Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Advertisements

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

Download Video 15.6 MB WMV full video

Richard Porter, the head of news at BBC World issued this explanation of the BBC World video:

  1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
  2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
  3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
  4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.
  5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

Below are some selected comments made in reply to Mr Porter’s explanation:

How deservedly ironic that the BBC gets exposed for what it really is (a propaganda bureau that attempts to indoctrinate Britain and the world with a false reality) so soon after the airing of the appalling hit piece (9/11 conspiracy files) last Sunday night. Please show some respect for the BBC and the license fee paying public by answering a simple question. How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?
I’m not a conspiracy nut. But this footage of your reports of WTC7 collapsing a full 20 minutes prior and repeatedly discussing it’s collapse is highly suspicious.

If you were talking about a building that never did collapse, well then you’d just look incompetent. But as we all know, building 7 did, in a feat that suspended all laws of physics and logic, collapse spontaneously due to fires on floors 7 & 12.

You can’t possibly expect us to believe this. Let’s look at all the pieces here.

1. BBC reports for 20 solid minutes that WTC7 has collapsed when even in the live shot it stands as sturdy as the day it was built.

2. The idea that WTC7 would collapse spontaneously due to minor fires and minimal damage to the north face is laughable and an insult to intelligence. But it did, approximately 5 minutes AFTER BBC’s report….or at least 5 minutes after Jane Standley’s live shot was disconnected.

3. BBC loses all of it’s 9/11 footage so this cannot be reviewed or explained. My nephew still has all his VHS tapes from that day. He recorded almost every news station for 24 hours straight. He’s 19 now. He was 13 when it happened. So, a 13 year old can be more responsible with his VHS tapes than one of the largest news organizations?

4. The archive footage is mysteriously pulled off of YouTube and Google video repeatedly and without provocation or explanation.

5. BBC’s response is, ‘there is no conspiracy. it was a mistake.’

Grant us logical thinkers at least one thing. This is highly suspicious. The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed.

Oh, and the ez-out phrases like ‘it appears’ and ‘we’re receiving reports that..’ were not used throughout this footage.

Especially when the anchor starts talking about the (lack of) body count since there was so much time to evacuate since the collapse of WTC 1-2.

The BBC needs to reveal what source they drew the conclusion that WTC7 had collapsed. I do not necessarily think the BBC is a witting participant in some 9/11 conspiracy, but it’s definitely looking like you were a pawn. Revealing who/where the BBC received the information that WTC7 had collapsed would be a good start in clearing your name.

To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn’t it? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor’s trousers had fallen down before they did so
Let’s say for a second that you messed up and reported a building going down that didn’t – why the exact one that DID? What are the odds? Why not by mistake report a building going down that DIDN’T actually go down?

You lose footage of one of the most important days in modern history… 😉
(Good job! That way no one can “prove” anything that day…)

Out of all the surrounding buildings that suffered massive damage – WTC 3,4,5,6 – and assorted others that suffered minor damage (amoung them, WTC 7 – Salomon Brothers Building), BBC – by merely a mistake and in confusion – picked exactly the right one that was going to fall -…. 😉
(Good job! Hey, BBC is incompetent – they lose tapes AND they claim buildings fall that haven’t – but what LUCK! They hit the lottery! What a ‘lucky guess’, huh?)

BBC should go to Vegas, with those odds – you’d be rich.

BBC is not part of the conspiracy – but you are just a bunch of pathetic dupes.

You capture the biggest smoking gun in history … and your response is ….. to call yourselves incompetent and go play ‘blind/deaf/dumb monkey’ on your public.

Good job, Guys!!

“If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that.”

Uh, it WASN’T an error… That’s the point. You keep harping on about what a chaotic day it was. Then why didn’t the anchor say something like, “We’re getting some unconfirmed reports of some other building apparently collapsing… We’ll have to check up on this… etc.” No, he had (23 minutes before hand) the name of the building, the correct # of floors in the building (47), the explanation of the collapse (weakened by other collapses), and he was reporting that the building was apparently empty. You even had graphics made up for the scrolling info at the bottom of the screen. That is some pretty precise reporting for a day of chaos when everyone was “…trying to make sense of what they were seeing… and what was being told by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.”

