WHAT'S NEW PAGE
March 2007 News Archive - as talked about on The Harry Thomas Show - week in review
March 28 , 2007 (discussed on the show)
Anti-NAU Resolution Passes Idaho Legislature
Friday, March 23, 2007
The Idaho state legislature should be very proud of its recent accomplishments. On March 22, 2007 the state Senate passed H.J.M. 5, a joint memorial which opposes the creation and/or implementation of the North American Union. The Senate passed the legislation by a lop-sided 24-10 vote.
Idaho was one out of a total of 14 state legislatures who have introduced resolutions opposing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and the creation of the North American Union (NAU). To date, Idaho is the only state that has successfully passed the resolution in both the House and Senate. Last month activists in Utah were disappointed when the Senate failed to vote on H.J.R. 7, a resolution "urging United States withdrawal from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."
The passage of H.J.M. 5 is a result of much dedication and hard work by some very patriotic Americans. JoAn Wood, a long-term representative and Chairwoman of the House Transportation and Defense Committee, sponsored the House version of the bill and was supported in her efforts by local members of the John Birch Society. Upon House passage, the bill was then sponsored in the Senate by Senator Monty Pearce.
God willing, the passage of H.J.M. 5 will send off a ripple-effect to other state legislators who have either not introduced, or not taken action on resolutions opposing the North American Union, by encouraging them to do so now. Time is of the essence as the leaders of this "evolution by stealth" have set a scheduled target date of 2010.
Gonzales Implicated In Cover-Up Of New Pedophile Scandal
Letter from Sutton's office legitimized raping of boys in minor's facility
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, March 26, 2007
Journalist Jerome Corsi appeared on the Alex Jones Show today to discuss in depth his astounding new investigation that implicates both Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in the cover-up of a pedophilia scandal involving the Texas Youth Commission.
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, both already under siege for other matters, are now being accused of failing to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission after a Texas Ranger investigation documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the institution's minor boy inmates," writes Corsi in a report for World Net Daily.
"Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties."
A 2005 investigation led by Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski revealed that systematic abuse of minors was commonplace at West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas. Burzynski presented the findings of the investigation to both Gonzales and Sutton but was rebuffed, and even received a letter from Sutton's office that attempted to legitimize the sexual abuse of children, claiming that "under 18 U.S.C. Section 242," it would have to be demonstrated "that the boys subjected to sexual abuse sustained "bodily injury," states the letter from Bill Baumann, assistant U.S. attorney in Sutton's office.
Incredulously, Baumann's letter goes on to make the case that the minors consented to and even enjoyed the acts of pedophilia, therefore no further action was necessary.
In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division also refused to follow up with a prosecution.
According to Corsi, officials implicated in the scandal were hired despite their known criminal backgrounds and were also retained even after it was discovered that they were using state computers to regularly visit pornography websites.
"It basically sounds as if you wouldn't get hired in one of these facilities unless you were a pedophile," Corsi told the Alex Jones Show.
"You've got a culture of pedophilia that is at the core of the Texas Youth Commission, and what that means is you won't get hired or you won't stay as an employee unless you're willing to participate in the boy rape that's going on or keep quiet about it."
Corsi says he has further developments to report tomorrow that confirm the scandal is "Now known to be widespread, all the offices of the Texas Youth Commission throughout the state are involved and employees from the top to the bottom are all involved."
Click here to listen to Corsi's interview on The Alex Jones Show
FOX News Threatens Sheen & Cuban Not to Make Film
Report that Actor Might Narrate Theatrical Version of Loose Change Prompts Mafioso O'Reilly to Warn Against Film's Distribution-- "You're Not Gonna Come Back"
FOX News' Bill O'Reilly warned actor Charlie Sheen not to do narration for a theatrical version of Loose Change , threatening " If he voices this, he's through " and stating plainly, " Don't do this. You're not gonna come back from it if you do ."
Click here to view this piece on Google Video
This follows a hit piece by the New York Post 's Page 6 who suggested " some celebrities don't know when to keep their mouths shut" after reporting on mainstream actors Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen's 'throwing their weight" behind 'twisted theories' regarding 9/11-- especially in light of reporting that Loose Change may be distributed by Dallas Mavericks owner and billionaire Mark Cuban.
Despite mafioso-like tactics on the part of both O'Reilly and the Post , O'Reilly claimed that his attempt at intimidation was "not a threat" while his guest, Det. Bo Dietl, dog-piled into the cryptic warnings that "Martin Sheen's kid there better watch it."
In reality, O'Reilly is so desperate to contain 9/11 Truth-- and bat away support from mainstream celebrities from publicly supporting what he calls the "far-left fringe-- that he has little recourse but to lump vague threats on top of untenable straw men arguments and ad hominem attacks-- which were also included in the hit piece.
Guest Det. Bo Dietl claimed that 9/11 Truth was a "disgrace to the families"-- despite that fact that most of the families support a new, independent investigation of 9/11 and that the head of the largest 9/11 families group, Bill Doyle, knows that 9/11 was an inside job. Doyle also reports that over half of the families completely distrust the government's official story.
Guest Gerald Posner-- also a shill/author for the JFK official story -- slandered that O'Donnell's posting of information about the WTC7 collapse shouldn't be allowed and is like saying the " Holocaust didn't exist. " This anti-semitic theme was repeated by he and other guests in attempts to compare Loose Change "propaganda" with that of the 3rd Reich and to link 9/11 Truth with theories that Israel carried out the attacks .
Meanwhile, what the New York Post called 'Hollywood's 9/11 Idiot Brigade' was also referred to on FOX as " wackos ," "complete moron stuff" and-- conversely-- ' slick disinformation ' ' like Oliver Stone's JFK propaganda ' film.
While Dietl threatened "We won't watch that 2 1/2 kids thing at all," it was clear in O'Reilly's demeanor that full realization of defeat had sunk in-- the 9/11 cover-up had failed.
Just as Det. Dietl tried to explain away the WTC7 implosion -- which he acknowledged, but claimed was due to the 'heaviness' of debris from the towers, which he said " melted like potato chips "-- O'Reilly cut off his side's fruitless attempts to debate on the basis of logical, "DON'T CONFUSE THEM WITH FACTS" bridging instead into more familiar territory-- "I just don't get the hatred for the country."
