USA Coming Apart at the Seams?

Apparently, and seemingly not the kind of far off nightmare people would want you to believe either:

"If a terrorist group were able to knock the NSA offline, or disrupt one of the nation's busiest airports, or shut down the most important oil pipeline in the nation, the impact would be perceived as devastating," Beckner said. "And yet we've essentially let these things happen — or almost happen — to ourselves."

It noted that half the 257 locks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways are functionally obsolete, more than one-quarter of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, and $11 billion is needed annually to replace aging drinking-water facilities.

President Bush, asked about the problem during a public question-and-answer session in an April visit to Irvine, Calif., cited last year's enactment of a comprehensive law reauthorizing highway, transit and road-safety programs.

"Infrastructure is always a difficult issue," Bush acknowledged. "It's a federal responsibility and a state and local responsibility. And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our responsibility at the federal level with the highway bill."

....

"There's a growing understanding that these programs are at best inefficient and at worst corrupt," said Everett Ehrlich, executive director of the CSIS public infrastructure commission.

Ehrlich and others cite several reasons for the lack of action:

• The political system is geared to reacting to crises instead of averting them.

• Some politicians don't see infrastructure as a federal responsibility (Ed Note: What the hell?!)

• And many problems are out of sight and — for the public — out of mind.

"You see bridges and roads and potholes, but so much else is hidden and taken for granted," said Dinges of the Society of Civil Engineers. "As a result, people just don't get stirred up and alarmed."

How much longer can we let things stay out of sight and out of mind, and as such not even care, even when the ground is falling away from under our feet?


Thanks to Lustin for the find.

Does Another War Loom?

I hesitate to post about this. Partly because it's been touted as happening on certain dates or at certain times for years now, and still nothing has been remotely done to indicate such an event will occur. And partly because I just can't bring myself to believe such a situation will happen, because not only is it going to be strategically impossible and hofficly stupid, but because it can open up some pretty terrible doors all its own.

I'm talking about Iran, of course. I'm talking about war.

It cannot be forgotten, the air of lies and deceit that surrounded this country over three years ago. So many people were captivated by the stories, the lies and the supposed need to liberate Iraq. I recall watching the bombing begin while sitting in a telecom classroom, my face a mirror of my classmates, consumed in awe. Very fitting, as it turns out, for the campaign was known as shock and awe. I had never seen anything remotely like it short of a movie screen. It was absolutely spell binding. Now, in 2006, the spell has been very clearly broken, and I can honestly say that I hope to never see something like that again. And I hope that my fears are just those, fears, and that I won't have to sit in front of my television and watch, a world away, as bombs fall, buildings crumble, and people die.

But are the pieces being moved to facilitate war with Iran? Is this country, due to its leadership and more behind the scenes, moving slowly forward to yet another, and quite probably, deadlier conflict in the Mid East? Some definitely think so:

Here's how it is being done: the key US strategy is to give the appearance of seeking a diplomatic solution, but simultaneously sabotaging the process by demanding that Iran give up its enrichment process as a precondition of talks. Acting State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told a news conference, "We acknowledge that Iran considers its response [to the so-called 'incentives' proposal] as a serious offer, and we will review it. The response, however, falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council, which require the full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." In other words, it doesn't matter what compromises are being proposed by Iran; as long as Iran fails to fully suspend its enrichment activities, the US will not engage in further talks.

-----

The hypocrisy of this position is remarkable. Why even have talks if, as a precondition of talks, Iran has to yield its entire position? What is there left to negotiate? One commentator told NPR radio that the threat of sanctions and military assault on Iran by the West is such a drastic alternative to talks, that it is unconscionable for the US to put such high preconditions on talks. He suspects that in indicates the US actually wants to make sure talks don't happen. He suspects the US is only building up the pretense for going to war.

Then to note, of course, is Israel's position, which as previously noted, is the forceful (yet bs, quite probably) position that they will be prepared to 'go it alone'. It seems now that the propaganda machine in that country is also being turned up a notch, gathering steam until it reaches full force:

But the other option is being touted more loudly, by more influential voices. Maj.-Gen. Yadlin warned: “If there won't be a [diplomatic] solution, the stance is that we must prepare to liberate the Golan through different means – there aren't many other ways. … Iran is using Syria as a giant weapons cache for Hizbullah.” (To drive the point home, a sidebar to this article in Yediot Aharonot is headlined: “Assad: We’ll liberate Golan Heights.”)

The Syria-Iran link is crucial to the picture painted by Israeli leaders: “Minister Rafi Eitan warned Tuesday that Israel should prepare for the possibility of a missile attack from Iran. ‘We are liable to face an Iranian missile attack. The Iranians have said very clearly that if they come under attack, their primary target would be Israel,’ Eitan, a member of the decision-making security cabinet, told Israel Radio. ‘We must prepare for what could come, and prepare the entire country for a missile strike attack.’

------

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is playing this card in his bid to replace Olmert. “Every living thing must do two things in order to survive: it must identify dangers and it must arm itself sufficiently to protect itself from these dangers,” Netanyahu recently said. He cast himself as a follower of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who “saw the burning coals of anti-Semitism and understood that there was a threat of a fire that would threaten the Jews of Europe and eventually the Jews of the rest of the world. Today I say: we are standing before a grave danger. A new potential fire threatens our people. … Since Hitler, there has not risen such a bitter enemy as Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, who openly declares his desire to annihilate us and his development of nuclear weapons in order to carry out this desire.”