And there lies the key (perhaps). No doubt the info was just being fed to the anchor and reporter off the wires as the news would cross… So, which agency fed that bit about WTC7 collapsing? AP? Reuters? VOA? We’ll probably never know, but you got the information from some source more than 23 minutes before it happened (had to be longer than 23 minutes, because there must have been some delay from the time the story came over the wires and the time the anchor actually got the news out on the air).

Do I think the BBC is “…part of a conspiracy”? No… but you were played perfectly by some entity, IMO.

With respect, the response to this issue is unacceptable. At the very least you are minimizing your error and trivializing the life’s lost or the potential of life’s that could have been saved. In the most important final 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the said segment the words “apparently”, “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” ARE NOT USED in context of building 7. The words used are those have definite and past tense. “Now more on the latest building collapse in New York,…the Solomon Brothers Building collapse… and indeed it has” “What can you tell us about the Salomon Building and it’s collapse?” “When it collapsed” Ticker –“The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.” Who is responsible for the newsroom in desk and floor prompters being used by the news presenter? Who is responsible for the news report on the bottom screen news ticker? Who is responsible as the newsroom floor source for giving these people information? What is the complete list of editors and journalists responsible for this program on said day? The words in your statement #4 of footage being lost may very well redefine irresponsible. The BBC Media Management policy clearly states TWO broadcast standard copies be retained one on a separate site as a master. As follows. Ref No. Policy Area / Policy Statement 01 Components to be Retained 01-01 The following components to be retained:- Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast materialhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/historical_information/
archive_policies/media_management_policy_overview.htm#top
If the footage had continued, we’d all have been able to watch WTC 7 collapse right on your program.

Good thing you lost the feed five minutes before THAT happened in front of all your viewers.

What in the world would you have said if that had happened?

What is going on here?

I’d like a little truth please.

I never actually thought I would live to see the day that things would surpass even Orwell, Huxley, Wells, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Zamyatin, Ayne Rand, on and on…but, the virtual reality that the “media” create for us now is truly more unfathomable than even those great minds warned us of.
Contrary to the dismissive tone of the “explanation”, whether or not the building was known to be about to fall goes to essential point of culpability for 9/11, foreknowledge.

Those who are in the dock and being cross-examined are not allowed to wave their hands and create a plausible explanation. It’s gone too far for that. There is a disastrous war built on false evidence, and that falsification process may have begun much sooner than is generally now understood.

In ordinary life, a witness who lies about one thing will be assumed to lie about everything. And we aren’t talking about private matters, but about the essential role of a government to defend its country. This issue is about credibility of news sources during a terror attack, in which a rush to judgment resulted shortly in an invasion of a sovereign nation, and the BBC know it.

Thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost thus far, and there are doubtless more to come

 

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/081

BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG

by Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

April 15, 2008

 

Statue of Ronald Reagan in Full Cowboy Gear at the Entrance to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It is entitled “After the Ride.”