Fox Bully O'Reilly Says Loose Change Will Destroy Sheen
Paul Joseph Watson
Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor featured a segment last night in which TV bully Bill O'Reilly warned Charlie Sheen that narrating Loose Change would destroy his career, amidst a cacophony of slurs, smears and Holocaust jibes, characterized by this and other hit pieces that carried all the weight of a third grader's scribbled essay paper and couldn't even pin down basic facts.
Fox featured three talking heads who all agreed with each other - O'Reilly, whitewash aficionado Gerald Posner and a barely comprehensible New York detective called Bo Dietl - this from the network that likes to call itself "fair and balanced."
Watch the video below.
Posner, a former Al Gore devotee who drank the 9/11 kool aid and immediately pledged his allegiance to Bush following the attacks, opens up by throwing in the obligatory "Holocaust denial" smear. Posner couldn't stumble over his words quickly enough to get that one in and it's somewhat pathetic to witness his ignorance of the fact that calling the other side of the argument Nazis isn't a credible debating tool anymore (not that there was anyone on the other side of the debate to rebut him).
Posner's zeal on writing books insisting that no political conspiracies have ever happened, that Oswald acted alone, James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King (despite the fact he later denied it) and 9/11 was all a result of incompetence, portray a figure who is either on the payroll or has some morbid obsession with propping up government propaganda that an ever-dwindling amount of people are buying.
Polls consistently show that 90% or more believe other parties were involved in the JFK assassination so it seems the more extreme Posner has to go in smearing those who disagree with him as Holocaust deniers, the more people see through his baseless bullshit.
The Holocaust card doesn't work anymore Posner, you're wasting your time.
Posner is quite clearly ruffled that billionaire Mark Cuban is set to throw his weight behind Loose Change and labels it a "disgrace," without explaining why a position that 84% of the country and most of the 9/11 family members now take is a disgrace.
Bo Dietl then proceeds to give us a lecture on how the WTC towers melted and fell down like potato chips, a thoroughly scientific analysis I think we can all agree. Dietl fails to inform us of how jet fuel, which burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, melted steel which melts at 2700 degrees Fahrenheit.
He then echoes the familiar yarn "but what about the victims." Ah yes the victims, over half of which according to Bill Doyle, the representative of the largest 9/11 victims group, have grave questions about 9/11. How about those victims of a cover-up in the very hours after 9/11 who were told that the air was safe to breathe and are now dying en masse as a result of trusting the government?
Dietl then stumbles into an attempt to explain the collapse of Building 7 at which point he is abruptly cut off by O'Reilly, who parrots the emotional rhetoric about asking questions being insulting to the victims, before cutting off Dietl again when he mentions the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
"Don't confuse anybody with facts," states O'Reilly! Exactly right Bill, because you wouldn't want anybody to find out that the FBI gave the terrorists the bomb material to attack the towers in '93 now would you?
Posner then returns to charge that 9/11 truthers make up facts, without being able to cite any examples, and then backtracks to the comfort of his Holocaust denial slur, stereotyping 9/11 truth films as "propaganda as good as anything the Third Reich turned out."
Posner's one trick pony show and ad hominem "they're all Nazis" nonsense is truly laughable and in fact lends our side of the argument more credence because it exposes him as the exact thing he accuses others of being, a propagandist, in that his hyperbole of tossing out buzzwords like "Holocaust denial" appeals to the emotional reactionary human psyche and not to reasoned, sober and factual analysis.
"I just don't get the hatred for the country," O'Reilly chimes in, which as everyone knows is yet another cheap pot shot that lost all its persuasive impact years ago. O'Reilly thinks he can still delude people into thinking that questioning your government equates to hating your country.
O'Reilly and Dietl end by warning Sheen that he's "not gonna come back from this," insinuating that his narration of the Loose Change final cut will end his career because O'Reilly "knows the country."
Sheen more successful and popular than ever
As usual, the exact opposite is true. The success of Sheen's sitcom Two and a Half Men has only increased in the year since he went public on 9/11, and every poll shows the vast majority of the country support Sheen's viewpoint. Meanwhile, Fox News' ratings continue to sink lower and lower because they refuse to act as anything other than whores for the establishment.
From October 2004, following O'Reilly's phone sex scandal with Andrea Mackris, the ratings for his show almost halved and have never recovered.
Fox News' other Neo-Con attack poodle John Gibson, who previously took a pot shot at O'Donnell for suggesting the KSM "confession" was unreliable, a sentiment echoed by all corners of the media besides the Bush administration's TV mouthpiece, also took time out to address Sheen on his "Big Story" show.
Gibson parroted O'Reilly in claiming that even the discussion of 9/11 in this context is hurtful to the victims. As a rule, whenever someone does not have the facts on their side and cannot counter the evidence, they are forced to resort to emotional rhetoric in an attempt to throw a blanket over the debate.
Has there ever been a TV or newspaper hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement that doesn't heavily lean on ad hominem insults along with bias and misleading emotional rhetoric? You will never see it.
News Hounds summarizes, "FOX doesn't address this issue often - they don't want to make any more people aware of the controversy - but when they do, it is ridiculed and called "garbage." It's as if they only bring it up when it's in the news elsewhere so they have to, but they immediately shoot it right back down."
The smattering of hit pieces that have emerged since O'Donnell's public stance and the new angle on the Sheen story have been notable only for their 3rd grade level research and kindergarten name calling.
Richard Johnson of the New York Post couldn't even get Michael Rivero's name correct, calling him Matt, despite Rivero's name being at the very top of his website, proving Johnson didn't even check the website he was trouncing.
Both CBS News and the Hollywood Reporter falsely reported that Rosie O'Donnell was involved in the production of the upcoming Loose Change movie. This is completely incorrect, O'Donnell merely used her blog to ask some questions about 9/11 and Building 7, she has never been involved in the project at any step of the way.
Will CBS and the Hollywood Reporter issue retractions to clean up their atrocious journalism? Who is writing their articles, the office boy? If you can't even get basic facts right like people's names and which person is connected to a particular project, it betrays the fact that these self-proclaimed reporters aren't interested in the truth, only in conducting slapdash ad hominem attacks.
Underlining how both the fake right-wing and left-wing media are both panicking that their monopoly is being challenged by truth seekers sick and tired of partisan slant, the liberal blog Wonkette also attacked Sheen yesterday.
Wonkette goes further than O'Reilly in claiming that, "Sheen will also be getting a fat check from the CIA for further distracting everyone from the non-hidden non-conspiratorial fact that everyone who was in a position to have prevented 9/11 is a drooling incompetent, and for discrediting anything anyone famous ever says about politics for the next six months."
