Government Insider: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks

It has been a long while since I last posted...but I think all interested and those who are not, should follow this link and read it very carefully!!

Pakistan Daily

May 21, 2008

Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.

The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones’ radio show.

FOLLOW THIS LINK AND READ PLEASE

Carlyle Group buys the Magna Carta

I suppose they ran out of toilet paper....

Media Monarchy, 12/19/07

This reminds me of monty burns telling a judge that he’ll “take that statue of justice, too.” or, as existentialist cowboy points out in fantastic article, it’s like “Anton Lavey buying the Gutenberg bible.”

From deutsche presse-agentur: A rare, 700-year-old copy of the Magna Carta sold late Tuesday in New York for 21 million dollars, Sotheby’s auction house said.

Handwritten in 1297, the document is one of only about 20 known copies and the only one ever to come under the hammer at auction. All the others are owned by public entities.

READ HERE

Rockefellers "Joked" About Controlling The World

"Elitist sons would carve up the planet into different thiefdoms, "something really behind the joke," admits biographer"
WATCH THESE CLIPS
Whoever thinks that this is a free country, as it should be, is very much wrong! The very people who set up Hitler's
"universe" are still at it, and intend to do the very same, only this time with a "smile". They are not stupid, they learn from the past...can you?
Mark my words.
-Inky

Future President, RON PAUL, and the legendary Johnny Rotten
back to back on Jay Leno 10/30/07:
Can life get better than that? No!

FEMA Meets the Press, Which Happens to Be . . . FEMA

By Al Kamen
Friday, October 26, 2007

FEMA has truly learned the lessons of Katrina. Even its handling of the media has improved dramatically. For example, as the California wildfires raged Tuesday, Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy administrator, had a 1 p.m. news briefing.

Reporters were given only 15 minutes' notice of the briefing, making it unlikely many could show up at FEMA's Southwest D.C. offices.


They were given an 800 number to call in, though it was a "listen only" line, the notice said -- no questions. Parts of the briefing were carried live on Fox News (see the Fox News video of the news conference carried on the Think Progress Web site), MSNBC and other outlets.

Johnson stood behind a lectern and began with an overview before saying he would take a few questions. The first questions were about the "commodities" being shipped to Southern California and how officials are dealing with people who refuse to evacuate. He responded eloquently.

He was apparently quite familiar with the reporters -- in one case, he appears to say "Mike" and points to a reporter -- and was asked an oddly in-house question about "what it means to have an emergency declaration as opposed to a major disaster declaration" signed by the president. He once again explained smoothly.

FEMA press secretary Aaron Walker interrupted at one point to caution he'd allow just "two more questions." Later, he called for a "last question."

"Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" a reporter asked. Another asked about "lessons learned from Katrina."

"I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far," Johnson said, hailing "a very smoothly, very efficiently performing team."


"And so I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership," Johnson said, "none of which were present in Katrina." (Wasn't Michael Chertoff DHS chief then?) Very smooth, very professional. But something didn't seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA's greatness.

Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters. We're told the questions were asked by Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of external affairs, and by "Mike" Widomski, the deputy director of public affairs. Director of External Affairs John "Pat" Philbin asked a question, and another came, we understand, from someone who sounds like press aide Ali Kirin.

Asked about this, Widomski said: "We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute."

But the staff did not make up the questions, he said, and Johnson did not know what was going to be asked. "We pulled questions from those we had been getting from reporters earlier in the day." Despite the very short notice, "we were expecting the press to come," he said, but they didn't. So the staff played reporters for what on TV looked just like the real thing.
continued:

"THE AMERICAN DREAM"
"...because you have to be a sleep to believe it."
-George Carlin

DON'T THINK!!!

What's going to happen if everyone is behind bars...then who are the prisoners?


House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
October 25, 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution. First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line with the growing patriot community.

The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions.

SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Section 899C calls for a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence. The commission will consist of ten members appointed by various individuals that hold different positions in government. Essentially, this is a commission that will examine and report on how they are going to deal with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. So basically, the commission is being formed specifically on how to deal with thought criminals in the United States. The bill requires that the commission submit their final report 18 months following the commission’s first meeting as well as submit interim reports every 6 months leading up to the final report. Below is the bill’s defined purpose of the commission. Amazingly they even define one of the purposes of the commission to determine the causes of lone wolf violent radicalization.

(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:

(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of–

(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;

(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and

(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. Essentially, this will be a Department of Homeland Security affiliated institution that will study and determine how to defeat thought criminals.

Section 899E of the bill discusses how the government is going to defeat violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperation. As stated in the findings section earlier in the legislation, they will unquestionably seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime.

Possibly the most ridiculous section of the bill is Section 899F which states how they plan on protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. Here is what the section says.

SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security’s commitment to racial neutrality.

(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

It states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism.

This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.

Establishment Media Finally Admits Ron Paul Is Top Tier Candidate; Could Win Nomination

Ron Paul has mandate for equal time during Fox News debate

Marty Eels
USA Today
Thursday, October 18, 2007

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has broken through to the top tier of Republican candidates running for president. He knows it, GOP voters know it, and as previously reported; media outlets are grudgingly admitting it.

Ron Paul commented on the issue in a message to supporters, “The blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers.”

Ron Paul continued in his message to supporters:

“All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.”

It is a remarkable fact that Ron Paul has consistently drawn crowds all across the country that continuously seem to dwarf those of his opponents. Given the scant media coverage Paul has received it is a testament that his message is resonating.