Dateline: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California Before you open a door and enter into the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a large bronze sculpture of a strapping cowboy greets you, with the wide-eyed optimism of the mythic west, a handkerchief dangling from the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and cowboy hat in hand. It’s called “After the Ride” and it is a tribute to Ronald Reagan. Or make that the myth of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, as the fawning exhibition area that paints a flattering, blemish free portrait of his life unintentionally reveals, went from a childhood and small college upbringing in Illinois to a Hollywood “B” film career, to spokesperson for the GE corporation, to Death Valley Days, to the political life that led him to the White House. The key transition, not noted as such by the library narrative, is when Reagan became the hired front man for GE, hosting a program for them but also going around the country selling the concept that the corporation is a benevolent and positive force in our lives, without any downsides. Reagan went from a “B” movie career to an “A” career as a political salesman for corporate wealth and control of the government. In the turbulent social climate of the ’60s, his wealthy backers (who regarded him as a prize race horse for a right-wing coup for the super rich and corporate welfare) watched as Reagan won the governorship and masterfully was guided in the use of wedge issues such as “Guns and God” to lure the emerging displaced middle class into voting Republican. Aside from the “October Surprise,” when Reagan negotiators allegedly convinced the Iranian mullahs to hold onto our hostages until Reagan’s inauguration day (they were literally released after he was sworn in), the GOP had perfected the selling of a myth about America — and they had the hale and hearty actor to sell the product. The myth of “morning in America” obscured the emerging theft of jobs from the middle class by creating emotional hot buttons for rural and working class voters to gravitate toward: Their values were under attack by liberal extremists, they were repeatedly told. Only the Republicans could save the nation from further moral degradation, the myth went — and only the GOP could guarantee victory in foreign conflicts (even if the conflicts were often unnecessary and the GOP failed to achieve “victory,” however it might be defined). Because our perceptions today are so dependent upon television as a source, how one acts as president or senator has superseded, in large part, what one does. Ronald Reagan made many working class and rural voters proud to be Americans again, but meanwhile, behind the scenes, corporate lobbyists and Reagan’s aides (who were really running the show) went about dismantling factories in places like central Pennsylvania and moving them overseas, sometimes — literally — in the dark of night. It was the Republican version of “Let them eat cake.” Only, in this case, it was: “Let them eat God, Guns, and Patriotism.” This process that began with Reagan’s election continued through Bush I — and to a degree in the Bill Clinton Administration, as he aggressively pursued NAFTA and followed the neo-liberal economic agenda of opening up the gates of exporting jobs in return for larger corporate profits — and it rocketed ahead in the administration of Bush II into a juggernaut of betrayal of the middle class. Hunting and faith are important to many people in rural America and small towns — as faith is throughout America — but there has and will be no threat to those core “values.” There is no gun control measure with any remote possibility of passing in any state that would affect hunters — and Democrats and civil libertarians are ardent supporters of the right to follow one’s religious beliefs without government interference. So, Barack Obama’s remarks in San Francisco, as borne out by a true understanding of the Ronald Reagan myth, are ultimately true. His mistake was that he said what he said in a way that allowed the twin corporate D.C. insiders — McCain and Clinton — to once again demagogue the issue into one of emotion, rather than fact. And that is what the attack on Obama is about: demagoguery. I can’t save workers from voting against their own economic interests when they vote to defend values that no one is going to take away from them. And I understand that Clinton and McCain are playing on the pride of such displaced members of the middle class. No one wants to be told