If everyone who could have prevented 9/11 was a drooling incompetent then why were none of them fired and why did some receive pay hikes?
Wonkette is just another example of the sniveling "progressive" blogosphere that spends half of its time debating things like Mitt Romney's haircut while uniformly failing to hold their precious Democrat shills like Pelosi to account on impeachment and getting out of Iraq. It's a wonder that they seem surprised by the fact that people are looking elsewhere for truth when they are lauded as the so-called "alternative," when in fact they're nothing more than a gaggle of self-important peons who think they're part of the establishment.
O'Reilly's Foxing Of Facts Knows No Bounds
What torture? What dead Iraqis? What protests? What war?
Infowars.net | March 21, 2007
O'Reilly exposed his own agenda to simply denounce everything any critic ever says as being wrong or untrue, by suggesting that Ms Taylor claimed the government has tortured children by crushing their testicles. O'Reilly went on to denounce Taylor as an unpatriotic and accused her of slander.
It was clear to anyone with half a brain that Taylor was referring to comments previously made by Bush attorney John Yoo, co author of the PATRIOT ACT and various controversial torture advocating memos.
During a debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo… Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Click here for the audio.
When Ms Taylor referred to Yoo's comments however, O'Reilly demanded to know "what small child was that," badgering her for a name or other specifics, when clearly she had not said it happened, only that Yoo had stated that it could if Bush ordered it.
O'Reilly foxed the facts further still from reality in a later segment, asking Kirsten Powers if she thinks it's patriotic to go on national TV and accuse the government of mashing a baby's testicles? O'Reilly started to tick off on his fingers 1. she doesn't know who the baby is, 2. she didn't see the baby's testicles being mashed, 3. she can't produce the baby or the baby's name, clearly attempting to suggest that Taylor was making the entire scenario up along with everything else she said.
Sunsara Taylor IS displaying patriotism by raising this issue because she was attempting to alert brainwashed FOX viewers to the fact that the John Yoo and the Bush Administration have clearly advocated genocide against American citizens.
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children? Georgetown Law Professor David Cole has written, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,' no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
Last September the Senate officially gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror when it passed new detainee legislation.
So in his attempts to FOX these facts, O'Reilly is covering up abuse of power at the highest levels.
O'Reilly also seemed to suggest that there has never been any evidence of the US using torture on prisoners, asking "what torture?" and demanding that Ms Taylor name names. When she cited verified examples of rendition and US torture, such as in the case of Maher Arar , who has said he was chained and shackled by U.S. authorities for 11 days for interrogation and then flown to Syria, where he was tortured and forced to make false confessions, O'Reilly simply responded with "do you believe that man"?
Clearly the Canadian government believed him, an official inquiry determined that Arar indeed was tortured before clearing him of any terrorist links or suspicions.
When Ms Taylor raised the issue of torture at Abu Ghraib, O'Reilly raised his voice and asked "who ordered Abu Ghraib?" clearly in the hope that Ms Taylor would not be able to respond, to which she did by citing the sworn testimony of Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, that torture came from the very top. O'Reilly then bizarrely responded by asking Taylor to "show him the documentation", to which she replied "you are supposed to be the reporter".
Before this O'Reilly had questioned the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the war, citing the UN figure of 59,000 and questioning Ms Taylor's referencing the 600,000 figure from The Lancet , which is considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals.
Fox watchdog website News Hounds hit the nail on the head stating:
O'Reilly scoffed and dismissed it as "far left," his answer to anything that proves him wrong. Taylor could have backed up her figure with the October 2006 confirmation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , which says
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods
As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion
O'Reilly then also asked why no one was protesting the Iraq War, despite the fact that in the last week hundreds of thousands have poured onto the streets all over the country to protest.
What torture? What dead Iraqis? What protests? you almost expect O'Reilly to ask "What war? Show me documentation to prove there is a war".
O'Reilly concluded by calling Sunsara Taylor "hysterical" and stating "You are simply a woman who doesn't know what she's talking about".
O'Reilly and his ilk serve no purpose other than to bolster the criminality of Neocon Whitehouse regime by silencing government critics regardless of the issue. They baselessly deny the reality of any provable fact or event in order to pass over any controversial issue with the pretence that they have done their duty as reporters and covered it.
This is your mainstream media, happy to serve government illegality and thus aid the destruction and degradation of the country.
Watch the full O'Reilly/Sunsara Taylor interview below as well as the later segment.
John Gibson attacks Loose Change, Charlie Sheen in one-sided report
Charlie Sheen is reportedly talking with Mark Cuban's Magnolia Pictures to provide narration for a new release of the Internet movie "Loose Change," which challenges the official story of the events of 9/11 and suggests that elements within the US government may have allowed or even facilitated the disasters. Sheen does not believe the official accounts. On The Big Story today, "the Big Outrage" dealt with his dealings and with the "twisted theories" in the movie. 9/11 survivor and author Earl johnson was the sole guest to discuss and discredit the movie and the alternative theories.
Gibson mischaracterized Sheen as "the mastermind" behind "what will be no doubt a ridiculous film." No bias there.
Johnson, asked what he thinks about the fact that so many people in this country subscribe to the alternate theories, replied that the better question is why are people posing them in the first place? (Comment: the answert o both questions is lack of trust, and suspicion.) He says that merely being exposed to these theories influences people's perceptions and openness to the ideas. He thinks the wider release will do a tremendous amount of damage (to people still recovering from personal loss) and hoped that proceeds will go to families of victims, so there is no financial incentive to "post this garbage, and promote it."
Johnson said that Googling will provide people with plenty of information to counter the conspiracy theories, and offered that the "mini-myth" surrounding Flight 93 was rebutted by transcripts and recorded phone calls. The interview then ended.
At least Gibson didn't go after Charlie Sheen like Bill O'Reilly did, who said that if Sheen does this narration his career is over. That wasn't a threat, he said, just a prediction because he knows this country, yada yada. Does he know that last August 36% of poll respondents said they believed the US Government was at least negligent and possibly complicit in the attacks? Right or wrong, these numbers are evidence of a huge lack of trust in the current administration.
FOX doesn't address this issue often - they don't want to make any more people aware of the controversey - but when they do, it is ridiculed and called "garbage." It's as if they only bring it up when it's in the news elsewhere so they have to, but they immediately shoot it right back down.
