I Love Ron Paul!!! Best Speech EVER!!
























Here's Tucker Carlson's speech at Rally For The Republic. I don't like Tucker but what he said about Ron Paul was awesome.




And here's the end of Jesse Ventura's speech when he brought 9/11 Truth to the Rally! Go Jesse! A few days later they asked Ron Paul about his speech and he said Jesse brought up a good point, why hasn't Bin Laden been charged with the crimes of 9/11?

I've been talking drunken gibberish
Falling in and out of bars
Trying to find some explanation here
For the way some people are
How did it ever come so far

Wow, i haven't listened to David Gray in a long, long time. This song really describes how i've felt lately....




Lately By David Gray

That the sky would lift
That I’d find my place
That I’d see your face in the door
And the sun would glint
On a time well spent
On a time that ain’t no more
Takes the broken hearts
In the vacant lots
To see the fruit that rots on the trees
Had to turn my head
Leave it all for dead
But it’s in my mind always
Honey lately
I’ve been way down
Load on my mind
Honey lately
I’ve been way down
Load on my mind

Someone tell me where did it go
Darling I'm damned if i know
I seen that look in your eye
No one ever gave it a chance
I could have said in advance
You saw it all at a glance
And goodbye
Goodbye

Drag a salted kiss
From this cup of bliss
Watch a new lie twist on the breeze
You can paint it red
Or Leave it all for dead
But it’s in my head always

Honey lately
I've been way down
Load on my mind
Honey lately
I've been way down
Load on my mind

Someone tell me where did it go
Darling I'm damned if i know
I seen that look in your eye
No one ever gave it a chance
I could have said in advance
You saw it all at a glance

And goodbye
Goodbye
Goodbye
Goodbye
Now Honey lately
Yeh Honey lately
Honey lately i've been way down yeh
Honey lately i've been way down yeh
Honey lately i've been way down
Honey lately i've been way down
Lately
Lately
Lately

Thought this was a really great article i stumbled upon when i was reading up on JFK speeches and Obama speeches. If any statement the media has said that has bothered me more than calling Giuliani "America's Mayor" when he's a outright criminal, is the JFK/Obama comparison. I'm big into JFK and ever since i've heard this i've been astonished.
JFK was always calling for peace, much like Ron Paul. In fact i'd more inclined to say Ron Paul has more policies like JFK than Obama. Only JFK wasn't such a strict constitutuionalist as Ron Paul is.
This article hits the nail on the head pretty well, but he didn't mention the fact that JFK signed Executive Order 11110, basically his attempt to kill the Federal Reserve.

"On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America." - John F. Kennedy.net

Also, this article touched on it a tiny bit, but after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, head of the CIA at the time, and JFK said that he wanted to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces".

Also i went back into my archives and dug up the YouTube video i had posted where investigative journalist Allan Nairn runs down on who is advising Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Please check out what he is saying, i've noticed a good majority of Obama supporters don't even know or care who is advising him. I've gone to some message boards and have tried to see what people see in Obama and i just don't get it.
I also dug up my other video i posted where it compares Obama to JFK again, it's a Ron Paul video but it makes a good point.

Who's Advising Your Candidate?




Pakistan War 2009?