I'd like to point out that, as with Iraq, there is no real evidence Iran is developing nuculear arms. Instead, it is pursuing the ability to provide energy for the country and its people. Iran went ahead and opened a facility, a plant that produces heavy water. Some would want everyone to believe this plant would give Iran the capability to make nuculear weapons (and then, you know, destroy Israel, destroy America, destroy the world, blah blah) but that's just not realistically the case. As WHR points out:

Heavy Water Reactors are special case reactors. Because of the low absorption of heavy water (used as a moderator in the primary loop to carry heat to the steam generator) such a reactor can create more of the varied isotopes used in the medical, agricultural, and industrial needs. The fuel used in a Heavy Water Reactor needs even less enrichment than that in a conventional light water reactor. So what we have here is a reactor designed to use LESS enriched uranium which has been the main focus of US efforts to provoke a war with Iran.

As a side note, both the US and Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which authorizes signing nations to use nuclear reactors for power generation and to process the fuel for those reactors. Iran is within its rights under international law to build power reactors and fuel them. In attempting to rescind that right, the United States is now in violation of that treaty.

The warhawks will scream that Heavy Water Reactors are more efficient at making plutonium, which is a key ingredient of implosion type nuclear weapons. However, to recover the plutonium from the spent reactor fuel requires a processing plant as complex and large (and observable) as a weapons-grade uranium enrichment plant, i.e. 16,000 centrifuges in a cascade in a plant covering 700 acres of ground. As of this writing, Iran's agreement with Russia under which the reactor was constructed is that fuel rods are returned to Russia for processing.

In summary, what Iran is doing is exactly what it is allowed to do under treaty the US has signed. As was the case with Iraq, claims that nuclear weapons are being built are undocumented and unproven. There is no evidence that Iran is doing anything other than building power stations.

And, unlike Iraq, which was invaded by a 'coalition of the willing', there are quite a few key players in this global scheme who would be very, very upset with any destabilization in Iran. Most notably, Russia and China. It would be wise not to under-estimate their presence in the situation:

The reply seemed designed to crack the ramshackle united front of four Western powers and Russia and China behind the U.N. Security Council deadline. The West sees Iran's nuclear work as a looming threat to peace. Russia and China do not.

"I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters during a trip to Russia's far east

-------

Some analysts believe that widespread anger in the Arab and Muslim worlds over Washington's perceived slowness to push Israel into a ceasefire with Hizbollah could erode support in the 15-member Security Council for a showdown with Iran.

"The strongest motivation to give talks a chance seems to be the international community's lack of appetite for a fourth conflict in the Middle East," said Trita Parsi, a U.S.-based Iranian author and commentator.

Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear power plant, has traditionally argued that sanctions would not work.

Russia and China, also long averse to sanctions as a policy tool, have major energy and investment stakes with Iran and could veto sanctions in the Security Council.

With such high stakes in Iran, how would China and Russia react to military intervention, especially in the aftermath of Iraq, which have decimated that country on so many levels. More so, with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon showing so many more negatives than positives, who in their right mind would push for a 'fourth war' in the Mid East so soon, if at all? Europe and others have made it clear, at least quietly and out of the spotlight, that they are more than shying away from yet another failed conflict. Russia and China are standing firm against Western thought processes. And yet Israel feeds the fire, and Bush and Co here continue to slowly shift pieces on the global chess board. And I haven't even touched on some things, specifically the fact we lack the forces to do this on the ground, among other issues.

So what happens next? Who knows. Hopefully talks continue, a diplomatic solution is reached, and things stay stable enough until the warhawk is removed from office (forcibly or when his term ends). Realisticly, however, it may be much dire, much darker times ahead.

Ideas Are Bullet Proof

Finally figured out how to do some YouTube video on the blog, and, well, turns out it's really simple. And in honor of the fact I am clearly not as tech savy as I would like people to believe (but damn if I won't keep telling people I am^_^) I present this excellent video I found. It takes 9/11, Bush et all and puts it in with V for Vendetta, an excellent movie in its own right. Enjoy!

Various Wrap Up

It's been a bizarre week for me, so I think I'll leave most of the commentary out of it this time and just do a general news wrap.

- First up, seems an epidemic of sexual crimes is sweeping Iraq:

Like women everywhere, Iraqi women have always been vulnerable to rape. But since the American invasion of their country, the reported incidence of sexual terrorism has accelerated markedly -- and this despite the fact that few Iraqi women are willing to report rapes either to Iraqi officials or to occupation forces, fearing to bring dishonor upon their families. In rural areas, female rape victims may also be vulnerable to "honor killings" in which male relatives murder them in order to restore the family's honor. "For women in Iraq," Amnesty International concluded in a 2005 report, "the stigma frequently attached to the victims instead of the perpetrators of sexual crimes makes reporting such abuses especially daunting."