Scarborough Unleashes Attack Dogs On Walters Over O'Donnell 9/11 Comments
Latest 9/11 truth hit piece has anyone with half a brain kicking in the TV in disgust
Friday, March 22, 2007
In a vicious and vitriolic hit piece, Scarborough enlisted two of his core simpering yes men to attack Walters for "defending Rosie's radical rants" when Walters has merely stated several times on The View that Rosie O'Donnell is entitled to her opinion.
The segment, cheaply entitled "The sad demise of Barbara Walters" once again betrayed the fact that on the subject of 9/11 the establishment media, and the baseless debunkers, will not and cannot challenge the facts and choose every time to resort to child like name calling and character assassination
Although labeling O'Donnell's comments as "unhinged ravings", Scarborough and his right hand men do not debate or counter what she is actually saying but instead choose to attack and attempt to end the career of an elderly woman who was reporting meaningful and insightful news items while they were still in college.
Watch the video (you may need a sick bag)
Such hypocritical and cowardly journalism is made all the worse by the fact that Walters is of the old school true form of media that commands a level of respect that Scarborough and his ilk can only dream about being able to achieve. They know they never will and so they have cast away any moral base they ever had in favour of unrivalled success as the kingpins of biased and uninformed "news opinion".
Scarborough, along with his buddies Matthew Felling, media director for the Centre of Media and Public Affairs, and MSNBC media analyst Steve Adubato were seen to engage in a ten minute back patting session which no one could have seriously taken as any form of debate.
The highlights of their ignorance are condensed as follows:
Claim - Scarborough states that Rosie O'Donnell "misstating facts left and right" suggested that alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is innocent and also that O'Donnell "compared Christianity to radical Islam". Scarborough proceeds to show video of O'Donnell questioning torture and the degradation of human rights, advocating the impeachment of Bush, and then throws in a clip taken out of context where O'Donnell imitates an Asian accent.
Reality- At no point did O'Donnell suggest KSM was innocent, she merely suggested the KSM "confession" was unreliable, a sentiment echoed by all corners of the media. O'Donnell actually said that radical right wing Christianity, such as the kind George Bush promulgates, is as dangerous as radical Islam. Other attack pieces such as that of Fox News' John Gibson have resorted to the same baseless slur, we begin to see a pattern emerging.Claim - Scarborough and friends accuse Barbara Walters of allowing Rosie O'Donnell to cover 9/11 truth as she is "hungry for relevance". They then agree that Walters has sunk to a new low and is finished.
Reality - The View has gained 600,0000 new viewers since O'Donnell took the helm. Scarborough et al even go on to admit this and then have the gall to say Walters is finished? Who is really "hungry for relevance"? Walters creating her own booming and successful new audience or Scarborough losing viewers by the thousands and resorting to attacking the success of others?Claim - Smiley faced yes man Matthew Felling states that 9/11 skepticism is akin to believing "Fillings in your teeth are a mind numbing government plot against you". Scarborough then insinuates that all 9/11 skeptics such as O'Donnell are "siding with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed". The other analyst states that "you should challenge someone on that stuff, not just say its their point of view you should go after them like crazy".
Reality - Challenging someone on a topic you do not agree with them on should not amount to insulting them and comparing them to lunatics and terrorists. The only reason one would do this is if one did not have any basis of fact to challenge and debate with. Has there ever been a TV or newspaper hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement that doesn't heavily lean on ad hominem insults along with bias and misleading emotional rhetoric? You will never see it. See yesterday's O'Reilly hit piece for the same stench of BS.Claim - Scarborough attacks Walters for soft balling "the dictator" Hugo Chavez when she recently interviewed him and shows two clips of her being polite to Chavez. the MSNBC analyst goes on to bemoan Walters saying she could have asked Chavez about "all sorts of things he has done against the United States".
Reality - Hugo Chavez is not a dictator, he has been unanimously voted into power by the people of Venezuela three times and his popularity has increased exponentially. Whilst the CIA reportedly continues to operate covertly inside Venezuela in attempts to oust Chavez, no evidence has emerged to suggest Chavez has done anything to the US other than bad mouth its President who's approval rating is at an all time low and has twice relied on a huge team of spin masters and lawyers to become President.
The sickening attack piece ends with smily repeater Mattthew Felling, media director for the Centre of Media and Public Affairs, stating of Walters "I don't think she's losing control I think she's sold her soul to the ratings".
On its website, CMPA claims to be politically neutral: "The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media."
For someone in Felling's position, one in which he is supposed to stand as a neutral mediator, to engage in such a blatantly one sided piece of propaganda and then suggest that a veteran like Barbara Walters has sold her soul is truly the reason the word 'hypocrite' was scribed.
Anyone who performs a cursory online search for the CMPA will recognize that although it claims to be politically neutral, it is anything but. President Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to Fox News and a former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank commonly recognized as a center base for many neo-conservatives. Funding comes almost exclusively from right wing foundations and according to investigations by Salon.com, "the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson".
In a similar fashion to O'Reilly's assurance that Charlie Sheen's career will end if he pursues 9/11 truth, Scarborough and his baby boys suggest it is "an embarrassment to see someone like Walters end her career like this because it is going to end like this". These neocon lap dog fools really and truly believe that they speak for the majority of Americans and that they "know this country" when they make such declarations. Wake up call - reading an auto cue 8 hours a day and telling people what to think does not make you a "man of the people".
This Scarborough attack piece is the latest cringe inducing example in a smattering of hit jobs that have emerged since O'Donnell's public 9/11 skepticism and the new angle on the Charlie Sheen story have broken. All such pieces have once again been notable only for their 3rd grade level research and kindergarten name calling.
We will continue to bring you the facts and the informed analysis, they will continue to bring you the tripe and the empty headed baseless junk that you have come to expect from your mainstream establishment apologists.
Sheen/O'Donnell Attack Dogs Are Bushite Neo-Cons On The Payroll
Paul Joseph Watson
Earlier today we highlighted how one of the attack dogs on the Scarborough hit piece was part of an organization whose President is a paid consultant for Fox News. Matthew Felling, media director for the Center of Media and Public Affairs, is also a former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing Neo-Con think tank.