Ask Not!
Why Obama is No JFK
By Ted Widmer
WashingtonMonthly.com

John F. Kennedy is not running for anything in 2008, but you’d never know it. A front-page photo in the New York Times recently showed his electability in Serbia, of all places, where local candidates are vying to establish their credentials as the latest citizens of the New Frontier. Back in the U.S., no candidate has captured the reflected glory of JFK more than Barack Obama, thanks to his youth, eloquence, and message of change. The Kennedy-Obama parallel has been played up by the press, and Obama’s campaign has not discouraged those comparisons—indeed, it has brought in Ted Sorensen, JFK’s talented speechwriter, to make speeches and render the judgment of history. But the comparison falls short when voters consider the key question for 2008: foreign policy experience. It’s true that Obama, like Kennedy, is a youngish senator (at 46, three years older than Kennedy when he ran for president), but the parallel falters after that. The more one looks into Kennedy’s lifelong preparation for the job, the more one realizes how misleading it was, then and now, to describe him as inexperienced. Everyone who has stressed Kennedy’s youth, from Dan Quayle in 1988 to Obama today, has bumped up against the uncomfortable fact that JFK was an extremely well-informed statesman in 1960. As Lloyd Bentsen reminded us in the zinger that pole-axed Quayle, the truth was a lot more complicated than the myth.
Kennedy, of course, was a decorated veteran of World War Two, which he fought in the South Pacific. But before and after the conflict, he had acquired travel experiences that most people take a lifetime to accumulate, richly detailed in biographies like Robert Dallek’s An Unfinished Life. His father was ambassador to the United Kingdom in the pivotal year 1938, and young Kennedy was in the audience of the House of Commons as the Munich deal was furiously debated (the experience shaped his first book, Why England Slept). As a young man, he made American officials uneasy with his relentless desire to see parts of Europe and the world that few Americans ever encountered. In 1939 alone, he took in the Soviet Union, Romania, Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Greece, France, Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia. As the war was ending, he attended the San Francisco conference that created the United Nations, filing seventeen dispatches for the Chicago Herald American.
He maintained this lively interest in world affairs as a young Congressman. In 1951 he went on two extraordinary journeys, the first a five-week trip to Europe, from England to Yugoslavia, to consider the military situation on the continent. Then, a few months later, a seven-week, 25,000-mile trek that included Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Singapore, Thailand, French Indochina, Korea and Japan. It was this trip, in particular, that awakened a sense in him that the old colonial empires were doomed, and that the French effort to keep Vietnam was especially futile. In the aftermath of his trip, he gave speeches that ridiculed the French (and by extension, the American) position, and proved that he was no simplistic Cold Warrior. In 1957, he continued to chart a maverick’s course with a deeply-informed speech on Algeria that criticized France and the U.S. for trying to sustain an unsustainable conflict against an insurgent population. It infuriated both Democrats and Republicans, and France, a NATO ally at the time, was enraged—but obviously he was correct.
Critics and admirers alike have generally neglected the full extent of Kennedy’s early experience. But clearly it shaped him profoundly, and each journey deepened his portfolio. Further, each trip empowered him, and gave him the confidence to swim against the tide, a trait that would prove essential in the presidency. While dedicated to veterans and certain core principles of American defense, he also showed, well before his election, a growing skepticism of the extremes of Pentagon thinking. Perhaps most impressively, he found the courage to reject the knee-jerk isolationism of his most important backer—his father, Joseph P. Kennedy.
To be sure, even with all of that training, Kennedy showed inexperience during his early months in the White House, including the disastrous decision to invade Cuba’s Bay of Pigs, and his ineffective performance at his first summit with Khrushchev in Vienna. But he soon righted himself, and returned to the independent judgment that he had acquired during his long and literal journey toward the presidency.
Of course, travel does not instantly translate into electability—if it did, Geraldo Rivera might be president. But it’s an important consideration, especially for a candidate like Obama, who is running against an array of Democratic contenders (Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Richardson) who have far more first-hand experience dealing with issues of foreign policy and national security. And compared to Kennedy, Obama’s record of world travel is quite thin.
Like Kennedy, Obama did spend some time in his youth living in a foreign country. And because that country, Indonesia, is both Asian and majority Muslim, Obama can—and does—claim to have a unique perspective on a region and a religion that increasingly command Washington’s attention. But it’s worth noting the considerable differences between Obama’s and Kennedy’s overseas experiences. Kennedy lived in Europe, then the geo-strategic center of the world, as a footloose young man who had front-row seats at momentous diplomatic dramas, thanks to his ambassador father. Obama lived as a boy in Indonesia—a big, fascinating country, but not central to U.S. global strategy. If that childhood experience had a genuine impact beyond teaching him the obvious truth that the world is diverse, then he needs to make it clearer how he will translate that knowledge into sound policy.
As an adult prior to wining elective office, Kennedy continued to see the world, including from the helm of a PT boat. Obama’s campaign has implied that the candidate traveled extensively before assuming office, but so far has resisted appeals to provide further information. Given the prevalence of the Kennedy comparison, Obama’s travels have become relevant enough to be made public.
Like Kennedy, Obama has taken several long trips as a lawmaker—through the Middle East, Africa and the former Soviet Union. But there is one noteworthy gap in Obama’s itinerary: except for a brief stopover in London, returning from Russia in 2005, he has apparently never been to Western Europe since launching his political career. What renders this gap especially surprising is that Obama is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe. Not only has the Senator not visited the region his committee oversees, but as Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has observed, Obama’s committee has not held a single policy-oriented hearing since he’s been chairman. Europe may not be the central playing field it was in Kennedy’s day, but it remains essential to the global set of alliances and relationships that the U.S. needs to cultivate in the new century. In fact, there is no place where it will be more urgent to rebuild bridges. As Obama knows, the United States cannot do it alone—and Europe will need to play a supporting role in whatever strategy the next president articulates.
It is encouraging that Obama has several times displayed what his campaign calls independence, expressing his disapproval of the Iraq war in particular. But disapproving Iraq is not exactly independence—it is more or less the standard line on the left, and quite different from developing a nuanced third position, which was Kennedy’s strength in the 1950s, as he steered between the hand-wringing of Stevenson liberals and the mindless conservatism of many Democrats and Republicans on the right. It’s true that Obama threatened to bomb Pakistan, a position that most people on the left would find scary—but that is not the kind of measured solution, tough but practical, that most of us associate with JFK. In fact, it is a rather extraordinary lurch to the right, like an involuntary tic, that most on the right would actually disavow. It is difficult to see how a bombing run over Pakistan would do anything to help anyone except the very people it was designed to punish.
In an editorial supporting Obama, the Boston Globe called attention to his “intuitive sense of the wider world.” But “intuition” would have seemed a silly quality to JFK, a realist even among the realists of his day. He and the other veterans he had served with were tired of inflated promises and wanted a world that would live up to the sacrifice they had already made for it. Like Kennedy, Obama certainly has a capacity to learn, and learn quickly. But there are qualities that cannot be gleaned from briefing books, even by the quickest study—independence of judgment, calm determination, and the deep knowledge of all possibilities that comes from years of experience in the trenches. To his credit, Obama has not personally cited intuition as a reason to vote for him, but the campaign profited enormously from the Globe endorsement, and has tolerated a certain vagueness about his background and intentions that now needs to be clarified. In fact, no modern politician has trafficked more in “intuition” than President Bush, who trumpeted his “instincts” to an incredulous Joe Biden as his justification for invading Iraq, and famously claimed to see into the soul of Vladimir Putin. To run entirely on intuition and the negation of experience can work, and did in 2000. But to do so while wearing the deeply realist mantle of John F. Kennedy is to spin a garment of such fine cloth that it is completely invisible.

Tom Morrello Interview about government sponsored false flag terrorism

I LOVE this video!! Oh my god, this is all the shit i've been screaming about all week long! The part with Ron Paul talking about peaceful civil disobedience, i stood up and fucking cheered! And the Bill Hicks at the end made me cry, and the fact Natalie Merchant is singing made me like it even more! Spread this video to everyone!

Obama would engage Iran early next year
Press TV
August 30, 2008

A senior advisor to Barack Obama says the Democratic nominee would engage Iran on its nuclear work early next year if elected president.
“He (Obama) is saying that as soon as he takes office that we have to have a very serious set of negotiations with the Iranians in which we in effect present them with a choice,” said former US national security adviser Tony Lake, who now serves the Obama campaign, on Thursday.
Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), says it is constructing nuclear power plants as its growing population suffers from electricity shortage. The US, however, accuses the country of having plans to develop nuclear weapons.
This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Tehran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.
The Bush administration, claiming to be committed to diplomacy to resolve the standoff, has sought to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment activities through a carrot-and-stick approach of incentives and sanctions, as well as threats of launching strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Under US pressure, the UN Security Council has so far imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran, demanding the country to halt its enrichment program.
Tehran says while it is fully committed to dialogue to protect its right to the peaceful application of nuclear technology, it will not accept Western demands.
Lake said Tehran should be given a sharper choice between the ‘consequences’ of continuing its nuclear program and the benefits of abandoning it.
“This is an extremely important issue, an extremely serious issue and an extremely urgent issue,” Lake continued.
Despite Obama’s promise of bringing ‘change’ to the White House, Lake’s remarks suggest the Democratic candidate has adopted an approach of sanctions which echoes eight years of policies pursued by the incumbent US President, George W. Bush.

