at American agents.

AFP reported in 2005 that Mexican troops operating American-made Humvees actually crossed the border and engaged U.S. Border Patrol agents in a gunfight. The Mexican soldiers were captured and briefly held.

However, local agents received orders from Washington to release them and they returned to Mexico.

As far as anyone knows, the State Department did not complain to Mexico about the incident, which constituted an armed invasion of U.S. territory by foreign troops.

(Issue #4, January 23, 2006)

9/11/2001 > New Year - New Investigation
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Jan.01.2007 @ 1:27 am | Lasted edited: Jan.02.2007 @ 6:35 pm

It doesnt feel like you are crazy. It seems to be common sense. You do not have to prove every single detail about 9/11 to understand that a lot of the information about 9/11 is not public.

web > Tip For Google - Go To Hell
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Dec.28.2006 @ 9:48 am

The more and more I think about it the more angrier I get. Google will fall. Google's don't be evil plan is a goat in the wind. The plan for google to not be evil does not talk about the levels of badness that are just below the evil line.

For one, if you go to google and search for blogtext.org or blog text, instead of showing search results, google wants to give me a tip on my searching.

That tip is " Tip: Want to share your life online with a blog? Try Blogger"

If a user wanted to try blogger they would have typed in blogger or maybe just the word blog. However since someone is typing a domain name or the text "blog text" google assumes they are looking for a blog and they tip the user to go to blogger.

That my friends is horse shit. Say I went searching google for the term sears and google had a tip that says, Try Google Shop. Would sears sue Google? You can bet your sweet ass they would.

Tip for google, stop treading on the sites that allow your search engine to be a value. Not every service google comes out has to be shoved down the throats of google search users. Google is a search engine, no a tip jar.

 

headlines > Military Draft Test - Just A Test
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Dec.22.2006 @ 1:03 pm | Lasted edited: Dec.22.2006 @ 12:54 pm

 Military Draft System To Be Tested - They are making plans to test the draft system, but that doesn't mean they want to use it, unless congress or the president need it. Lets see, our government wants to go to war with everyone. Even though the public do not support the war, lets get the draft test ready just in case, but don't worry, there is no chance we will go to war, is there? If there is a draft, I will do like bush and Clinton, i will dodge the draft, never to return to this country of the federal reserve fraud system.

Bush's presidential library - George Bush is a loser, liar and a traitor. But wait, since he is president, lets give him a presidential library because he is so deserving. I hope they put the names of the dead soldiers on a wall mount in his library along with the half a million Iraq's killed since the illegal invasion of Iraq. People who support a presidential library for bush support wars made out of lies and tax breaks for the rich. Screw you George Bush, the founding fathers would have smacked you in the face for being such a dumb son of a bitch.

Bush Concedes Iraq War More Difficult Than He Expected - Yeah Bush its just another one of those things you got wrong. Don't forget to put that in your library. This dumb ass said that the mission was accomplished, a long time ago. Turns out that was another mind trick for the American people. Bush lets start a more difficult war or should I say wars. Lets go to war with the world, then you could use the draft for sure. Did you know over 600,000 Iraq civilians have died in this war?

A Victory For Free Speech - Is a lose for the people. The title of this article is bullshit. This victory allows ads advocating for an issue and mentioning candidates can run during an election, creating a loophole in the law that sought to control the power of big money in elections. The problem is the people with more money can manipulate and create more ads for a given agenda. God forbid the people made a decision without a push from the lobby.

Rice says Iraq worth the investment - OK so we believe what rice says then, right? If that is so, listen to what rice has to say about Iraq threats just a year before the illegal invasion.

Marines Face Charges for Deaths of Iraqi Civilians - Ahh bush, yet another reason to stay the course in Iraq. Why don't you tell the guys who have served 4 tours to go back and serve another one. If George Bush is not impeached the end of America will soon follow.

North Korea nuclear talks end without agreement (2nd Roundup) - Why does the United State fear every country in the world that has nuclear weapons? We are the #1 nuclear threat to the world with more WMD than anyone. If we can develop nuclear weapons why cant everyone else? Did the gods anoint us the be the keepers of the world? Go ahead USA, oppress the world with your thoughts and idea any. Get on with the one world government already. I am tired of waiting.


9/11/2001 > 9/11 Workers Wait To Die As Funds Are Not Available
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Dec.21.2006 @ 9:42 am

Ok so maybe you don't think 9/11 was an inside job. To set the preface for this entry, persons believing the official version, you would think, would want to protect the women and men who gave all that day to save some lives. Instead those workers from ground zero that suffer greatly from mercury on the brain and different cancers have to jump through hoops to get money to pay for their medical cost.

The video here is an interview with a ground zero responder. Even though this man goes through regular chemo therapy, he still must prove to the New York workers compensation department that he is as sick as he obviously is.

The world trade center towers were loaded with asbestos. Clean up of the asbestos while the building were standing would cost millions of dollars and a lot of time. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied.

When the towers were demolished, microscopic fragments of any and everything in those towers was in the air. Even the dumbest of minds could understand that this area is a deadly hazard. I mean they know there was asbestos and computer parts with mercury in them, fragments so small they could be inhaled into peoples lungs and there those particles build up and cause all sorts of health problems. And yet federal officials assured the community that the fires burning at ground zero in the critical weeks after 9/11 were not a health hazard.