Thanks to information passed on by our readers we have now also discovered that Bo Dietl, a New York detective who savaged Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell about their views on 9/11 on an O'Reilly Factor segment last night, was appointed by Bush senior as Co-Chairman of the National Crime Commission in 1989, and chosen as Security Consultant to the National Republican Party Convention in 1992 and 1996.
Dietl is also CEO of Beau Dietl Associates (BDA), which counts amongst its clients Columbia Pictures, Coca-Cola, Grey Advertising , PaineWebber, Lehman Brothers, Bankers Trust and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Royals are intimately implicated in 9/11. In the hours immediately after after 9/11, dozens of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family fled the U.S. in a secret airlift authorized by the Bush White House, when all other air traffic was grounded.
So for Bo Dietl to do anything other than shill for the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 would be to jeopardize his cozy relationship with the Bushes and risk losing the moola being tossed in his direction by the corrupt Saudi Royals.
Another example of fair and balanced on behalf of Fox News!
Debunking NY Post's Tabloid Hit Piece On Sheen/O'Donnell
Prison Planet | March 22, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
The New York Post has produced a typically and purposefully ignorant hit piece against both Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen for going public with their views on 9/11, commenting that they should "keep their traps shut".
As far as hit pieces go, gossip writer Richard Johnson's scribe is about as sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session, but considering his other stories today were about Paul McCartney sending a bunch of flowers and Jay-Z making a bet with the editor of Playboy, we shouldn't expect too much.
The piece, clearly aimed at those who don't have the attention span to read the entire word "Hollywood," headlined as it is "H'Wood," labels Sheen as a "hooker-loving Hollywood hunk," denounces his father, Martin Sheen, for having been arrested in the past for protesting and calls Loose Change a "loopy YouTube documentary."
Choosing to focus on name calling and slandering character assassinations, Rupert Murdoch's Post cannot even get the most basic of facts correct. Whatreallyhappened.com's Michael Rivero is referenced in the piece but is referred to as "Matt Rivero". Any visitor to Whatreallyhappened.com will see instantly that at the top of the page it says Michael Rivero's Whatreallyhappened.com, proving that writer Richard Johnson has not even looked at the website he is trouncing, a running theme where baseless debunking and awful journalism is concerned.
Johnson needs to stick to reporting on Britney Spears' latest haircut if he can't even be bothered to conduct cursory investigative research.
After a healthy serving of ad hominem name-calling slurs, Johnson finally addresses Rosie O'Donnell's comments, stating that she is repeating a "widely debunked rundown" of Michael or (Matt as they have it) Rivero's discredited theories about Building 7. Putting aside the subtle assertion that all questions and theories about the collapse of WTC 7 belong to Michael Rivero, it is entirely incorrect and untruthful to state that they have been discredited and debunked.
Indeed, it is the official narrative that has been repeatedly discredited and debunked. Both NIST and FEMA have had to change portions of their reports on several occasions because the conclusions failed to fit the evidence.
Neither body has yet been able to produce an official report that can explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11.
Debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continually cite "raging infernos" inside the building, yet officially only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The NIST report concluded after extensive controlled recreation experiments that it could not comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.
Remember also that experts stated about Building 7:A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures.
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in Building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Can sporadic fires on just eight floors of a 47 story building do that? NO, according to NIST, they cannot.
Is the New York Post suggesting that NIST's theories are "twisted"? That is the information that Sheen and O'Donnell are respectively going off, not just some made up nonsense from cyberspace.
Sheen, O'Donnell and celebrities like them are not simply "repeating" the views of "conspiracy theorists," they are relaying the views of experts in their field. People such as Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories who stepped forward shortly after the release of the NIST report to point out that UL testimony to NIST regarding the ability of jet fuel fire to melt steel was inaccurate. Kevin Ryan was fired from UL shortly thereafter.
Several demolition experts are also on record as stating that they believe WTC 7's collapse to have occurred as a result of a controlled implosion. Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko , unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day
The Post also makes reference to WTC owner Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" comment , also suggesting only insane "conspiracists" could take it to mean an admission of controlled demolition. However, the fact remains that no one has been able to explain this comment. A spokesperson for Silverstein later attempted to explain the comment away by stating that by "pull it" he had meant "evacuate the firefighting operation". The problem is, according to FEMA, there were no firefighting procedures in Building 7 and firefighters were outside of the collapse zone that had been set up many hours before WTC 7 fell.
The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five , stating "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."
In more recent revelations that the Post fails to address, it was discovered that the BBC had reported that Building 7 had collapsed up to 30 minutes before it actually fell. This indicated that the press were being spoon fed information about what was going to happen on 9/11.
Debunkers have charged that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
The BBC has still not named its source of this information on 9/11.
In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular Mechanics relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of Building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of the structure:
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
However as we have previously reported , Building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing . It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest Building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is totally untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse?
The fact remains that the Building 7 saga has not been debunked no matter how many times debunkers, or in the case of the Post poor excuses for reporters, say it has been. 7 thus remains the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.
The hit piece also contains leaked details of the upcoming Loose Change Final Cut movie, in which it is announced that Charlie Sheen is set to narrate the documentary.
Arising out of Alex Jones' role as a consultant on the project, we have known this information for over a year and withheld it for the very important reason that the project's integrity during its embryonic phase depended on maintaining its secrecy.
We confirmed that the information had been leaked to the media on Monday but now it is verified that the Post already knew the details before they tried to trick William Rodriguez
into admitting it during a subsequent conversation.
The project has now been compromised as a result of a blabbermouth on the 9/11 truth circuit, the identity of which remains unknown, that spilled his guts to the Post's debunker in chief Richard Johnson, but the net effect will probably only raise the film's profile.
Details of the film leaking early, along with the Post being mandated to report on the comments of Rosie O'Donnell, could only make the entire project and 9/11 truth in general go supernova.
Access Hollywood covers 9/11 Sheen leak, gets basic O'Donnell facts wrong
Access Hollywood has put out the following report in wake of the New York Post hit piece on Charlie Sheen & Rosie O'Donnell. Note how they state that the Post reports O'Donnell is to be involved in a new edition of Loose Change. This is totally wrong and wasn't even reported by the Post, showing once again that the people that run these outlets cannot do basic research.
Charlie Sheen, Rosie Involved In 9/11 Documentary
NEW YORK (March 22, 2007) -- Charlie Sheen has been lined up to take part in a 9/11 documentary, his reps confirmed to Access Hollywood.