Fabled Enemies Sneek Peek:
Joe Biden questioned about his meeting with the Director of Pakistani ISI Mahoud Ahmed, the funder of the 9/11 hijackers, on the morning of 9/11


This movie comes out on PrisonPlanet.tv on sunday night, i can't wait it looks good...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.-

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

That to secure these right, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, to effect their Safety and Happiness.




I've never felt so useless in my whole life! I feel pathetic! The last 2 days i've been on my ass with a fucking cold! I knew somewhere inside me, somehow i knew this shit would happen. So instead of going and standing up for the Constitution like i wanted to i've been quietly just observing everything that's been going on the last 3 days from my computer. While everyone else around me is buying into propaganda, worshiping the status quo like that's gonna fix everything. I really truly have never felt so alone in my whole life.
I feel like Kurt Vonegut when he wrote "A Man Without A Country", it's already mostly gone and i'm just trying to salvage what little pieces are left of our charters of freedom, and the more and more they get stripped away people cheer and fucking dance around like it's the best shit ever. People don't know the first 5 amendments to the Bill of Rights, in fact i myself didn't even know them until about a year ago.
I see history repeating itself and i'm completely freaked out. The last year or so i've read up on my history, cuz man always repeats the same behaviour. In the back of the National Archives in D.C. there is a statue that says "Study The Past", cuz history is always doomed to repeat itself.
I can't play along to get along anymore, i can't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore, not when we have fallen as far as we have.
When torture is legal and we actually have a debate in this country wither it's moral or not, when continuity of government is in place (if you don't know what that means Google it, don't be lazy), when we're down to "free speech zones" to express grievances toward the government, completely pissing in the face of what the founders intended for the first amendment, having men in Darth Vader outfits on every street corner when people just want their voices of dissent heard,
stripping the forth amendment, having our e-mails and our phone calls read and listened to with no warrant, the same shit Nixon did to get himself impeached,
giving the telecoms total immunity towards any sort of prosecution, , and those who voted for it and let it pass through into law are touted as good Americans,
when we're lied into an illegal war and the closest thing we come to any sort of accountability for that horrible crime is a "sorta kinda impeachment hearing" that will never get off the ground or go anywhere,
when it's reported that Dick Cheney wanted to stage a provocation with Iran using Navy SEALS dressed up like Israelis, and when Keith Olberman reports on it he reports it like it's not a big deal, but yet shit like that comes out and you bring up 9/11 being a false flag attack and your somehow a "conspiracy theorist",
when our currency is controlled by a private bank who's owned by FOREIGN owners, that's no more Federal than Federal Express, and by printing it out of thin air it devalues our currency and you say this to anyone and your also a "conspiracy theorist" but yet you go and look at the history of any country that had a paper currency like ours and read up on how it fell, the same thing is happening to us, like what happened to Argentina.
When the 16th amendment was never fully ratified and yet they still illegally take the fruits of your labor to pay back the debt on the Fed!!!
We all should be hopping fucking mad not worshipping the status fucking quo, going along to get along, voting for the lesser of two fucking evils! I can't fucking do it anymore, i can't!! And you bring this shit up to people and they say,"I chose not to believe that." WHAT?!?!
I fucking lost it today and just cried my fucking ass off at the state of our reality. I feel like i'm losing my fucking mind and i have morons dancing around me chanting,"Change we can vote for!" when i can read between the lines when i can tell propaganda when i see it.
When Bill Clinton is put up on television like he was the best fucking thing since sliced bread.
Not very many people know about Clinton and giving UNESCO control over American land. Yes, yes go and read the fucking 6 page article and see what a great American he is.

Anyway.....


That Justin.tv shit Alex Jones has going is AWESOME!! It's the wave of the future when it comes to alternative media.


But i have to say the protests have been pretty interesting to say the least. The Recreate '68 people have turned out to be exactly what i was expecting them to be and more. They are provocateurs of violence and dis info, making a mockery of the right to protest. The demonstration, if that's what you would like to call it, in front of the Denver Mint was a complete fucking joke. The "leader" of Recreate '68 was in the Mickey Mouse outfit from Fantasia (I kid you not) and they were trying to levitate the Mint!! They have no message at all, the leader of the group is nothing more than a publicity whore.


It's really sickening!


Then the protesters who actually have a message are being ignored, or bullied by the Recreate '68 people. I have to say though, the 9/11 Truth march they had was great, it was peaceful and they got aired on the Chris Matthews Hardball show in the background while Alex Jones bull horned.


Meanwhile on mainstream television (which i hadn't watched in 2 days, yesterday was my first viewing of the actual Convention going on inside the Pepsi Center) they're throwing the Convention in your face constantly. Even on BBC they wouldn't shut up about the Convention.


It all really infuriated me to be honest. 4 years ago, 5 years ago i would of bought into it. Not anymore. I can't believe they way they were trying to make Biden look all fucking innocent and great. At one point they were all showing pictures of the soldiers, like the democrats really respect the soldiers, when 80% of them want out of the war and that's the one thing they haven't done. They were voted into office in 2006 to end the war and to impeach Bush and Cheney, and what have they done... NOTHING.

Nancy Pelosi panders the the Israeli lobby AIPAC, blocking any sort of bills in the house that would prevent any sort of provocation with Iran, completely betraying the United States, making what Benedict Arnold did pale in comparison, and I'm bad for pointing this out to people.
The Democrats were complicit in passing legislation through that is completely fucked up and flys in the face of everything this country was founding on. The PATRIOT Act 1 and 2, The Military Commissions Act, basically making torture and secret prisons legal. The Nazis had torture camps and secret prisons people!!!!
Presidential Directive 51 that Bush signed into law that pretty much makes him and the next person who comes into office a DICTATOR!!!! And Obama and McCain both haven't spoken out against this?!? NO ONE HAS spoken out about this on Capital Hill but Ron Paul!!!
I'm living in fucking la la land!!
The John Warren Defense Authorization Act, where it broadens the use of torture and makes it easier for the President to declare Martial Law.
The SPP Agreement between America, Canada and Mexico that no one on main stream media seems to even bring up but Lou Dobbs!!! And on the campaign trail when Ron Paul would bring up the North American Union, which is what SPP essentially is, people in the mainstream media would smear him and make fun of him, calling him a 'conspiracy theorist' when you can go to SPP's own fucking website and READ the fucker!!!
We Are Change asked Vicente Fox about the SPP asking if it was for a North American Union, and ya know what he said...he said yes!! We would very much like a North American Union!! In fact he went on The Daily Show and said the same thing, and on Larry King!!! YouTube it, it's right fucking there for everyone to fucking see!
But yet it doesn't exist.