that they have been duped for nearly 30 years by the wealthy backers of the Republicrats. Rural and small town Pennsylvanians want to feel proud about America and themselves — and the uproar from the McCain and Clinton camps once again presses the hot button of dignity, while privately believing in (whatever Clinton is saying on the campaign trail today) policies that will continue to erode the earnings and standard of living of the very people that they claim to be championing. The media owned by corporate elites has a role in this, too. Last month, the conventional wisdom of the media, for the most part, was that the deteriorating rust belt of Western Pennsylvania had left many former decently paid workers angry and bitter. But, on a dime, the new conventional wisdom, after Obama’s remarks, was that it was insulting to say that these same people are angry and bitter. Nothing says more about the non-factual based reporting of the mainstream press than that sudden conversion, because the mainstream media represents the global corporate interests of its multinational parent companies who reap the profits of moving jobs overseas. What Obama said was shorthand for this grim reality: no one is really threatening the traditions of hunting, or anyone’s faith, or heterosexual marriage. But there are plenty of politicians among the Republicrats — usually the Republicans, but Hillary Clinton has joined with them on this one — who exploit the fear that conspiratorial “leftist” forces are conspiring to end hunting and religious belief in America. This is the heart of being a demagogue, because it is an appeal to emotion that has no basis in fact. It is how Republicans have won many an election, and how Senator Clinton is now trying, in a last gasp, to obtain the office she has compromised so much of her life pursuing. As someone who was born and raised in Illinois, and having lived here my adult life, I was always surprised by how little connection Reagan appeared as an adult to have with home state. During his presidency, he rarely returned here, and his persona was tied to the myth of the cowboy, the triumphant rugged conqueror of the West. Illinois was just part of his early biography. He seemed to have no strong emotional attachment to the very Midwest roots that he so championed. It just didn’t fit in with the mythic figure that came out of his films, Western ranch (which was the inspiration for Rove getting Bush to buy his Crawford spread and do a Reagan “cut the brush” imitation), and heroic GI movie roles during WW II (which he never actually fought in.) So we understand that some of the working class who buy clothes at Wal-Mart that they used to make — because the price is right — only the blouses and shirts are made in China now — we understand that they feel insulted by some politician telling them that they’ve been taken for a ride, that no one is going to stop them from hunting or going to their church, but that the people who peddle that nonsense to them are allowing corporations to steal their jobs and wallets from right in front of their noses. That’s a tough pill to swallow, that you’ve been swindled for 30 years. But McCain and Clinton are once again pulling the same Republicrat tricks of playing on emotional vulnerabilities while ignoring the truth surrounding the job heist that is occurring in places like Pennsylvania. Yes, it is bad political practice to ever say anything that makes a group of potential voters feel that they are being insulted because you’re making the claim that they’ve been had. But if you want to help those same people out to create a positive future for employment and their standard of living, you can’t keep hiding the truth under a rock. Obama’s statement could have been said more fully, and not so elliptically, and that would have explained the difference between respect for traditions and beliefs, and exploitation of those very same characteristics for political gain by those who are exploiting the working class. But, in the end, as he did with race, Obama is touching upon a third rail of truth that neither party wants to discuss much. The “K Street Lobbyists” are very pleased with the masquerade and demagoguery that achieved, and now accelerates, the slide of the middle class towards a lower class fate. The working class will have its faith, hunting, and small town “values,” but it can’t have them if they don’t have jobs. And after Obama’s remarks, they can’t say that they weren’t warned by an honest politician.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR’S BLOG