Sheen is involved in the production of "Loose Change," a new version of a documentary suggesting the US government was behind the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. The current version of the documentary is availabe on YouTube.
The actor's reps declined to reveal more details about Sheen's involvement in the project, but Page Six reports he will be narrating a new version of the film.
In an interview on the Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network a year ago, Sheen expressed his views on 9/11 saying, "It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."
Page Six also reported "The View" moderator Rosie O'Donnell is involved in the project, though it was unclear what her role would be.
Calls to Rosie's reps for comment were not returned at press time.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Patriots Question 9/11 has a brand new entry on a former air defense expert and expert on jet turbines. His statements about the lack of interception of the hijacked jets is important. His bio for the 2006 primary for Oregon's 2nd District congressional race is here (page 12)
I take no position on what crashed at the Pentagon, and it is possible that Captain Davis has simply not seen all of the relevant photographs.
Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot.
* Statement to this website 3/23/07:
"As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.
Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!
Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".
Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth. It seems, "Something is rotten in the State."
Monday, March 19, 2007
Mayor Bloomberg killed a study on the city's response to the 9/11 attacks after his lawyers said they did not want a report that cited any missteps or dealt with "environmental" or "respirator issues," says a former city official.
City lawyers raised fears that the proposed "after-action report" - which the U.S. Department of Justice had offered to fund - could lead to criticism and fuel lawsuits, David Longshore, former director of special programs for the city's Office of Emergency Management, told The Post.
"The Bloomberg administration acted to sweep any potential problems under the rug," said Longshore, who was trapped in a loading dock outside the WTC while both towers collapsed. He later developed sinusitis and throat polyps and sued the city.
Longshore, who left his city job last year, showed The Post his work notes on internal OEM discussions with city lawyers in February 2003. His notes say the Law Department "doesn't want a critical report" and "does not want a report that says we did anything wrong."
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
Friday, March 23, 2007
WASHINGTON — A New Jersey man told a Senate panel today he has difficulty breathing and his lungs have thickened since he worked at the World Trade Center site on Sept. 11, 2001, and on cleanup efforts afterward.
Jeffrey Endean, a former commander with the Morris County Sheriff's Office who lives in Succasunna, was among the witnesses who discussed health problems he and thousands of people developed after breathing in the pulverized sheet rock, glass and concrete from the Twin Towers collapse and during debris removal later.
In October 2001, he developed chronic cough and wheezing, Endean said in written testimony he gave the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The cough was so violent that he couldn't breathe. A January 2003 screening at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York showed his lungs were scarred and had thickened, and he had chronic wheezing, asthma and cough, in addition to rhinitis, a condition caused by severe allergic reactions. He's now being treated through a special 9/11 program at Mount Sinai.
"I am now getting treatment from those who know the illnesses best. Their care has made the quality of life better," said Endean, who retired in November 2001. "To move this treatment away from Mount Sinai would be a human disaster."
Also at the hearing, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Congress to give the city $150 million a year to diagnose and treat people with 9/11-related health problems.
Endean said creating a new federal agency or program to address post-9/11 health issues isn't necessary. Providing federal funds to the Mount Sinai program would be sufficient, he said.
This will save dollars and lives, he testified.
Erasing the Pain of the Past
Scientists Are Developing Drugs That Could Eliminate Traumatic Events From Our Memories
ABC News | March 20, 2007
March 20, 2007 — - "I'd take it in a second," said Sgt. Michael Walcott, an Iraq War veteran, referring to an experimental drug with the potential to target and erase traumatic memories.
Walcott, who served in a Balad-based transportation unit that regularly took mortar fire, now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Since returning to the United States two years ago, he has been on antidepressants and in group therapy as he tries to put his life back together and heal from the psychological scars of war. "There are moments," he said, "when you just want be alone and don't want to deal with everyone telling you that you've changed."
There are many others like Walcott. The Army estimates that one in eight soldiers returning home from Iraq suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Symptoms of the disorder, once known as shell shock, include flashbacks, nightmares, feelings of detachment, irritability, trouble concentrating and sleeplessness.
Much about why painful memories come back to haunt soldiers and those who live through other traumatic experiences remains unknown. Scientists say that is because little is known about how the brain stores and recalls memories.
But in their early efforts to understand the way in which short-term memories become long-term memories, researchers have discovered that certain drugs can interrupt that process. Those same drugs, they believe, can also be applied not just in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event — like a mortar attack, rape or car accident — but years later, when an individual is still haunted by memories of event.
The hope is that a post-traumatic stress disorder patient can work with a psychiatrist and focus a traumatic event, take one of these drugs and then slowly forget that event. With that hope, however, comes a series of ethical concerns. What makes up our personalities — the essence of who we are as individuals — if not the collected memories of our experiences?
"This is all very preliminary," said Dr. Roger Pitman, a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist. "We're just getting started. There is some promising preliminary data but no conclusions."
Much of the research Pitman is currently conducting on human subjects at Massachusetts General Hospital focuses on altering memories in the immediate aftermath of a specific type of trauma — automobile accidents. Subjects who arrive in the hospital's emergency room are prescribed either the drug propranolol or a placebo.
Propranolol was originally developed to treat high blood pressure, but its effect on the hormone adrenaline has made it popular among actors dealing with severe stage fright, and scientists are now using it in their research on memory.
"There is a period of time after you first learn something before it's retained," Pitman explained. "This is called consolidation."
Some research has shown that stress hormones, particularly adrenaline, make that process faster and more intense.
"That's why you remember what you were doing the morning of Sept. 11, better than August 11," he said.
Some scientists believe that post-traumatic stress disorder is the result of too much adrenaline entering the brain at the moment the memory of a traumatic event is being consolidated, or stored, for the first time.
But "the real hot topic," Pitman said, is not consolidation but reconsolidation, the process by which an old memory is recalled and the same "window of opportunity" to alter it with drugs is opened for a second time.
By getting soldiers, or others who have lived through harrowing experiences, to remember their traumatic experiences through talking therapy, the theory goes, the chance to target and erase those memories presents itself.
Reconsolidation remains a "controversial" theory according to Pitman, but Joseph LeDoux, a psychologist at New York University's Center for Neural Science, said his recent experiments with rats adds to evidence that it's real.
LeDoux is not trying to create a drug to treat humans. For him, the specific drug isn't important. What is important is understanding the process by which memories are retained and altered.
"The idea is that memories are vulnerable. They can be improved or weakened. The main point is that we're trying to understand how this all works rather than come up with a drug."