Why is no one but Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul speaking out on such things? The whole entire congress but these two men should be impeached!!! They all need to be thrown out of office! They have all let the Constitution and the Bill of Rights burn up!! They should all be ashamed of themselves to call themselves 'defenders of the Constitution'. they all have violated their oath of office.
And the American people are more complicate than those in Congress. It states in our charters of freedom that we the people are suppose to be the watchdogs over the Congress and to defend the Constitution. We're NOT!!! Shit if i rationalize it we all deserve the path of Despotism that we're all going down.
Fuck a fifth of the American people can't even find the US on a map, i dunno why i stress myself out like this when i'm literally living in the movie "Idiocracy".
Every night me and Justin watch "Ow My Balls!" on t.v. i dunno why i'm surprised! We've all become Miss South Carolina's!





When the food we eat is filled with dyes and MSG, high fructose corn syrup so these companies can save a buck,
when aspartame which used to be a US military chemical weapon that Donald Rumsfeld of all fucking people got approved by the FDA, that eats holes in our brains and it's touted as a 'artificial sweetener' when you can just use honey or brown rice syrup, maple syrup, fructose, i could go on and on with SAFE alternative sweeteners that don't eat holes in your fucking brain.
When our water is fluoridated which completely blows my mind cuz that's what the Nazis did at the concentration camps.
Now the FDA wants to radiate our food! Like i said, i'm living in the fucking twilight zone where we're all eating cloned meat and drinking fluoridated water and munching on our irradiated salads, going thru the fast food drive thrus eating our MSG french fries that just makes us sick and has links to diabetes and obesity, commercials targeting little kids to bug their parents to buy them a Happy Meal paving a road for them to inject themselves with insulin for the rest of their fucking lives.
The biggest meat recall in the history of the United States and the majority of the meat was sent to public schools and fed to the children!
Thank god i make my kid take her own lunch to school.

And who is the FDA anyhow? We don't vote for them, much like the Federal Researve, they are an entity unto themselves and they say what we can and can not eat. Is that liberty, is that freedom?

Anyway, i'll quit ranting.
I just lost it today, i haven't felt this shitty in a long, long time.
Ya wanna know why i oppose the Democrats and why i think they all should be thrown out of office, well i laid it all out pretty much. They have rolled over and have violated their oath of office and have allowed Despotism to take over our country. Not all Americans are being the watch dogs for the Constitution anymore but those of us who are, are completely outraged and are "MAD AS HELL!"

Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal
By Stephen Zunes
Foreign Policy In Focus, August 24, 2008
Straight to the Source

Incipient Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
The veteran Delaware senator has been one of the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.
Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration's decision to invade that oil-rich country.

Shrinking Gap Between Candidates

One of the most important differences between Obama and the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain is that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was a key and likely decisive argument in the Illinois senator's campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, who had joined McCain in backing the Iraq war resolution.
However, in choosing Biden who, like the forthcoming Republican nominee, has more experience in international affairs but notoriously poor judgment, Obama is essentially saying that this critical difference between the two prospective presidential candidates doesn't really matter. This decision thereby negates one of his biggest advantages in the general election. Of particular concern is the possibility that the pick of an establishment figure from the hawkish wing of the party indicates the kind of foreign policy appointments Obama will make as president.
Obama's choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama's supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration's transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq's war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression.
In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constituted both "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and was an "extreme danger to the world." Despite the absence of any "weapons of mass destruction" or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, "That's right, and I was correct about that."

Biden Shepherds the War Authorization

It is difficult to over-estimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing.
As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, "For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq."
It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament - to testify. Ironically, on Meet the Press last year, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them."
Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about non-existent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world, and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.
Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession. Ritter has correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and . . . using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."

Supported an Invasion Before Bush

Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration's lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of "weapons of mass destruction" years before President George W. Bush even came to office.
As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq's WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, "As long as Saddam's at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction."
Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, "The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone," telling the Marine veteran "it's going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down."
When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton's proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were "beyond your pay grade." As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam's failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.

Biden's False Claims to Bolster War

In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq's military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq's alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that "he may have a strain" of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was "seeking nuclear weapons."
Said Biden, "One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power." He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that "If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late." He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that "He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation."
In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed that "I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur."
It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."

Biden's Current Position

In response to the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and the resulting weakening of popular support for the war, Biden has more recently joined the chorus of Democratic members of Congress criticizing the administration's handling of the conflict and calling for the withdrawal of most combat forces. He opposed President Bush's escalation ("surge") of troop strength early last year and has called for greater involvement by the United Nations and other countries in resolving the ongoing conflicts within Iraq.
However, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis and strongly denounced by the leading Sunni, Shia, and secular blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Even the U.S. State Department has criticized Biden's plan as too extreme. A cynical and dangerous attempt at divide-and-rule, Biden's ambitious effort to redraw the borders of the Middle East would likely make a violent and tragic situation all the worse.
Yet it is Biden's key role in making possible the congressional authorization of the 2003 U.S. invasion that elicits the greatest concern among Obama's supporters. While more recently expressing regrets over his vote, he has not formally apologized and has stressed the Bush administration's mishandling of the post-invasion occupation rather than the illegitimacy of the invasion itself.
Biden's support for the resolution was not simply poor judgment, but a calculated rejection of principles codified in the UN Charter and other international legal documents prohibiting aggressive wars. According to Article VI of the Constitution, such a rejection also constitutes a violation of U.S. law as well. Biden even voted against an amendment sponsored by fellow Democratic senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the Republican-backed resolution authorizing the United States to go to war unilaterally. In effect, Biden has embraced the neo-conservative view that the United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, somehow has the right to invade other countries at will, even if they currently pose no strategic threat.
Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Senator Obama's commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush.
Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama's actual commitment to "change we can believe in."


Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.