 

by Chuck Baldwin
April 15, 2008

Every four years, conservative “pragmatists” trot out the “We Can’t Let So-And-So Win” mantra. Of course, the so-and-so in question is always the Democratic Presidential candidate. For all of my adult life, I have been listening to so-called “conservative” Republicans warn us of the impending doom that would befall our country if the Democratic candidate were elected. And this year is no different. This year’s Republican primary did provide a wonderful aberration, however, to the usual choices between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Republicans had an opportunity to nominate a real American constitutionalist, a statesman in the similitude of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. That man was Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the Republican faithful seem to be incapable of discerning the marks of true greatness, not to mention fidelity to constitutional government. It is doubtful that most of them even understand what constitutional government is. And as for Christian conservatives, they can barely see any issues beyond abortion and “gay rights.” To try and convince them to support a constitutionalist candidate is like talking to a brick wall. So, what choice does the Republican Party offer the American people this year? The worst of all possible choices: good old John “McSame” McCain. Let’s be clear: a John McCain Presidency will be no better than a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama Presidency. In fact, in many ways, a McCain White House will be WORSE than a Democratic one. On many issues, there is virtually no distinction between John McCain and any potential Democratic candidate. John McCain is no friend to gun owners. He is no friend to pro-lifers. He is no friend to fiscal conservatives. He is no friend to property owners. He is no friend to “family values” voters. He is no friend to America’s blue-collar workers. He is no friend to small business owners. He is no friend to opponents of illegal immigration. On the other hand, John McCain is a great friend to Big Business. Similarly, he is a friend to Big Government and Big Brother. He is also a friend to open borders, supranational government, regionalism, and American imperialism. But this is where the Boogeyman comes in. At this point, Republican Party lackeys will break in and say, “We can’t let Hillary Clinton win. We can’t let Barack Obama win.” Even the favored son of the Religious Right, Mike Huckabee, has endorsed John McCain, not to mention Mitt Romney and virtually every other Republican “bigwig.” (Thank God, Ron Paul has maintained his integrity by NOT endorsing McCain.) I, for one, am fed up with this baloney, because what we are actually faced with is not the “lesser of two evils” but “the evil of two lessers.” (To quote a good friend of mine.) And the reason John McCain would actually be a worse President than either Obama or Clinton is because of the manner in which conservatives go to sleep whenever a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Furthermore, the next couple of years are “crunch time” for this burgeoning North American Union and related issues. America is currently facing the most serious threat to its national independence and sovereignty since the War of 1812. The forces of globalism have declared an all-out war against our country’s independence. Illegal immigration, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Community, a regional currency called the Amero, and “free trade” deals are just a few of the weapons in their arsenal. And John McCain will use every bit of his power as President to facilitate all of this chicanery. And, because McCain is a Republican, conservatives and Christians will sit back and let it happen without even the slightest whimper of resistance. If Obama or Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office, however, massive numbers of conservatives and Christians would rise in protest over every inch of ground ceded to these nefarious nabobs. So, tell me, who is the greater evil? I say it is John McCain. I realize that there are many readers shouting to themselves right now and saying, “So what do we do, Chuck? We have to vote for one or the other.” To which I say, No you don’t. You can think outside the box. You don’t have to throw your vote away on either of these wretched candidates. You can cast a vote for principle and vote for a third party candidate. I can hear readers screaming at me now, saying that voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I strongly disagree! Casting a vote for a person who you know is unfaithful to your principles is a wasted vote! Voting for someone who you know will keep our borders and ports open to illegals, continue George Bush’s preemptive war doctrine, and facilitate a burgeoning hemispheric government–not to mention someone who will increase and augment a burgeoning Orwellian police state–is a wasted vote! At some point, we Americans must decide whether we will tolerate the continued sellout of our freedoms and principles or not. Will we swallow the shallow squeals of the establishment elite who think we are a bunch of sheep to be herded into their New World Order? Or will we stand our ground? Will we vote our principles and our conscience? It does not matter that the pundits and experts say we can’t win. That is not our business. As John Quincy Adams said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.” When will Christians, especially, quit trying to play politics and start standing for principle? They talk a lot about principle, but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, most don’t act like people of principle. If God intends to give America another chance, if He intends to return these United States to constitutional government, and if He intends to preserve America’s independence, it will only come in the form of a miracle. And miracles do not happen by the machinations of pragmatic planners. Miracles are just that. America was born a miracle, and it could now be given a new birth by miracle. If so, it would demand that people of principle start acting like it. That we cast aside the pragmatic, the reasonable, the sophisticated, and the expected. That we–as did the priests of old–would be willing to step out into the raging current of the Jordan River, knowing that either God would part the water or we would drown. That we would be willing to sign our names to a document–as did our Founding Fathers–that would make us either the enemies of the state or the inventors of a new nation. It means taking risks; it means doing the impractical; it means rejecting accepted wisdom and standing for principle. I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now. And I am expecting God to grant such a miracle. Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who “has no chance of winning” in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do. So, who will join me? *If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin This column is archived as

 http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080415.html

by A.D Lelong 

Yesterday at 3:45 in the morning, some juvenile-minded idiot on a bicycle placed a military surplus ammo box containing a small explosive device in front of the Armed Services Recruitment office at 43rd Street in Times Square. This exploded causing the glass door to the office to break. There was no other damage except to the door. No one was hurt, but the noise was loud enough to get people’s attention; one British tourist described it as “a loud bang.”

The response by the Government was predictably extreme. Immediately, officials closed Times Square to all traffic, vehicular and pedestrian. They also shut down all subway access to the Times Square Subway Station, a major hub station serving some 16 subway lines. This shutdown lasted some three hours, precisely the height of the morning rush hour, affecting hundreds of thousands of commuters.

The Government wasted no time to exploit this event, and explain their over-reaction. At 9:20 AM, Mayor Michael Bloomberg staged a demonstration of state power and competence. He had a press conference and brought out all the high brass: NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly and a phalanx of bureaucrats from the Governors office, the FBI, and Homeland Security – this last item for you Germans out there translates, roughly, into Geheime Staats Politzei.