What is particularly interesting is both the apologies given from the US reps and the fact rape is a war crime now. Not that I would anticipate soldiers from our country facing international tribunals any time soon (and I'm sure I'd be labeled anti-American or anti-troops for advocating punishment for such crimes anyway). And it's not that this is shocking news, but more so because it still deserves to be reported. It's not just the prisons where these terrible crimes are going down, nor should it be ignored because it's war, or it's in Iraq, which is, you know, 'over there' and out of sight.

- Next, more photographic evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Seems like it. And as every piece of evidence comes to light, or as every new book is published to even hint at the fact 9/11 may have been so much more than what we've been led to believe, and people duck further into themselves, like turtles hiding inside their own shells, taking the time out only to attack anyone else for being 'ridiculous' enough to believe anything outside the original story.

- Another article indicating the belief that Iraq was directly involved, or heavily linked, to 9/11. A belief that Bush pushed heavily, but now denies ever making. I repeatedly will post this because it is very important to realize that every day, we are spending BILLIONS of dollars on an illegal war:

The most likely sponsor for such an attack, the sources said, is Iraq. The Baghdad regime has long maintained an alliance with Bin Laden and Islamic groups.

Note to everyone: Illegal invasions of soverign countries, which result in death tolls of catastrophic numbers (troops, civilians, etc) are internationally criminal actions, if not war crimes. And transparent lies that become visible to your (admittedly stubborn and closeminded) population SHOULD get you impeached from your presidential office. Oh, and check out that Israeli intelligence. So many dark and dangerous dots that need connecting....

- Speaking of Israel, seems like they may be willing to 'Go it Alone' against Iran. While the world talks, Israel continues its push for conflict with Iran. Will people be as accepting of the situation as they were with Iraq, now that there are no nukes or biological weapons that Saddam was hiding, no ties to 9/11, none of the real reason's we were given for being there. One piece of article that I find absolutely amazing:

"The Iranians know the world will do nothing," he said. "This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast."

I...wait, what?! So Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler? If ANYONE remotely related to Israeli government interests was referred to in this context, people would explode. I actually have no other words. Un-friggin-believable.

- My dislike of Fox news and all things affiliated runs very deep, and I've no qualms about making that public. That said ,this article brings a smile to my face:

Alexa.com, which tracks Web traffic, shows a sharp decline to BillOReilly.com since March, when it had more than 100,000 visits for every 1 million Internet surfers. The decline has been steady and gradual, with visits dropping below 50,000 in August, according to a graph. Another summary pegs the traffic drop over the past three months at 30 percent.

Could be nothing, of course. Though the article goes on to list other pundits and talking heads as seeing a decrease in traffic and, perhaps, overall interest. Is this a sign that change is in the air? Is this a sign that people are beginning to wake up, to stop buying into the bullshit that 'experts' try to push down their throats on a daily basis? Is this a sign that, come November election time, some serious changes could finally start to be seen in this country? Maybe. Or, maybe it's just a brief fluctuation and isolated Alexa traffic numbers.

But one sure can hope.

Bush: Iraq "Nothing to do with 9/11"

Can I be the only one who recalls the president (certainly not my president) justifying his invasion of Iraq with very specific things? I mean, say what you will about me because of my beliefs on 9/11, inside jobs, conspiracies and the like, but the facts remain that Bush used 9/11 as one of the catalysts to invade Iraq. Oh, good, turns out I'm NOT alone in my memories:

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered.

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge
that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.

It is my belief, no, my hope that, may it take one year or ten, the Lie of the Century will be fully unveiled to the world, and once that happens, everything will change. Long shot that it may be, things like this give me hope that these criminals will be caught in their web of lies sooner than later.

Brief Moment of Sanity - Judge Smacks Down Wiretapping!

Hell yes. HELL YES. In quite easily the best news I have heard in some time, a federal judge has ruled the NSA's warrantless wiretapping is quite unconstitutional. From CNN:

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling, saying the program was "a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack." (Note: Fuck that)

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan -- struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

She went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

In its statement announcing the appeal, the Justice Department rejected the judge's reasoning.

"In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the Justice Department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties." (Note: Bullshit. The Constiution does NOT give the President to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. This is just spin)

The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval."

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace.

It's picking up steam across the blog-o-sphere. Glenn Greenwald weighs in with reports and opinion:

I have read the opinion. Here is my immediate analysis of it. It is a very strong opinion in some places, weak in others, but is rather straightforward -- and sometimes eloquent -- in its almost always unequivocal rejection of the Bush administration's arguments:

First, the court rejected the administration's assertion of the "state secrets" doctrine with regard to the NSA eavesdropping program on the ground that the program has already been publicly confirmed by the administration, and that all of the known facts necessary to rule on the plaintiff's claims -- namely, that the administration is eavesdropping without warrants -- are already publicly known. The court adopted upon the reasoning of Judge Walker who, as noted above, rejected the administration's invocation of this doctrine on the same ground.

(The court here did, however, grant the administration's motion to dismiss the part of the case challenging the constitutionality of the data-mining program, on the ground that it has not yet been confirmed, and litigation of its legality would therefore require disclose of state secrets).

Second, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the legality of the NSA program even though they cannot prove they have been eavesdropped on, because they have suffered actual harm merely from knowing that the Government is eavesdropping. They all allege that they have extensive communications with the Middle East by telephone and fear that the administration is listening in without a warrant. Some are attorneys who fear the administration is eavesdropping on their conversations with their clients and witnesses, and they allege that these clients and witnesses have ceased communicating with them openly as a result.