FDA Unleashes Mass Irradiation of Spinach, Lettuce and Other Vegetables
Friday, August 22, 2008
by: Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com

The FDA has announced that beginning today, spinach and lettuce sold across the United States may now be secretly irradiated before it reaches grocery store shelves. What's "secret" about it? The FDA previously decided that irradiation warning stickers would not be required on any food items because it would be "too confusing to consumers." (The word IRRADIATION apparently has too many letters to be understood to food buyers.) Thus, irradiated foods will not be labeled as such, and consumers are going to be left in the dark about all this (except for those who actually eat the irradiated food, in which case they will glow in the dark).
The FDA, of course, insists that the levels of irradiation used to kill e.coli will have no effect whatsoever on the nutritional value of the food. This astonishing statement comes from an agency that doesn't believe food has any nutritional value in the first place, so lowering the value to zero by destroying all the phytonutrients does not, in the opinion of the FDA, alter its nutritional value at all. Thus, destroying all the anti-cancer nutrients in a head of broccoli merely brings that broccoli into "compliance" as a non-functional food, according to the FDA.Radiation, of course, destroys delicate phytochemicals in plants -- the very phytochemicals protecting consumers against cancer, heart disease, high cholesterol, inflammation and other diseases. Microwaving broccoli, for example, destroys up to 98% of its anti-cancer nutrients. (The FDA has not yet acknowledged this scientific fact, either.) In a similar way, irradiating food destroys much of its nutritional content, including vitamins, carotenoids, anthocyanins and other delicate protective nutrients that are right now providing the last, desperate nutritional defense against the American diet of meat, milk, fried foods and processed junk.
Irradiating fresh produce will leave the U.S. population is a state of extreme deficiency in protective plant-based nutrients.
Does the FDA plan to destroy the health of the U.S. population?
Many people suspect that's what the FDA really wants. A nutritionally-deficient, disease-ridden population would mean a windfall of profits for the FDA's buddies in Big Pharma -- the folks who sell patented medications at monopoly prices. With the food supply destroyed by radiation, ordinary people would have virtually no remaining sources of protective phytonutrients!
In promoting this food radiation policy, the FDA has accomplished what all the terrorists in the world could not: The mass irradiation of the U.S. food supply -- much like setting off a dirty bomb over the nation's farms (but with less radiation). This destruction of the nutritional value of the food supply is a far greater threat to the health of the U.S. population than any terrorist event, including 9/11. And yet it is being done by our own people, TO our own people, by a lawless agency that answers to no one. FDA officials are not voted into office by the People; they are appointed by politicians. They answer to no one, they refuse to follow federal law, and they operate as tyrants over a quarter of the U.S. economy.
And now they have taken it upon themselves to destroy the national food supply.We should be more than just alarmed -- we should be outraged! The FDA has committed an act of war against the People. With this decision, the FDA has firmly positioned itself as an enemy of the People, and a bringer of death and disease to the nation. Why are our elected representatives in Washington allowing this madness?
Think about this: If the FDA has its way:
• All your food will be irradiated, pasteurized or killed
• All your children will be vaccinated
• All your medicine will be based on pharmaceuticals
• All your free speech about health will be suppressed
• All informative labeling on food and supplements will be outlawed
• Growing and selling non-irradiated garden vegetables will become a crime!

Today it's spinach and lettuce; tomorrow it's all fresh produce
Don't think the FDA will stop with spinach and lettuce, either. They're already talking about irradiating tomatoes, peppers and onions. Before long, radiation could become mandatory for ALL fresh produce, and all the fresh fruits and vegetables that are supposed to contain health-protecting nutrients will be transformed into sterile, inert plant mass with no health benefits at all. (Brilliant scam, huh?)
This is by design. I believe the FDA wants the American public to be sickened and diseased. Why else would they ban Free Speech about healing foods like cherries, broccoli and garlic? Why would they outlaw the selling of herbs and nutritional supplements that claim to treat and prevent disease? The FDA wants you to be sick, enslaved and medicated, and irradiating the food supply is the quickest way to accomplish that.
He who controls the food controls the People.
He who destroys the food can profit from the People's sickness.
The FDA's crimes against humanity
In pushing this radiation agenda, the FDA is committing a crime against humanity -- a nutritional atrocity that violates fundamental human rights. And yet the FDA's top decision makers continue to operate with zero oversight and zero accountability. They make decisions in a corporate-sponsored vacuum, absent any input from reasonable, health-conscious consumers or scientists. And because they have been granted tyrannical powers by Congress, the FDA operates above the law.
It is not subject to any laws whatsoever; not even the U.S. Constitution which is supposed to protect the People's right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (as stated in the Declaration of Independence).
The mass irradiation of the food supply is a violation of the "Life" part of that phrase, wouldn't you agree? If we can no longer buy nourishing foods with their nutrients intact, then we are all doomed to degenerative disease and death... but not before paying out our life savings to doctors, drug companies and hospitals. That's the evil genius of the food irradiation plot: It kills you slowly, at just the right pace to drain your bank account before you expire from malnutrition.
I truly believe this irradiation of the food supply is the beginning of the end of America. No nation can survive the destruction of its food supply. The FDA is dooming America to a slow, painful, medicated death. In a generation, this nation will be lost, destroyed from within by short-sighted tyrants who violated nature and left the People to rot.

Mobile Phone Radiation to Unleash Epidemic of Brain Tumors
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
by: David Gutierrez
NaturalNews.com