Dr. Fred Kilbourne, A high level federal scientist, issued a memo on September 12, 2001 to the Centers for Disease Control against the speedy return to buildings in the area because of possible hazards from various toxic materials.

Associate City Health Commissioner Kelly McKinney on October 6, 2001 said that proper safety protocol for WTC site workers was not being enforced. - Source Juan Gonzalez, "Clearing the Air with Truth," "New York Daily News," September 5, 2001.

President Bush has been faulted for interfering with the Environmental Protection Agency interpretations and pronouncements regarding air quality.(Source)

Over half a million Iraq's have died, thousands of troops dead, tens of thousands more critically wounded all over a war built on lies and the fear of terrorist. If George Bush is willing to kill troops and Iraq's by the thousands, why is it so hard to imagine that he would kill 3,000 people at ground zero to get approval for two wars that were planned before 9/11.

Both the Afghan war and Iraq war were both planned before 9/11. From a quote in a document written and supported by members of George Bush's administration, Dick Cheney(vice president), Paul Wolfowitz(president of the world bank), Jeb Bush (govenor of florida), Donald Rumsfeld (ex secretary of defense), pg. 51"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings evolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

What this means is that, in order for the United States people to go along with the idea of having a military presence all around the world and military bases stationed throughout, there needs to be an event like Pearl Harbor to shape the American peoples minds into thinking our military needs to police the world and our country to keep us safe from terrorism.

On 9/11 the Project for a new American Century got their wish and their pearl harbor happened. And since they have had public support for two wars and of course the never ending war on terror, or maybe it is a never ending war on American freedoms.

Here is a hint, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a part of the USA government. It is owned by private investors. The constitution of the United States gives the power to our government to print its own money interest free. Instead our government decided not to print its own money and outsource it to the Federal Reserve Bank. So then we the people have to pay interest on the money our government gets printed at the Federal Reserve Bank. The constitution forbids the outsourcing of the printing of money.

The Constitution: Article 1: Section 8:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

What do others think about a private federal bank?

Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the idea of a privately owned federal bank and said " I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies".

Andrew Jackson also said, when speaking to the bankers: "You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God I will rout you out."

Henry Ford once said "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

politics > A Great Country Has Oversight
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Dec.19.2006 @ 8:47 pm | Lasted edited: Dec.19.2006 @ 8:04 pm

Many people like to say that they live in the greatest country in the world, and though that is a good way to keep your mind mentally intact with your country, it is not as a true statement as I once believed.

If we lived in the greatest country in the world, more than 27% of the population should agree with what our executive and legislative branches are doing. Instead the American people dislike greatly the fact that our current president Bush is the worst person to ever hold the office period.

Greatest country in the world? It is easy for almost 75% of the people to agree that George Bush has failed in his duties to uphold the constitution. If anything, he has done the complete opposite. Bush aside, congress for a long time has been a waste land of corruption and scandals.

Have you read the emails or aol instant messages Foley was sending around? Congress even investigated, showing some oversight. After concluding in their report that people were negligent in not protecting the House pages from Mark Foley, they did not do anything to anyone. So the people who did not warn others who acted "negeligent" get off without a slap on the wrist. This is congress, this is what congress has become, a place for rich people to make deals and get away with whatever they do. 

And these same people are the same ones that are supposed to keep the president George bush in check. Instead Bush walks over congress and congress could care less about the people of this country.

Congress does not work a five day work week even though they are paid 100,000's of thousands of dollars a year to work for and by the people. In 2001 congress spent 151 days in session. If you worked every week, five days a week with no vacation, you would work 260 days. If you worked 3 days a week for a year it would work out to be 156 days a year. On average congress works less than 3 days a week.

What the hell do they get paid so much money for being sick old people who do not help protect america and who do not stop a dictator like dumb ass bush.

9/11/2001 > New Pentagon Lawsuit Releases Video That Does Not Show A Plane
0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments
Posted: Dec.07.2006 @ 1:38 pm | Lasted edited: Dec.07.2006 @ 1:13 pm

The first two videos released from Pentagon surveillance cameras was released because of a freedom of information act against the government by a group of people called Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch is not a group of people I care much for. Main point being that they have stopped trying to get the other 80 some videos still in the possession of the government that are related to the so called flight 77 impact at the pentagon.

Recently a video was released by the government that got little debate on national television and for many reasons. One being the group or person who got this video released was not a part of the Judicial Watch group. It was an individual suing on his own behalf and the behalf of every American who wants the government to show some proof of their conspiracy theory that 19 men flew 4 planes around the US air space unchallenged.

For more information on how this video was released and documents the govern met had written to block the release of videos related to 9/11 at this website www.flight77.info. The story of 9/11 starts here.

As a CNN reported took 15 seconds to talk about the newly released video, he made mention, just like many others who have seen the video, that no plane can be seen from the camera.

<< < | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | > >>
Entries 91 to 100 of 449

   
| Report Member | Free Blog BlogText.org