Thus, the court held that these plaintiffs are suffering actual harm in their ability to carry out their professional duties as a result of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. That actual harm confers on them standing to challenge the legality of the program. The court also emphasized, in an excellent section I will quote shortly, that it is vital to our democracy that the administration's conduct not remain beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny.

Third, the court ruled -- rather emphatically and without much doubt -- that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (generally speaking, searches undertaken in the absence of a probable cause warrant). Citing the 1972 Supreme Court decision in the Keith case (more on that here) -- which held that warrantless eavesdropping is unconstitutional in the context of investigating domestic terrorist groups -- the court held (admittedly without much reasoning or even explicit arguments) that the same reasoning applies to make warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional in the context of investigating international terrorist groups.

Fourth, the court ruled independently -- again, without all that much reasoning -- that the NSA program violates the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, apparently because it chills (deters) their free expression. Since the plaintiffs know the Government can eavesdrop without warrants on conversations of those groups and individuals deemed "subversive," the program abridges free expression in a way that the First Amendment prohibits.

Fifth, the court relied upon Youngstown to hold that the Executive's powers in the national security area do not entitle him to act beyond the law or the Constitution, and that courts are empowered under our Constitution to enjoin and restrict the exercise even of national security powers, even in times of war, when the President's conduct violates the law or the Constitution.

Sixth, the court swiftly and dismissively rejected the administration's claim that the AUMF constitutes authorization to eavesdrop in violation of FISA, noting that FISA is an extremely specific statute while the AUMF says nothing about eavesdropping. In any event, as the court noted, since the court found warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, Congress could not authorize warrantless eavesdropping by statute.

Seventh, the court made its scorn quite clear for the administration's Yoo theory of executive power because, as the court put it, "there are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." Citing Youngstown again, the court made clear that even in time of war, and even with regard to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, the President is subject to constitutional restrictions -- a proposition long unquestioned in our system of government until the Bush administration began inventing radical theories of executive power.

Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

This is not the most scholarly opinion ever. It has argumentative holes in it in several important places. But it is correct in its result and it is an enormous victory for the rule of law. It took real courage for Judge Diggs Taylor to issue this Opinion and Order -- it is hard to overstate how much courage it took. It will obviously be appealed. But as of right now, it is illegal, according to this federal court, for the Bush administration to continue to implement its "Terrorist Surveillance Program," and since it is grounded in constitutional conclusions, nothing -- such as Arlen Specter's dreaded bill -- could change that.

He goes on and on. This is far from over, however, because now with the Justice Department appealing, this case will probably go as high as the Supreme Court. And they will make or break this, and honestly, my hopes are not high for the highest court in the land to rule against the Bush regime. But it is so promising to know there are still federal judges and courts out there who still support the Constiution and the people, and who know when something is wrong (or illegal)

Time will tell on this - and will Bush and Co, who are already war criminals, stop even though the court is demanding it?


This post will be updated should any further news or important situations break.

How Do You Blow Up a Plane Without a Passport?!?!

It's state sponsored terror people, designed to keep the massives frightened and sedated, willing to listen to whoever they can and do whatever they're told in order to 'survive' and live 'terror free' into one day after the next. I maintain there is next to no terrorism from abroad inside the United States, and that one act after another has been, on at least some level, orchestrated by the major world governments. As is the case with this video of NBC News and the latest terror plot, it's all an elaborate set up. It didn't float in the mainstream news for long, and I'm surprised it was out there at all, but, here you go.

"Big arrests, big charges, big headlines and every government
abuse magically becomes justified, but here are the post-headline numbers you don't see:

------------

Of all British Muslims who have been arrested on terror charges...

Only 12% are actually charged with any crime...

Of all those are arrested, only 2% are convicted of anything...

And nearly all on minor offenses that have nothing to do with
terrorism.

------------

Politically motivated arrests of innocent people, designed
for maximum media impact to terrorize YOU.

That's what the "War on Terror" is all about.

In less than five years, these scary stories have cost
Americans $430 BILLION - not including the over $300 BILLION
spent on the Iraq War - and not to mention the loss of our
Bill of Rights protections.

How serious was the "liquid bomb" threat?

Here's a clip of some overly ambitious TV journalists who
let the cat out of the bag before the story "solifified."

Someone must have slapped the reporters back into place
after this clip aired because the line of inquiry they
opened was never continued."

Dos Sources

Wise Up Gentle Reader - The World is Laughing At You

As a writer and avid reader of most kinds of information I can get my hands on, there are times when I just totally mark out (Definition of sorts - think of it as being excited) as I'm reading material. This usually happens when it's presented in a well written manner and also sums up everything that people actually need to read or think about. I came upon one such article in my internet travels today, and it is an AWESOME read. I highly, highly reccommend everyone sit down with it. Here are some excerpts:

How do you know that 9-11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were hit by airliners? You only "know" because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.

...Governments lie all the time -- especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda.

....Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free-fall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer.

....Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Jones' and Woods' papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, online at www.st911.org/

....Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9-11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable.

...Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers. How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an "Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago." And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting? Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9-11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would "an Islamic militant" rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?