An Ethical Firestorm -- 'A Genie in the Bottle'
But the idea of improving or weakening people's memories gives many medical ethicists pause. The President's Council on Bioethics has condemned memory-altering research. The National Institutes of Health, however, has funded some experiments that use propranalol for post-traumatic stress disorder treatment, and Pitman said he has received a grant from the Army to begin conducting similar research with Iraq veterans.
"There are several major concerns" about creating these kinds of drugs, said Felicia Cohn, a medical ethicist at University of California at Irvine's School of Medicine. "Is the act of altering memories even an appropriate medical intervention?" she asked.
Another set of "issues is related to consequences. What are the effects of altering a particular person's memory but not changing the context the person is living in. We might erase a young girl's memory of a rape, but people around her will still know and inadvertently remind her," Cohn said.
"It becomes a genie in the bottle question. Once a drug is available for use, it gets used appropriately and inappropriately. People could start going to physicians to forget they love chocolate. … Is it just for post-traumatic stress disorder and rape victims? Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what is horrific enough?"-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel 4 to host 'Global Warming Swindle' debate
Channel 4 is to showcase a debate in response to viewer reaction to its documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The format of the show is still being worked on, but it will be broadcast next month.
The documentary, shown on Thursday, March 8, featured the views of scientists who reject commonly held views that carbon dioxide has caused global warming.
Ofcom has received over 145 complaints, with Channel 4 receiving 758 calls and emails, with viewers being six to one in favour of the show.
They're Out To Get Us! The Global Warming Swindle
Thursday, March 22, 2007
It's become the standard response of a lot of my fellow anti-global warming conservatives that back in the seventies the same "liberals" who are now promoting the warming scam were equally shrill about a coming ice age.
Nice try, guys. But the problem is that it wasn't crazy liberals warning about approaching glaciation, as my e-mail pal Ann Coulter wrote recently. It was nothing less than some of the nation's top climate experts who were then still sane and honest.
Listen up - here's what was then the prevailing opinion among the climatologists:
"The present interglacial interval -- which has now lasted for about 10,000 years -- represents a climatic regime that is relatively rare during the past million years, most of which has been occupied by colder, glacial regimes. Only during about 8 percent of the past 700,000 years has the earth experienced climates as warm or warmer than the present.
"The penultimate interglacial age began about 125,000 years ago, and lasted for approximately 10,000 years. Similar interglacial ages -- each lasting 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years and each followed by a glacial maximum -- have occurred on the average every 100,000 years during at least the past half-million years.
"During this period, fluctuations of the northern hemisphere ice sheets caused sea level variations of the order of 100 meters."
Who said that? None other than the National Academy of Sciences! (Understanding Climate Change, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1975 -- page 181).
On page 189 they asked "When will the present interglacial [period] end?
Their answer: "Few paleoclimatoligists would dispute that the prominent warm periods (or interglacials) that have followed each of the terminations of the major glaciations have had durations of 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years. In each case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after the interglacial interval.
"Since about 10,000 years have passed since the onset of the present period of prominent warmth, the question naturally arises as to whether we are indeed on the brink of a period of colder climate.
"The question remains unsolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing ... if on the other hand, these changes are more sinusoidal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of a thousand years."
Another study prepared for the 95th Congress in 1978 agreed with the National Academy of Sciences position as explained in the above-quoted study. The document "Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy and Potential" warned:
"In geological prospective, the case for cooling is strong ... If this interglacial age lasts no longer than a dozen earlier ones in the past million years, as recorded in deep sea sediments, we may reasonably suppose the world is about due to slide into the next ice age."
In 1997 I wrote that this was the prevailing opinion among paleoclimatologists; it was a case of the past being prologue. If the earth underwent regular cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods, and the geological record proved that to be the case, then obviously we are at the end of the present between-ice-ages period.
To sum up, the historical record shows that the earth undergoes periods of glaciation lasting about 90,000 years, followed by an interglacial, or warming period of 10,000 to 12,000 years.
The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and as I written in the past, unless Al Gore and his fellow would-be masters of the Universe have somehow managed to repeal what history has shown to be an iron clad law of nature, we are heading not for increasing global warming but instead for a new period of glaciation.
Since 1997 I have written extensively on the evidence that a new ice age is aborning on my personal website, Wednesday on the Web, and on NewsMax.com, but that is not the matter I want to discuss here. Let it suffice to say that there is far more solid evidence for global cooling than there is for the global warming fantasy.
What concerns me at the moment is that the media-fed hysteria might well cause the nation - and the world - to accept the most punitive kind of restrictions on our way of life - restrictions which will drive a dagger through the heart of our economy to prevent something from happening that is simply not happening .
Mr. Gore and his fellow alarmists have yet to explain exactly what kind of fetters they plan to fasten around our ankles in order to stop the planet from barbecuing us but you can get a good idea just by reading Gore's absurd book "Earth In the Balance." Among the shackles he wants to put on us is the elimination of the internal combustion engine - a modest step that would get rid of all those pesky cars we insist on driving to get where we have to go.
In England, where they have gone completely bonkers over this phony global warming threat they have already begun to force anyone in London who owns and drives an SUV in old London Towne to pay $50 a day for the privilege. It has also been suggested that Brits be allowed only one flight as year, and forced to pay exaggerated "carbon taxes" on their air fares.
There's also talk of imposing World War II rationing. Most Americans weren't around in those days so they are ignorant of what rationing meant. Meat was tightly rationed - a nice juicy steak was worth its weight in gold - gasoline was rationed - you had to have a sticker on your windshield showing just how much gas you could buy with the coupons Uncle Sam gave you - in most cases not much more than a thimble full for those who were deemed to be doing non-essential motoring. Tires were unobtainable.
Housing was scarce, rents controlled. The people of the richest, most well-endowed-with-natural-resources nation on the face of the earth, toiled in an era of thread bare scarcity. After the war, some bureaucrats admitted that there was no scarcity of many of the rationed goods and that the rationing of them was meant to force the folks back home to share in the rigors of warfare. Nice of them, wasn't it?
Few experts will argue against the fact that the cost of implementing the environmentalist grand scheme will be the eventual destruction of the nation's economy. Americans will find themselves living in the early 19th century, shivering in the winter and roasting in the summer, and riding bicycles instead of driving cars. Most Americans that is.