Now, first let me disclaim strenuously the act of this moron. Even if he were motivated by an antiwar sentiment, with which I agree, his actions are unacceptable, and counterproductive to the cause of anti-violence. Using violence – even an innocuous home made device no more powerful than a cherry bomb or M-80 firecracker – endorses violence in order to make the political statement that the US Government is wrong to use military violence. This is a moral contradiction.

I denounce this as I denounce other stupid demonstrations such as: silly bumper stickers, retarded rhyming chants, and moronic placards. These techniques don’t educate, nor do they persuade people towards the protesters cause. Most likely they alienate potential converts. These methods are no substitution for rational argument.

However, given the poor state of learning and intellectual discourse in these United States, I understand the tendency to express oneself using mindless gimmicks. Therefore, in the spirit of the times, the Zeitgeist for you Germans, I offer my own little non-violent gimmick. I offer to translate Mayor Bloomberg’s press conference for the untutored. I offer to turn Leviathanspeak into ordinary English.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: At approximately 3:45 this morning there was a small explosion outside the military recruiting station…here in Times Square, the Crossroads Of The World.

TRANSLATION: Some crank or college student – who opposes the US Government squandering trillions of dollars on war, causing anti-US hatred abroad and economic ruin within – used some black powder, or other commercially sold chemicals, or some fireworks to break the window of a high-profile military showcase installation in Times Sq.

NOTE: The use of the term “Crossroads Of The World” is gothamspeak for Times Square. This must be explained etymologically. Americans are a provincial people ignorant of the outside world. Its principal city is especially provincial; peopled by fauna who barely recognize the visible world outside their tiny archipelago save Hollywood, Connecticut, Washington DC or possibly Paris or London. Therefore they regard their largest city intersection as being the crossroads of the world, much like Easter Islanders regard themselves as being the Navel of the World.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: The Fact that this appears deliberately directed at the recruiting station insults everyone of our brave men and women in uniform stationed around the world fighting to defend our freedoms that we hold so dear.

TRANSLATION: The men and women of our military have been euchred by their Government, and if they knew the truth they would be insulted. In order to prop up our post-1971 fiat dollar as a global reserve currency, and to further our massive debt-ridden false prosperity, we must enforce the sale of petroleum in US dollars. Therefore we must maintain, by force, US Global Hegemony, especially in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions. But this does not sound as good as defending our freedoms from terrorists. The fact that others in the world are justified in hating our projection of force, and hate our Government, might have a negative propaganda effect on the overworked young men and women of our armed forces in the over 800 military bases worldwide who bought into the Freedom & Liberty dogma and are starting to question it.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: I want to direct this to those who are watching in this country and around the world. New York City is back and open for business!!! Traffic is flowing through Times Square…the subways and trains are running again!!!!!

TRANSLATION: To those who live in countries where real terrorist bombs explode, killing scores of people, we in New York have survived an M-80 attack and have fixed the glass door. We are not afraid. The subways, buses, and traffic that were never impacted by the minor blast are now running again, after a lengthy delay because the Government has decided that commerce may continue without obstruction.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: Whoever the coward was that committed this disgraceful act on our city will be found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

TRANSLATION: We will use all our vast power to get this lousy stinking S.O.B for revealing the Mighty American State to be a paper tiger scared of lone guys on bicycles with small explosives. We don’t want the American people to guess that the State can’t protect them against real terrorists with real explosives.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: We will not tolerate such attacks. Nor will we let them destroy our freedom to live safely in the greatest city in the world.

TRANSLATION: This is the greatest city in the world because we live here, and New Yorkers are better than other Americans. The fact that you think your country is better or your people freer, or that your city has cleaner streets, better transportation, more polite people is irrelevant. In order to keep our illusion of moral, intellectual, and economic superiority, we must have cops armed with stun guns and automatic weapons, we must have spot checks, we must search our citizens, with dogs if necessary. We do this because we believe in Liberty and Freedom.