And he goes on. Absolutely brilliant read, and I suggest, no, insist everyone go and read him here. Right now.

The UN Isn't the Only Target

How utterly depressing. It's one thing to think about the world organization being ignored by the vital players in globalization, military and, most importantly, the Security Council. It's another to realize the UN is actually a target of a campaign to weaken its global influence (But makes so much sense, really). And now, according to an informational source I'm very quickly becoming a big fan of, Wayne Madsen, it's getting just as bad for the United CommonWealth in Britain. Take a brief gander below:

America's unconfirmed ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, his staff, working together with Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman and his staff, have instituted a climate of fear among UN staff, diplomatic missions, and media. WMR has now learned that a similar situation exists at the Commonwealth headquarters in London. The motive of British neo-cons is to weaken the Commonwealth of Nations, the last vestige of the British Empire, thus depriving the British monarchy of a major raison d'etre and dealing another blow to Prince Charles, a bitter foe of Tony Blair and his neo-con "New Labor" policies.

The Commonwealth Secretary General, Don McKinnon of New Zealand, a London-born New Zealander and member of the right-wing National Party under which he served as Defense Minister and Foreign Minister, was singled out for criticism in a May 31 report by a Commonwealth Investigative Panel headed up by Glenda Morean Philip, Trinidad and Tobago's High Commissioner to the UK. The report stated that there is a "climate of fear in the Commonwealth Secretariat" and that people will not speak out because of a "fear of retribution." The language used in the Commonwealth report is similar to the words spoken on strict background by employees of the United Nations, U.S. Defense Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, State Department, and other international organizations and government departments.

It's a bit deeper and more obscure than most of the posts I've been making, but it ties in to a much bigger problem, albeit in theory right now: Prominant and influential organizations are slowly being discredited and either taken over or destroyed by parties seeking to set up a global stage of control. Hard to believe now, but remember stories like these, because I've got this instinctual hunch they're gonna start building up quickly sooner than later.

Pictures: Still Worth 1000 Words

As I brain storm a post dedicated to the entry my long time friend and confidant Anton posted in his blog recently, I've decided to post a new picture to come in from the Middle East. Be warned, it's very graphic, and may be hard for some to take......


.......
.....
...
..
.















I look at this picture. And I do care.

One of the Largest US Churches Feels Bush Behind 9/11

Smell that? It's the smell of discovery, and slowly but surely, people are starting to get a whiff. Smells good.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s publishing arm has released a book that says President Bush organized New York's Sept. 11 attacks.

The decision by the 160-year-old Westminster John Knox Press, the trade and academic publishing imprint of the Presbyterian Publishing Corp., to attribute the attacks on the World Trade Center brings into the U.S. religious mainstream a conspiracy theory long held by the world's jihadists.

In 'Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action,' author David Ray Griffin calls the United States the world's 'chief embodiment of demonic power, says he initially scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories.

But after investigating he concluded that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, military personnel were given stand-down orders not to intercept hijacked flights and the 9/11 Commission, ostensibly created to uncover the truth behind the events of 9/11, 'simply ignored evidence' that the administration was involved in the attacks.

Sooner or later, this powder keg WILL explode. And then, and only then, everything that we know will change.

Airplane Terror Plot: Bollocks

I wrote last week about it, briefly, and mentioned that I'd be covering it as more reports would inevitably break about just what a politically timed sham this air line terrorism stuff is. Sure enough, I didn't even have to wait until Monday afternoon.

The alleged U.K. terror plot has been investigated for months by British intelligence, and the idea that the airliner attacks were planned for today seems to be nothing more than political fabrication and media hysteria.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush even planned the terror freakout in a series of phone calls that began last Friday and continued through the weekend. Blair and Bush put the finishing touches on their diabolical operation in a phone call early Wednesday, the Associated Press revealed today.

That's right: While millions of travelers are going through absolute hell today because of the sudden terror "news," it was last week when the U.S. president and U.K. prime minister began their cold calculations on how to get the maximum political benefit from the months-old investigation.

"U.S. President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks," AFP noted this afternoon.

"Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections."

But the American warmongers are hardly alone in needing a "terror boost" for their fading political fortunes. The timing of the hysteria was even more useful to Blair, who was on the verge of being thrown out of Downing Street last night.

"A Scottish MP last night quit the government in protest at Tony Blair's handling of the Middle East crisis, amid warnings from ministers that the Prime Minister's continuing support for American foreign policy could cost him his job," the Scotsman reported this morning.

"Jim Sheridan, Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, became the first to resign from a government post over the war. He quit as parliamentary private secretary to the Ministry of Defense, saying he could no longer accept that Scottish airports were being used to refuel United States planes carrying arms to Israel."

The newspaper made it crystal clear that Blair had mere days left in power, with some 150 members of parliament demanding Blair's enemy Jack Straw call the politicians back to London, even though they're on summer break:

"His resignation came as ministers furious at Mr Blair's handling of the crisis said they would push for an emergency recall of parliament in a maneuver they hoped would trigger the Prime Minister's downfall."

There's a bit more to be read here.

What Year Was 9/11 Again?

That's the question that apparently some 30% of Americans don't know the answer to:

SOME 30 per cent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.