A new review of more than 100 studies on the safety of mobile phones has concluded that cellular devices are poised to cause an epidemic of brain tumors that will kill more people than smoking or asbestos.
The review was conducted by neurosurgeon Vini Khurana, who has received more than 14 awards in the past 16 years, who made headlines worldwide with his warnings. He called upon the industry to immediately work to reduce people's exposure to the radiation from mobile phones.
According to Khurana, research demonstrates that long-term use of mobile handsets, more than 10 years, can double the risk of contracting brain cancer. While a number of studies have concluded that there is no such risk, Khurana said that most of those studies only examined short-term use. But because a brain tumor can take 10 years to develop, studies without a long follow-up period are largely meaningless.
"There is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors," Khurana said, a link that will be "definitively proven" within 10 years.
Khurana urged people to minimize their use of mobile phones, particularly handsets. He also urged the industry to act immediately to reduce exposure to radiation from the devices. While mobile phones may save lives in certain emergency situations, Khurana said, brain cancer is "a life-ending diagnosis."
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," Khurana said. While one billion people worldwide smoke tobacco, three times as many now use mobile phones.
Smoking is responsible for five million deaths each year.
While the United Kingdom's Independent newspaper described Khurana's study as "the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks" of mobile phones, his warning is not the first. A Swedish study in 2006 concluded that people who used mobile phones for an hour or more each day had a 240 percent higher brain tumor risk than non-users. Tumors were significantly more likely to develop on the side of the head where the phone was most often used.
Inspired in part by such studies, France has warned against mobile phone use (especially in children), Germany urges people to minimize their use of mobile handsets, and the European Environment Agency has called for minimizing exposure to cellular radiation.
The mechanisms by which mobile phones increase cancer risk are not well understood, but several possibilities are suspected. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is known to directly heat up the head and brain, and can also cause thermoelectric effects on cells and DNA. According to Khurana, even bluetooth devices and unshielded headsets merely turn the head into an antenna that bombards itself with radiation. Children, with thinner skulls than adults, are particularly at risk.
"EMR rays in general cause irritation, concentration lapses and in many cases even proliferation of cells which cause cancer," said Dr Rajeev Ranjan, a New Delhi neurologist. Radiation can also interfere with the functioning of medical devices like pacemakers.EMR also "affect[s] the DNA and cause[s] problems in cell recovery and cell growth," said New Delhi neurologist Anshu Rohatgi.
Khurana warned that if immediate measures are not taken, mobile phones will soon be responsible for a massive public health crisis."We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation," he said.Because mobile phone use began in the mid-1980s and it can take up to 20 years to diagnose a malignant solid brain tumor, he said, "In the years 2008-2012, we will have reached the appropriate length of follow-up time to begin to definitively observe the impact of this global technology on brain tumor incidence rates."
"Malignant brain tumor incidence and its associated death rate will be observed globally to rise within a decade from now," Khurana said, "by which time it may be far too late to meaningfully intervene."

Up is down, and down is up..... What the hell is going on?



Establishment phonies, NY Times attempt to stoke feigned controversy over Corsi’s skepticism of official story, seemingly unaware that his doubts are shared by the majority of Americans

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, August 15, 2008

An army of frenzied Barack Obama acolytes have been busy attempting to smear writer Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, by citing his skepticism towards the official 9/11 story, seemingly ignorant of the fact that such doubts are shared by the majority of Americans.
The New York Times also got in on the act with a sneering attempt to validate the attack on Corsi, which is being supported by Obama’s own campaign staff.
The coordinated smear attempt is obviously born out of the concern that Corsi’s 2004 book, Unfit for Command, basically sank John Kerry’s presidential bid because it was the inspiration behind the Swift Boat Veteran’s For Truth campaign.
The Times cites Corsi’s appearance “On Alex Jones’s radio show, a forum for those who take a deeply skeptical view of government claims about the attacks” and says that the video is “making the rounds, especially among Obama supporters”.
Well it mustn’t be making it very far because as of writing the You Tube clip has little over 5,000 views which in terms of “viral” status is a drop in the ocean.
“The clip has Mr. Corsi discussing the findings of Steven Jones, physicist and hero of the “9/11 Truth” movement who claims to have evidence that the World Trade Center towers collapsed due to explosives inside the building, not just the planes hitting them, during the attacks,” reports the Times.
“The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced,” Mr. Corsi said. “So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.”
The NY Times simply reprints Corsi’s quotes verbatim as if the words alone are enough to shame him.

“Every day we learn something new that completely undercuts Corsi’s credibility,” said Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, in light of Mr. Corsi’s remarks about 9/11.
Here’s a newsflash for the New York Times and the mindless Obama cult members who think that questioning 9/11 is “controversial” and “undercuts credibility” - skepticism of the official 9/11 story is shared by the majority of Americans - according to the New York Times’ own poll on the subject!
In fact, it undercuts Obama’s credibility, in particular his meaningless sound bite platitude to stand for change, that he and his minions would so aggressively support an establishment position on 9/11 that even the government-appointed 9/11 Commission disbelieved.
An October 2006 CBS/New York Times poll found that a mere 16% of Americans thought the U.S. government was telling the truth about 9/11. A further 53% thought the White House was “hiding something” and 28% said they were “mostly lying”.
That’s 81% who do not trust the official version of events and 16% who do - with a further 3% in the “don’t know” category.
In case Obama’s campaign and its delirious followers are not too smart with their math - 16 per cent is not a majority. 81 per cent is a fairly clear indication of where the majority of Americans stand with regard to the official 9/11 story.
So Obama supporters and campaign managers - please stop it already with the feigned controversy and the hot air about Corsi questioning 9/11, he is simply voicing doubts shared by the majority of Americans, and as such, attempting to smear him on this issue is the height of stupidity.
Now go back to chanting your mindless empty slogans about “change” while attacking anyone who questions the status quo you seem so rabidly eager to protect.

"Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be President, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process."- John F. Kennedy


I thought this was a really great interview with Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's radio show. Glenn Beck talks to him about a speech Ron Paul made on the House floor a few weeks ago where he said he thinks a big event is going to happen soon that will infringe on our liberties like never before.
Ya know Jesse Ventura was on Fox news a few days ago and made the point that he's a statesmen and not a politician. And i like Jesse Ventura, like Ron Paul a lot of what he says makes sense to me.
So anyway, i went and looked up the definition of a statesmen and a politician, and this is what i came up with.

The definition of a politician is this:


1. a person who is active in party politics.

2. a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

3. a person who holds a political office.

4. a person skilled in political government or administration; statesman or stateswoman.

5. an expert in politics or political government.

6. a person who seeks to gain power or advancement within an organization in ways that are generally disapproved.

And here's the definition of a statesmen:


1. a person who is experienced in the art of government or versed in the administration of government affairs.

2. a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues.


Now Ron Paul fits the statesmen definition like a glove, and John McCain and Barack Obama fit the politician definition like a glove.

Ron Paul also talks with Glenn Beck about Barack Obama saying he was a citizen of the world, and basically called for global government.
Um, i thought you were running for president of the United States of America.
Obama's speech was in Berlin where he spoke at the Siegessäule monument, which that in itself is just fucked up and shows Obama doesn't know history.
The Siegessäule monument or The Victory Collum in english, was build in memory of Prussia's victory of Austria, France and Denmark. It was originally in front of the Reichstag and Hitler decided to move it to it's current location, Hitler saw it as a symbol of German superiority over the wars won over France, Austria and Denmark. But that's just a conspiracy theory right?

Anyhow, i'm babbling just listen to the interview, it's great.