March 8, 2008

A.D Lelong [send him mail] grew up in the NYC area. He started in radio in North Carolina as a reporter. In 1994 he moved back to New York City where he has been working as a producer and newsroom sound editor for a news-talk radio station. He currently lives in Queens and enjoys skeet and sporting clays shooting, bird hunting, and sailing.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

March 3, 2008

Accepting Reality Is No Vice;

Being Oblivious Is No Virtue

America is an amazing place – one of the wealthiest and freest nations on earth. Yet because Europe has so many more cultures and languages in one contained area, Americans, compared to their European brethren, seem like country bumpkins in their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in the world. Unfortunately, this tin ear for global affairs sometimes afflicts U.S. leaders and media, too.

The obliviousness of the American people, politicians, and press is especially acute when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the media, always concerned that they might be branded as “liberal” or “unpatriotic,” portray dramatic improvements in Iraq because of the U.S. troop surge orchestrated by the heroic Gen. David Petraeus. In fact, this portrayal has been so rosy – and so accepted hook, line, and sinker by the American people – that the Republicans will attempt to use progress in Iraq against the Democrats in the 2008 election! In Afghanistan, the press coverage has been more accurate concerning the worrisome resurgence of the Taliban, but the media and the Democrats seem to think that the United States could still win if more troops – U.S. or NATO – are inserted, or if the U.S. were to get its meek allies to put more of their existing forces into battle against enemy fighters. If the American public is deluded over the surge in Iraq, it is simply ignorant of what is going on in Afghanistan.

At the risk of being a “nattering nabob of negativity,” I would argue that the United States is still losing – and ultimately will be defeated – in both of these brushfire guerrilla wars. Others are pointing in the same direction. In an important new book, Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq, William R. Polk, who has experienced insurgencies in the field, concludes from history that in the mid- to long-term – absent genocide by counterinsurgency forces – insurgents almost always prevail.

Even after spending $650 billion, more than 4,000 U.S. and allied lives, and tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi lives on these two wars, many U.S. politicians and most of the media and American public still prefer to avoid the stark reality that it has all been in vain – that is, that the United States is likely to lose both of these never ending wars.

In Iraq, the violence has declined from peak levels, but it actually started dropping even before the U.S. troop surge, primarily because severe ethnic cleansing had separated the warring Sunnis and Shia into homogenous ghettos, and because the United States had begun to pay off the Sunni guerrillas to police their local areas and fight the excessively bloodthirsty (and therefore incompetent) al-Qaeda in Iraq. More important, evidence exists that the militias in Iraq, like all good guerrilla forces, have patience and are merely waiting until the United States leaves. Even with the surge, violence – although reduced – is still high, and no national reconciliation among the mutually suspicious groups has been achieved.

And it’s likely that none will be. Decades of wars, including the U.S. invasion and occupation, and grinding international economic sanctions have further widened the deep social fissures in what was already one of the most fractious countries in the Middle East. Had the obtuse Bush administration bothered to consult Arabist scholars before launching its ill-fated invasion and occupation, it would have learned that faction-ridden Iraq, an artificial country dreamed up by the British after World War I, was the least likely of practically any nation in the Middle East to accept a liberal, federated democracy. The level of incomes and social cooperation are too low for a liberal democracy to be sustained. Even if the Iraqi government manages to pass all of the benchmark laws that the Bush administration wants (unlikely, since the president’s council just vetoed a law to hold local elections), the underlying social fragmentation will render such laws mere paper exercises, because no one will honor them. The U.S. troop surge is merely a finger in the dike, temporarily holding back these titanic social forces from clashing in full-blown civil war.