While the country is preparing to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attacks that claimed nearly 3000 lives and shocked the world, 95 per cent of Americans questioned in the poll were able to remember the month and the date of the attacks.

But when asked what year, 30 per cent could not give a correct answer.

Of that group, six per cent gave an earlier year, eight per cent gave a later year, and 16 per cent admitted they had no idea whatsoever.

It looks like before I can get upset over people not caring about today's news, I need to sit back and realize that.....actually, I got nothin. This is too sad, even for me.

Happy Sunday

Translation: Smile, my son, or we'll be accused of anti-Semitism

Source

Holy Crap: Is This Real?

Yes, it is.

Sometimes, there's just so much going on that it's possible for me to sort it all out and wrap my head around it all. Sometimes, it's so depressing that I wonder if the future is worth a damn to me or anyone else, since it's becoming clearer by the day the road we're all going (being dragged) down. Sometimes those two things combine on a cloudy day and make it 'one of those days'.

Today's one of them.

- I can't start from bad to not as bad, or even really sort a lot of stuff out. My mind is literally all over the place, looking at all kinds of things. Like the fact everyone is so excited Liberman was defeated in the Congressional primary. Yay Democrats, right? Wrong. Turns out while everyone is getting high on that smoke screen, the future of our free elections takes another (and close to final?) hit. Electronic voting was touted as the way of the future, and with our corrupt media and government, and sheeple of a population, no one paid attention when people cried out vote fraud in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election (Not even mentioning 2000 being outright stolen). It's happening again, and it's looking like they're getting the process pretty refined.

Yet a far more telling event occurred that should remove all blinders, remove any doubt that nothing in this country has changed: Cynthia McKinney was removed from Congress, in a run-off against a total unknown named Hank Johnson. McKinney was removed, courtesy of Diebold electronic voting machines. These machines have now erased her votes in two “elections.” McKinney’s push out of Washington is a disaster for American democracy. With the exception of a tiny single-digit number, there are now officially no Washington politicians worth a damn. And these few will surely be gotten rid of, if they are not already blackmailed or bought off.

The machines, courtesy of Diebold, ESS, Sequoia, and SAIC, four fronts of the Bush/Republican apparatus, own the vote. Period. The New World Order is unified on this, too: there may be a “selection” in November, but there will not be an “election.” It is literally insane to believe otherwise.

One of the proudest aspects of our Democracy, being stolen right out from underneath us, and no one seems to give a damn.

- Don't think, for one damn second, that I believe any of this bullshit about people bombing planes with bottles of Gatorade and iPods. Oh, and the terror alert level has been raised too. Since the system was invented, the terror alerts have been raised and lowered, but no terror has really come. Fact is, there's little doubt in my mind, or the minds of anyone paying attention, that the system is nothing more than a farce, generated to scare people and keep em in line. Time magazine ran an article that even came out and said as such. And really, since September 11th, where have these big bad terrorists been? It's a question I ask everyone, all the time. And it's always the same answer: "It takes time. And planning. It can't just happen. We're probably stopping a lot" and on, and on, and on. Give me a break. Here's the skinny on what's really going on:

We've already seen Walmart and McDonald's talking about sustainability; now it's the U.S. National Security Agency.

Sustainability of what? Fascism, that's what.

Isn't it interesting that a few undefended copper cables are so critical to the operation of the NSA? What does this tell you about "the terrorists"?

We always hear about how smart, how cunning, "the terrorists" are. After all, according to legend, "the terrorists" are so smart and so cunning that they hijacked aircraft and flew them into buildings, and all the rest of that bullsh*t...

Yet, for some reason, "the terrorists" don't seem interested in attacking the undefended support infrastructure of the U.S. National Security Agency?! "The terrorists" are, likewise, uninterested in taking out the undefended data infrastructures that undergird U.S. mega corporations.

If "the terrorists" hate the U.S. so much, why haven't they attacked the undefended electrical and data infrastructures that animate the Great Satan? Why do "the terrorists" only carry out symbolic pinprick attacks that are MUCH more difficult to execute than strategic, decapitation strikes? Why not deliver a blow to the U.S. that would actually take it down?
A better question is: Who benefits from the Hollywood blockbuster-style fireballs and fetishisation of victims that TV-camera terrorism facilitates? "The terrorists" are manufactured by the corporate state in order to deliver increasing amounts of power to the psychopaths at the top of the pyramid. Sustainable fascism requires a constant application of psychological terror in order to frighten the populace into a numb state of acquiescence and helplessness. This is accomplished, quite simply, by running eye catching fodder in an endless loop on the PSYOP payload delivery boxes that most people voluntarily watch for several hours per day. This PSYOP payload forms the basis of reality for the victims/consumers of mass media. The elite get an easy to manage prison camp as a result.

You can find the rest of the article here. What's this have to do with today's little incident? Give me time, you know I'm gonna deliver:

Given the collapse of the latest Israeli offensive into Lebanon, this new publicity ploy threatens to take the world into general war -- if the US-UK-Israeli aggressor bloc is able to pin this latest chimera on Hezbollah, Syria, or Iran.

It was only a minor flaw in these broadcasts, mercilessly played up on such channels as Fox News and Sky TV -- the equivalents of the yellow journalism of the notorious News of the World -- that there was not one shred of evidence to support these demagogic and inflammatory charges.