The Unimpeachment hearing

Kucinich on The Alex Jones Show about impeachment hearings to Judiciary Committee

A Free Speech Graveyard at the Democratic National Convention
John W. Whitehead
Huffington Post
July 21, 2008


“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”–First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
If there’s one thing the United States stands for, it’s unfettered free speech. It is vital to a functioning democracy. Unfortunately, the increasing use by government and law enforcement officials of “free speech zones” and other stifling tactics to purge dissent has largely undermined the First Amendment’s safeguards for political free speech.
For example, President Bush’s Presidential Advance Manual outlines the specific strategies his administration has used to “minimize the demonstrator’s effect.” It includes such Orwellian tactics as selling tickets exclusively to presidential supporters and creating “rally squads” of supporters who will surround and drown out protesters with pro-Bush chants. The manual also discusses the strategy of asking local law enforcement to create a designated protest zone, “preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.”
Free speech zones have been employed by both Democrats and Republicans at past political conventions. This year, however, Democrats face the embarrassing possibility that they will be the only party actually caging dissenters. Protesters at the upcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Denver in late August will be corralled into caged “free speech zones” made of chicken wire and chain link fences which are located more than two football fields from the delegates’ entrance. Those who attempt to exercise their First Amendment rights outside this makeshift cage, which is partially obscured by trees and sculptures, will be arrested. (Ironically, protesters at this year’s Republican National Convention will not face a cage or even policemen in riot gear.)
Even the news media, once considered a vital stronghold for ensuring accountability in government, is also conspiring to keep protesters out of sight and earshot. Members of the media are urging Denver officials to move the designated protest zone away from where media tents will be situated, reportedly due to concerns that loud demonstrations could disrupt broadcasts or that reporters and photographers could be doused with tear gas or pepper spray if there are confrontations between police and protesters.
With the news media having seemingly sold out the First Amendment rights of protesters for the sake of their own financial interests, it has been left to a handful of civil liberties organizations and protesters to challenge these restrictions in court. The courts have previously ruled that protests can be restricted in keeping with a reasonable time, place and manner. But if you’re two football fields away and no one can see or hear you, it renders you all but invisible and irrelevant–which, of course, is the point of these so-called free speech zones.
It is only a slight exaggeration to refer to free speech zones as temporary concentration camps. Although the Holocaust has largely transformed our modern understanding of concentration camps, they were historically intended to “concentrate” populations of “dangerous” individuals into a small area so the government could monitor them more easily.
The 2004 DNC in Boston utilized such a camp, with surveillance cameras to record the individuals inside the cage. Conditions were so appalling that U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock referred to the designated protest zone as a “grim, mean, and oppressive space,” which had the overall feel of an “internment camp.”
As one visitor to the 2004 DNC free speech zone remarked:
Last night, I had my first direct experience with the so-called free speech zone. It left me with one conclusion: whatever you do, do NOT go inside. It’s not only a blatant offense to free speech, but also highly dangerous and unsafe. I would suggest protesting anywhere in Boston but inside of it. No amount of hyperbole can accurately describe how disastrous the interior actually is. It’s like a scene from some post-apocalyptic movie - a futuristic, industrial detention area from a Mad Max film. You are surrounded on all sides by concrete blocks and steel fencing, with razor wire lining the perimeter. Then, there is a giant black net over the entire space.
Concentrating, monitoring and minimizing the effects of protests are the real reasons for using designated protest zones. Protesters are only perceived as dangerous because their message challenges the status quo. It’s the message that is feared. Thus, efforts to confine and control the dissenters are really efforts to confine and control their political messages, whatever those might be. This is true whether they’re challenging environmental policies, free trade agreements or, as in Denver with the upcoming DNC, the political campaigns of candidates running for public office. And if Barack Obama is serious about being an active defender of civil liberties, he needs to openly condemn the fencing off of protesters at the upcoming DNC.
By severely restricting protesters’ access to the media and to convention delegates, free speech zones destroy the power of dissenting viewpoints to foment debate and bring about change. Just imagine if the hundreds of thousands of participants in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which culminated with Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial, had been forced into free speech zones. There likely would not have been a 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The right of political free speech is the basis of all liberty. It’s the citizen’s right to confront the government and demand that they alter policies. But first, citizens have to be seen and heard. That’s what “we the people” is all about. And only under extraordinary circumstances should free speech ever be restricted.
Caging people who want to exercise free speech goes against the entire concept of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and what the revolutionary generation stood for. When political protest is caged, it’s not just the rights of a few protesters that are at stake. The very definition of freedom is in danger. Freedom cannot be exercised from within a cage.

More news you won't see on CNN, MSNBC or the nightly news....


Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify
By BEN EVANS – 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.
Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate — perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.
Lawmakers subpoenaed Rove in May in an effort to force him to talk about whether he played a role in prosecutors' decisions to pursue cases against Democrats, such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, or in firing federal prosecutors considered disloyal to the Bush administration.
Rove had been scheduled to appear at the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters behind it calling for Rove to be arrested.
A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House Republicans called Thursday's proceedings a political stunt and said if Democrats truly wanted information they would take Rove up on an offer he made to discuss the matter informally.
The House already has voted to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with its inquiry into whether the administration fired nine federal prosecutors in 2006 for political reasons.
The case, involving White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, is in federal court and may not be resolved before Bush's term ends in January.
The White House has cited executive privilege, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify.
Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case — but only with no transcript taken and not under oath.
Democrats have rejected the offer because the testimony would not be sworn and, they say, could create a confusing record.
Rove has insisted publicly that he never tried to influence Justice Department decisions and was not even aware of the Siegelman prosecution until it landed in the news.
Siegelman — an unusually successful Democrat in a heavily Republican state — was charged with accepting and concealing a contribution to his campaign to start a state education lottery, in exchange for appointing a hospital executive to a regulatory board.
He was sentenced last year to more than seven years in prison but was released in March when a federal appeals court ruled Siegelman had raised "substantial questions of fact and law" in his appeal.
Siegelman and others have alleged the prosecution was pushed by GOP operatives — including Rove, a longtime Texas strategist who was heavily involved in Alabama politics before working at the White House. A former Republican campaign volunteer from Alabama told congressional attorneys last year that she overheard conversations suggesting that Rove pressed Justice officials in Washington to prosecute Siegelman.
The career prosecutors who handled Siegelman's case have insisted that Rove had nothing to do with it, emphasizing that the former governor was convicted by a jury.