The Republican Party appears to be recognizing that Ron Paul has a chance of winning the nomination. Paul said to supporters:

“After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too.It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only top-tier candidates."

Commenting on Alan Greenspan’s recent interview on the Fox Business Channel Paul said:

” the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.”

He continued on about the crowd of 2000 at his campaign’s Dearborn rally:

“They cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary”.

Ron Paul’s campaign does not appear to be willing to sit in the background of the presidential race any longer and made that very clear Wednesday during a press conference. Paul’s campaign pointed out that only four candidates remain viable at this time in the Republican field.

Paul’s campaign highlighted that according to the financial reports, the indication is that the only viable candidates where Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney’s campaign is viable as long as he continues to spend his personal wealth.

Ron Paul’s campaign may do many things in this election but it has already made media polls irrelevant suggesting them to be an outdated obsolete method of rating candidates. If the polls were accurate Dr. Paul should not be in third place in the GOP money race.

The cable networks have been giving a disproportionate amount of time in televised debates to what they believed to be the top tier of candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain).

Expect a reshuffling of that order, replacing McCain with Paul during the Fox News debate in Orlando Florida this Sunday, or viewers may see a flashback to the famous Ronald Reagan line from a presidential debate, when he said, “I’m paying for this microphone” but instead, Paul might say, “the American people have paid for this microphone”.

It IS NOT a Government Agency, Folks!

This week, former chairman of the Fed Reserve Alan Greenspan in an interview aired on PBS' News Hour was asked by Jim Lehrer what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and The President of the United States. In a shockingly honest tone Greenspan replies,

"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter.

This issue with the Fed being above government is one of the key things We The People need to understand in order to wake up to the awful situation that we have found ourselves in. Our wealth, our labor, and anything we gain buy being productive has been stolen from us since the Federal Reserve took over our money system in the 1913.

Most people believe the Fed to be a government agency overlook by the President of the United States. Others fully believe the statements of Mr. Greenspan but don't really understand what it means to have an "independent agency" (i.e. private banks) be above The Presidency, The Congress and Senate, and the Supreme court of the United States. This power to create money has been given over to a group of businessmen not beholden to our U.S Constitution; a document to protect our God given freedoms from tyranny. Hopefully enough of our rising generation can learn this sad truth and vote to return the power to regulate money back into the hands of those to whom it belongs We The People.

2 cents: If they didn't take us off the Gold Standard, prices of everything would be reasonable. In my Grandparents day, and most of our parents days, cost of living was "doable", now most are unable to buy a house or a car or feed ourselves properly, or even afford a doctor. The FED is a private bank, which charges us for our own cost of living. The IRS is The FEDS collection agency. These guys are NOT apart of our Government. It's a racketeering operation, run by Mafia types and mentality. When I lived in Brooklyn, I had much more respect for my neighbors, which were Mafia, at least they were more honest about who, and what they did, then any member of the FED or IRS.

Current Law: No State Shall Make Any Thing But Gold And Silver Coin
A Tender In Payment Of Debt. (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 10)

1.             
Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an
organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?

Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.

Denver Sheriff's Office Helps Private Companies Take Blood And Saliva At Checkpoints

This is one reason why I'm seriously thinking of leaving this fucking country...I have always objected to these check points and now I'm quite sure of those thoughts NOW!

Drivers subjected to "voluntary" procedure say they feel like DUI stops
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Sept 20, 2007



A Sheriff's office in Denver has been blasted by drivers after it engaged in the operation of what appeared to be DUI checkpoints but were in fact stops being carried out by a private non-profit research group.

The Gilpin County Sheriff's Office was hit with complaints earlier this week from motorists who say they were not properly informed of the nature of the stops and felt that they were non-voluntary. One Undersheriff even described the procedure as "like a telemarketer that you couldn't hang up on,".

The Denver post reported on the incident earlier this week:

Sgt. Bob Enney said deputies assisted the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in stopping motorists at five sites along Colorado 119 for surveys on any drug and alcohol use. Surveyors then asked the motorists to voluntarily submit to tests of their breath, blood and saliva. At least 200 drivers were tested, Enney said. About five motorists later complained, he said.

The research is reportedly part of a nationwide study partly financed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Some motorists told the Post that they repeatedly asked if the questioners were law enforcement officials and after stating that they were not interested in participating in the study, were still not given clearance to leave.

Describing the surveyors as being dressed in blue jumpsuits, others stated that they were "too persistent" and even offered $100 incentives to motorists in an attempt to get them to change their minds after they had declined to take part in the survey. Some even said that the surveyors then ridiculed the motorists for not taking the money.
In recent years police have moved towards taking blood samples as they cannot be challenged where as breath tests can. As this report from the Wall Street journal explains:

In the past, police routinely asked suspected drunk drivers to blow into devices that extrapolated their blood's alcohol content from their breath. Now, authorities in most states are taking blood, by force if necessary.
Laws in at least seven states allow police to take blood without the driver's consent, without explicitly authorizing force. In most other states, court rulings have authorized reasonable force to obtain blood. Many such rulings cite a little-known fact about driving laws in the U.S.: All motorists are considered to have consented to a search of their blood, breath or urine. Such "implied consent" laws were introduced in New York in 1953, and today all 50 states and the District of Columbia have them."

Regular DUI checkpoints have increasingly come under scrutiny across the country with some judges ruling them unconstitutional and illegal. Lawmakers have also challenged checkpoints and introduced bills to outlaw them. Rep. Charlene Lima, of Cranston, who sponsored a 2005 bill, said the checkpoints violate people's civil rights, and "smack of a police state." The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes checkpoints.