Listeners were reminded that the British plus assorted NATO puppets were being defeated in Afghanistan, the US were being defeated in Iraq, and the Israelis were being defeated in Lebanon. The NATO puppets of the "Orange Revolution" were a thing of the past in Kiev, while the leading CIA agents were being rounded up in Rome. The dollar was in its death agony, and even the neocon hack Lieberman was all washed up in Connecticut. Tony Blair was about to join Ramsay MacDonald in the inferno reserved for Labour Party traitors who were also prime ministers. All the while, the controllers of Dick Cheney and the neocons were clamoring for a headlong rush into World War III, considered to be the remedy for all their ills.

Was it any wonder that British intelligence chose to launch yet another threadbare and absurd terror provocation on a morning in the middle of August?

It's a smoke screen people. Pure and simple, and ridiculously insulting to anyone who's been following the real news for more than a week. The only thing you should be interested in is who gets the fake blame placed on them - Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or someone else?

- I should point out Israel has a rich history of commiting terror jobs and blaming them on someone else. One, two, three, and holy friggin Google search Batman. I feel like I could write a thesis on Mossad and 9/11 alone....

- Fox News, the bastion of intelligent, comprehensive news reporting. Also, very sensative to touchy, world issues, including death. No wonder their ratings continue to be high: They're idiots and they've got idiots watching them.

- Finally, keep your eye on this, because the future can be a lot darker, in a way I had never even heard of or imagined.

Close your eyes.

Now imagine a wondrous world where the organic grocery stores are stocked with brightly colored fruits and vegetables, but look closer. This isn't any ordinary produce. Those shiny red apples have come halfway around the world from an orchard in Iran where they were designed to withstand the 120 degree temperatures on the plains of the Persian Gulf. That broccoli was grown on the frozen shores of Uummannaarsuk, Greenland, inside the Arctic Circle. It contains the genes of a salmon and is a source of omega-3 oil.

In the meat case, dazzlingly perfect cuts of beef, poultry and pork, lie neatly wrapped in edible spray-on plastic packaging. All meat is 100 percent fat free and contains the genes of the soy bean. Spoil-proof, organic, yolk-free eggs, engineered with extra thick shells, come guaranteed against accidental breakage. They spent a month in a cargo container on their journey from a massive chicken factory in China. All dairy comes from plants. All meat, including fish, comes from factories.

Food animals are derived from genetically engineered clones to optimize their value to producers. Chickens are bred without beaks or feathers, fish without bones and pigs, without tails. Some foods are simply synthesized in a Petri dish. Everything there is to eat in this brave new world comes pasteurized, sterilized and irradiated. Most food comes from beyond America's shores and is completely inert. In that sense, it is no different from the package in which it is sold, but what of the people?

Sixty percent of the populace is obese, up from 30 percent at the turn of the 21st century. Diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, asthma and cancer are so commonplace that they are now regarded as a normal part of a teenager's journey to adulthood. Billions of dollars are raised each year to; "find a cure" for these afflictions, but the cures never come. Infertility is epidemic. Universal health insurance accounts for 50 percent of expenses for those who can afford it. Street corner pharmacies, a trillion dollar industry, now outnumber fast food restaurants.

The family farm is an endangered species on the verge of extinction. Few can afford to garden anymore. Most food crops have been patented, their seeds engineered to be sterile. Washington and big business control the food supply. Government surveillance of American citizens, warrantless search and seizures, fines and imprisonment are used to force compliance with the new food laws. Citizens of this new world order must obey, must comply or they will not eat. And what they do eat is killing them.

Now open your eyes. This nightmare isn't over. Thanks to the National Animal Identification System, it may have just begun. *Link*

Definitely going to get worse before it gets better....

Now This Makes Me Angry

I can't paint a clearer picture here. But honestly, if this continues, I can't help but think that maybe the world should start declaring some things on Israel, and actually sticking with it. Because this is bullshit, pure and simple.

Lebanese officials said there were many reports of other casualties throughout southern Lebanon but rescue workers were not able to reach the sites because of continued Israeli airstrikes. Israel also threatened to attack UN peacekeepers if they attempted to repair bomb-damaged bridges in southern Lebanon. UN officials contacted the Israeli army to inform them that a team of Chinese military engineers attached to the UN force in Lebanon intended to repair the bridge on the Beirut to Tyre road to enable the transport of humanitarian supplies.

According to the UN, Israeli officials said the engineers would become a target if they attempted to repair the bridge.

Senior UN officials reacted angrily to the destruction of a temporary causeway over the Litani river overnight. "We must be able to have movement throughout the country to deliver supplies. At this point we can't do that," said David Shearer, the humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon. "The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law."