Well, it's been 4 days since the Ron Paul Revolution Rally we attended in DC. All in all it was a great experience but the first hour we were there all kinds of shit was happening. I filmed a female cop that was taking pictures of all the protesters. Once she noticed me filming her she came up to me and stood right behind me. I immediately started filming the crowd once she came walking towards me. Cops all over the place when the rally was peaceful, no one was doing anything illegal or wrong.
Cops took away a guys flag that said "Fuck the Government", they made two kids who were wearing Guy Fawks masks take them off.
It was crazy, we came around after the cops took away that guys flag and all these cops came riding up on bikes in the middle of the grass doing god knows what. People started yelling "Free Speech" It was crazy!
I put up some video i shot of the rally up on YouTube. The one of the cop taking pictures so far has gotten the most hits. A caller called into the Alex Jones show yesterday talking about the rally and Alex even said,"yeah i heard cops were taking pictures." Totally made me wonder if he had seen my video. So far my video is the only one i've seen on the web of cops taking pictures.


Here's video of when the cops took away the guys flag






Here's video from the same guy of the two guys that were told they couldn't wear Guy Fawks masks





Now here's my video of the cop that was taking pictures



It was a very crazy experience. I've heard Alex Jones talk about this stuff for a few years now and have seen my fair share of YouTube videos of We Are Change going through similar things, but experiencing it first hand was just insane. I got a glimpse of what the DNC protest will be like. Alex Jones has said he's coming out to protest, so now i'm gonna have to go downtown and take part in it. I wasn't going to cuz all the crazy shit i heard is being prepared for the protesters, but with Alex Jones coming out, this will be a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the master at work.

Stop rollin' downhill like a snowball headed for hell.
Standup for the flag, and let's all ring the liberty bell.



I LOVE this song!! Man, really sums up all the shit i feel. Yup, the hick in me has come out, i'm listening to Merle Haggard :-D


Are the Good Times Really Over For Good
By Merle Haggard

I wish a buck was still silver and it was back when the country was strong.
Back before Elvis and before the Vietnam war came along.
Before the Beatles and yesterday when a man could still work and still would.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?

Are we rollin' downhill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the flag or the liberty bell?
I wish a Ford or a Chevy would still last ten years like they should.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?

I wish Coke was still cola and a joint was a bad place to be.
It was back before Nixon lied to us all on TV.
Before Microwave ovens when a girl could still cook, and still would.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?

Are we rollin' downhill like a snowball headed for hell?
With no kind of chance for the flag or the liberty bell?
I wish a Ford or a Chevy would still last ten years like they should.
Is the best of the free life behind us now and are the good times really over for good?

Stop rollin' downhill like a snowball headed for hell.
Standup for the flag, and let's all ring the liberty bell.
Let's make a Ford and a Chevy that'll still last ten years like they should...
The best of the free life is still yet to come and the good times ain't really over for good.

Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me
State House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion

Posted: June 16, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, Oklahoma's House of Representatives told Washington, D.C., to back off.
Joint House Resolution 1089, passed by an overwhelming 92-3 margin, reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's own language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."
The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Traditionally, this language has meant that the federal government is limited in its scope and cannot usurp the sovereign powers of states. In recent decades, however, as the size and reach of the federal government has expanded, many have come to question whether Washington has stepped on states' rights and gotten too big for its breeches.
Charles Key, the Republican state representative who authored the resolution, told WND that he introduced it because he believes the federal government's overstepping of its bounds has put our constitutional form of government in danger.
Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key
"The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time," he said. "The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread."
Specifically, Resolution 1089 says the following:
"The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."
The resolution resolves that Oklahoma will "serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."
It also instructs that "a copy of this resolution be distributed to the president of the United States, the president of the United States Senate, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma congressional delegation."
The resolution does not, as some have speculated, amount to secession, but it does send a warning signal to Washington: Oklahoma does not intend to be bullied by big brother government.

The Sooner State became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes earlier this month when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma's tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws.
Oklahoma's immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as "arguably the nation's toughest state law targeting illegal immigration."
The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants. It also mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work eligibility of employees and independent contractors.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual chambers of commerce in Oklahoma challenged the latter mandates, set to go into effect July 1, in court.
On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the July 1 mandates.
"We've just had a federal judge say that our immigration law's employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory," said Key in response. "That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn't have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."
Though House Joint Resolution 1089 received great support in Oklahoma's House of Representatives, it has now hit a roadblock. In the state's Senate, where the seats are split, 24-24, between Republicans and Democrats, the resolution was sent to the Senate's rules committee, where it languished without action until the legislature adjourned.
According to Key, the Senate has worked out agreements on how to manage the political tie, including power given to the Democratic senators to not hear certain bills. Those senators, says Key, refuse to even hear Resolution 1089.
In the House, where Republicans enjoy a 57-44 majority, Resolution 1089 received a hearing and was supported overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle.
"I was on the Democratic side of the floor," said Key, "and one member went off talking about how far we've gotten, how bad (federal overreaches of power) are getting – it's the kind of thing you hear in coffee shops."
Key said his bill "is making a difference" in the way legislators in Oklahoma are talking and thinking about state's rights. "I think it will make even more of a difference," he said, "when I bring it up again." He vows to put the pressure on Oklahoma's Senate to pass a resolution like 1089, and he plans to begin communicating the cause with legislators around the country, urging them to bring up the issue in their states.
Key passed a similar resolution in 1994, when he was serving a previous tenure in the legislature. But that attempt was only a House resolution. He authored 1089 as a joint resolution because, he said, he wanted to increase its exposure. "As people who believe in this constitutional form of government," he said, "we need to bring this issue to a national level and debate."

Ron Paul's grave warning about war with Iran

I hear the war drums being pounded....




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ

Read full text of House Concurrent Resolution 362:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

I can't wait to see this on the 4th! It's the new Alex Jones documentary and basically it's just video clips of We Are Change from across the country of them asking our leaders questions. I admire these people that have the balls to go up to some of these evil people and ask them a real question. It's what our founders intended of us, to be the watch dogs of the government, and we're not anymore. The way it is now with our controlled media you're not allowed to ask our politicians certain questions anymore. It's not like people are going up to Bill Clinton and asking him about his affair with Monica like the mainstream media did, no these people go up to someone like Bill Clinton and ask him about why he attendented Bilderberg or what was his relation to the drug smuggling in Arkansas when he was governor during Iran Contra?
Good shit, can't wait to see it...