Brother Gore and his friends, however, have devised a means that will enable them to go on their merry way, spewing carbon emissions in every which way as they jet around the world in their private aircraft or hunker down in their many mansions using great gobs of electricity and driving their SUVs to their heart's content. They buy "carbon offsets: - the newest way of buying indulgences to prevent them from suffering the consequences of their environmental sins. They also sell them, by the way. Might just as well make a buck and like the Hawaiian missionaries of old, do well while doing good.
At the root of the environmentalist's motivation is their sheer hatred of mankind. To them man is evil, bent on despoiling the planet. Listen to the nuts over at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). They never shy away from the idea that the world would be better off without us nasty humans - if they had their way we'd all be eliminated and the planet turned over to crocodiles and other such gentle critters who presumably would treat Mother Nature better we evil humans do.
And who will enforce those draconian regulations and restrictions? Why the United Nations, of course - the driving force behind the Global Warming swindle. The peril, we are told, is worldwide so only an international body can deal with it.
So in one fell swoop our national sovereignty would be tossed into the junk science heap and we'd find ourselves the serfs in the new world order presided over by the Marxist commissars of the United Nations who would in their wisdom infirm us what we can and cannot do in the name of saving the planet from being consumed by out-of-control global warming.
Al Gore has told us that we have to change our way of life. He hasn't spelled out the changes because if he did he'd be run out of town. If we want to avoid all of this we had better start demanding that Al Gore and his friends, his acolytes in Congress, and the UN bureaucrats, spell out exactly what they have in store for us. If they do, Americans will understand that they really are out to get us.
Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' Meets Its Challenger
In the 1970s, we were being warned about the dangers of global cooling. Now we are being warned about the dangers of global warming. Well, which is it!?
The average earth temperature has risen by about one degree over the past 100+ years. Most of that temperature rise took place during the first half of that time span, while most of the increase in man-made greenhouse gases took place during the second half of that time span. This is the exact opposite of what you would expect, if it were true that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming.
It's also been reported that average temperatures on other planets in the solar system are also rising.
These are just a couple of the many inconvenient truths that Al Gore conveniently ignores.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just released a summary of its latest report, which caused the media to claim that man-made global warming is a fact. The full report won't be released until May, to allow for final editing.
The IPCC has a history of publishing misleading reports. For example, in a 1996 report, it edited out these two statements:
• "None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
• "No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate changes...to man-made causes."
The geologic record shows that climate change has been going on throughout Earth's history, and is closely tied to solar cycles, not human activity. And yet, scientists who dispute man-made global warming are being smeared as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
The global warming issue is being driven by ideologues and demagogues, who are using deceitful, alarmist arguments, in order to justify seizing control of human activity everywhere on the planet.
To view "The Great Global Warming Swindle," go to: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831
March 21 , 2007 (discussed on the show)
Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government
March 19, 2007
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance. World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club...
Posted at: 01:53 AM | 2 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Edwards: Global Warming Will Make World War Look Like Heaven
March 19, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Edwards on Global Warming: 'This is an emergency' 'It's a frightening thing' 'It'll make world war look like heaven'.
Effectively Edwards is saying global warming will kill more than 19 million people. Hysterical? An exaggeration? Noooooooo......you can trust this Bilderberger.
Posted at: 01:51 AM | 5 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To Do Anything
March 19, 2007
Global Warming Replaces 9/11 As Justification To Do Anything
Paul Joseph Watson
Invoking September 11 has officially been succeeded by a new mantra and an excuse for the state to unleash a fresh tyranny no matter how offensive and damaging to individual liberty it may be. Global warming has replaced 9/11 as the justification to do anything!
Posted at: 01:50 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Brown wants 'new world order' to fight global warming
March 19, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
LONDON (AFP) - Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a "new world order" to combat global warming on Monday.
According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core "pillar" of its international mission.
Brown will praise the European Union's progress in combatting climate change after EU leaders on Friday agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20...
Posted at: 01:47 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Real ID program postponed
March 19, 2007
Los Angeles Times
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Under siege from states and angry lawmakers, the White House moved back a deadline Thursday to implement national driver's license standards known as Real ID.
The announcement that states have an extra 20 months, until the end of 2009, to meet the requirements of the Real ID Act did little to ease criticism of the law from privacy advocates, motor vehicle departments and lawmakers. Almost two dozen states, including New Hampshire, are weighing legislation to oppose Real ID.
The resistance to a policy the administration calls an...
Posted at: 01:45 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines
March 19, 2007
Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines
World Vision Portal | February 6, 2007
James Howenstine, MD
Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used."
Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the...[More]
Posted at: 01:43 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
BBC - Covering up - Plan Backfires
March 19, 2007
BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires
Paul Joseph Watson
The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary hit piece and their flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, have only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles' heel of the official conspiracy theory.
The BBC was forced to issue a second response on Friday afternoon following...
Posted at: 01:38 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Can Ron Paul Win?
March 19, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
On Monday morning March 12, Dr. Ron Paul, member of the House of Representatives from Texas, and no stranger to readers of this website, announced on C-SPAN that he will seek the Republican nomination for President. Now that he has moved from an "exploratory" candidacy to being a bona fide candidate, what are Rep. Paul’s chances of winning the GOP nomination?
I have known Ron for about 25 years. The last time I saw him was in mid-2004 when he spoke at a fundraiser for Rep. Scott Garrett...
Posted at: 01:36 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
9/11: a 7-Man Job
March 19, 2007
9/11: a 7-Man Job
George Washington's Blog
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
A common objection to the argument that 9/11 was an inside job is that the conspiracy would be too big to keep quiet. In other words, the argument is that it is impossible that so many people could have kept quiet for so long. SOMEONE would have talked or made a mistake, so that the conspiracy would have been discovered.
Is that true? Maybe.
But anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy movie knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies, especially when they've got...
Posted at: 01:33 AM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink
Rosie O'Donnell is a 911 Truther ?
March 17, 2007
So Rosie has been trying to reveal the truth about 911 in mainstream media. I applaud her and hope she can persuade some people to investigate themselves and tell others. This kind of exposure can drill into untapped resources just waiting to be tapped.
I have a friend for years who acually has opened her eyes a bit since she found out Charlie Sheen has come forth to spread 911 truth. These folks and the many like them should be commended for the courage it takes to put their careers on the line. Hustler Magazine is another mainstream publication to cover...[More]
Posted at: 01:17 PM | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Permalink