Source

Random Thoughts

So, all this stuff is happening. You say Israel is f-ing up the Middle East. Where does that put the US? - Anton

- It's such a hard question to ask, because no one really wants to believe the worst case scenario. Hard enough to get people to talk about/admit Iraq was a set up and a terrible job from the beginning, but get anyone started on the fact the US is predominately pushing Israel into further aggression against Lebanon and eventually Syria and Iran, and they give you a raised eyebrow and shake their head at you. Tell them that Bush-Cheny supported oil cartels quite probably run this country and they just laugh and call you insane. But that's how it is. And that's what's going on. I mean, there are conflicting reports about peak oil, when oil will run out, etc, but the fact is, The Powers That Be make their living and keep their control predominately through oil. And oil is running out. Whether it be in five years or fifty, it's happening. And as resources get lower, demand goes higher, and the very ability to live and function in society comes into play. Few people take the time to think about how much oil is really used for. Prices are on the rise now, and there isn't even a real issue with it yet. People are beginning to struggle, and demand is continuing to rise (China's economy would be growing even faster if oil was more available in sections of the country). And yet, as the working man suffers, companies like Exxon see profits so high the mind cannot wrap around them. But back on point, when oil finally does peak, those who have it and can control its distribution can realistically control the world. (An interesting note on the Alaskan oil pipeline situation, FYI). And as such, not only were Arabs and the Mid-East used as scapegoats in 9/11, but now they will continue to be attacked and conflicted with as time goes on and as Bush and Co look for the next available area to begin taking over. Will it be our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, hell, you and me fighting in the next illegal war? And will the world sit back this time and just shout angry protests without doing anything? Time will tell, but that time is coming quick.....

- In un-related (so to speak) news, seems even Mexcio is getting it right on the most basic level, voter fraud and consequences of it:

In a scene which was reminiscent of the US Supreme Court's rejection of a Florida vote count in the 2000 presidential election, Mexico's Federal Election Tribunal rejected a request by the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) and its presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador for a full vote recount in the recent election that was plagued by fraud committed by the neo-con National Action Party administration and supported by the Bush regime. The tribunal merely voted to authorize a partial vote recount of 12,000 of 130,000 polling stations -- 9 percent of the polling places. Lopez Obrador walked out of the tribunal session in protest over the decision.

Millions of Lopez Obrador and PRD supporters, including many of Mexico's poorest citizens, closed down Mexico City's city center last Sunday. The Mexico City mayor and the municipal administration are members of the PRD and Mexico City police have resisted calls by PAN President Vicente Fox to clear out the protestors. Protest camps have been set up on Zocalo Square and Paseo de la Reforma in the heart of the city. WMR has received information from Mexico that the country is on the verge of a popular revolution in support of Lopez Obrador.

But wait, turns out I might not be able to cheer them just yet....

The events in Mexico have triggered into action the covert teams of CIA agents working from bases in southern Texas that were poised to create civil unrest among the Mexican right-wing in the event that Lopez Obrador won the presidential election outright. Without even waiting for the contested election to be certified, neo-con PAN candidate Felipe Calderon received congratulations from his two NAFTA/North American Union allies, George W. Bush and Canadian Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Already, pro-PAN agitators, paid by the Mexican federal government and CIA elements, have targeted PRD supporters in acts of violence in cities like Monterrey, Sinaloa, and Tijuana

The Mid-East isn't the only place the US tries to exert unlawful influence.

- If you do a bit of searching around the net, you'll realize that survivors of Hurricane Katrina were rounded up and placed inside "FEMA Camps". These people are not allowed to talk to the press and the press is not allowed audio or video footage of the areas. Reports flooded the net at one time that these were the beginnings of detention or, and I hesitate to say it, 'concentration camps' that were going to be quietly built inside the United States. "Bollocks!" You holler at me through your internet, "how would that happen here and no one know?!" As always, the simplest answer may be the best one: the idea of a free, people influenced mass media is dead. Long dead. In its place is a corporation controled, government influenced system that tells us what we're supposed to know or do, and when to know or do it. "But but!", you retort, "why would they do that in New Orelans?" This is a tougher question, but it could be because those who DID survive can tell horrible tales of disaster and death, and the fact that their government really did not try to help them (I'll let alone the theory that NO was allowed to happen for now, as I don't have enough to back that up) and as such, FEMA is keeping them quiet and under wraps. "Fine, but why would camps be built or tested here?" you ask with a sigh. Well, I don't really have an answer for it, but the theories are not good. I could give you the official line, which is, well, I don't even know how to summarize it. And you know a link is coming, and here you go. It's not like I'm making it up - camps ARE being built. (Please note Halliburton getting the contracts). It's terrifying to think of, but is it so hard to believe that, sooner or later, this government is going to try and force martial law upon us all?

- As if I needed official help in my claims today, Newt Gingrich himself went on record about the state of Conneticut, but really, the state of America and her future:

This morning on Fox News, Newt Gingrich claimed there is a "legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on," made up of people who say Iraq "is so hard, it is so frightening, it's so painful, can't we come home and hide?" Gingrich said that if the "insurgency" wins, "it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history."

American people - insurgents? Aren't insurgents those 'bad guys' in Iraq killing our troops? Or those damn Afghans, who are probably still hiding the 'Taliban'? We're nearing a cross roads, I fear, and I think far too many people are complacent about this world and the terrible things going on in it. We could, realistically, wake up one morning next to a slaughter house, like sheep who dozed off for far too long. And I wonder if, one day, the fact that I am anti-Israel or anti-Bush, or the fact I think Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is 100% right with removing his ambassador from Israel, if I'll be labeled a terrorirst and left to be dealt with by the Secret Police/Death Dealers/whoever comes for me.

But of course, I'm a college student. Just some kid. And this is worlds away, so why should I care, right?