Afghanistan, like Iraq, is naturally a decentralized tribal land. Continued U.S. and allied occupation is merely fueling a resurgence of the Taliban there and radical Islamic elements in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons. Coercive U.S. and Afghan government anti-drug efforts are further exacerbating the Taliban’s rise, as poppy growers pay the Taliban for protection. Really, President Hamid Karzai’s role is only mayor of Kabul; warlords control the rest of the country. The media, the American public, and even the Democrats think Afghanistan is a “must win” in the war on terror. Yet Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Qaeda, are probably in Pakistan – not Afghanistan. To have the best chance to capture or kill these terrorist kingpins, perhaps, for once, the U.S. government should concentrate its efforts and vast resources where they are likely to be.

To achieve such focus on the perpetrators of 9/11, the next president of the United States could actually take advantage of the American people’s apathy toward foreign affairs, cut U.S. losses, and withdraw U.S. forces immediately from both Afghanistan and Iraq – two quagmires that are creating new radical Islamic terrorists in reaction to the occupation of Muslim lands by non-Muslims.

Ivy Leaguers for an Independent Investigation

March 4, 2008

Declaring dissenters to be mentally ill is a tactic as old as time itself. The Soviets would declare political dissidents to be mentally ill and would ship them off to a mental institution.

The US mainstream media still insist that those who demand an independent investigation must suffer from some sort of mental illness. The Australian Media, the Canadian Media, the Japanese media and the Italian media have for the past few months been airing charges of 9/11 as an inside job. The Italian media has done what the US media is too afraid of doing – allowing family members on air to criticize the official story.

Furthermore, The head of the Coalition of 9/11 families, Bill Doyle, has stated that half of the families suspect 9/11 was an inside job. It is perfectly natural to question the government. It is the constitutional duty of government to leave no stone unturned when investigating a crime as massive as 9/11. The fact that two members of the 9/11 Commission have recently written to the New York Times claiming that the CIA obstructed their investigation, only serves to strengthen our case.

The tactics employed by the US mainstream media are despicable. They denounce questions as “conspiracy theories” in the same manner that the ruling elite denounced dissent as “heresy” during the middle ages. A conspiracy theory is not the equivalent of investigating a crime. 9/11 was a crime. Investigating UFO’s and concluding that they are extraterrestrial phenomena which is being covered up by the government IS a conspiracy theory. Investigating a crime is NOT a conspiracy theory. It is our duty as citizens of a constitutional republic to serve jury duty.

The government has failed to determine who truly carried out 9/11. Osama Bin Laden’s FBI most wanted poster does not accuse him of being responsible for 9/11 – because there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11. It is now OUR duty to examine the evidence and determine what truly happened that fateful day.

Saying that 9/11 was an inside job is the result of carefully and objectively examining the evidence surrounding that disastrous crime in much the same manner that we would examine that evidence were we performing jury duty. I have not met ONE person who has carefully examined all the evidence and has concluded that ALL questions have been answered.

If you still have any doubts, the following mental health professionals have examined the evidence and have concluded that 9/11 was an inside job.

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6228

Thank you George Washington Blog

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 4, 2008

In response to the arrest of a 9/11 demonstrator during a Bill Clinton appearance in Corpus Christi, corporate media shill and former Republican Congress critter Joe Scarborough and his co-hosts demanded 9/11 truthers be tasered and taken to detention camps. “Where’s the taser?” Joe wants to know as MSNBC runs footage of the man’s arrest. “Tase him!” His co-host adds: “Led away in handcuffs and hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in eastern Europe and never to be heard from again… I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.”

In other words, the corporate behemoth MSNBC believes people who disagree with the government not only do not deserve First Amendment rights and protection, but also believe demonstrators should be kidnapped by the CIA and taken to a “special prison” to be tortured and ultimately killed, as this is the fate many who disappear suffer.

Is it possible the United States is about to become like Pinochet’s Chile? In 1973, thanks to the CIA and U.S. corporations, Chile became a brutal police state. Chileans were subjected to systematic and massive violations of their most basic human rights. Official figures indicate that nearly 3,000 people were executed, disappeared or lost their lives as a result of torture and political violence. It would seem “Morning Joe” would enthusiastically welcome the installation of a fascist state where those he disagrees with are disappeared, tortured, and murdered.

Last October, CNN host Glenn Beck called 9/11 truthers “insane” and “dangerous anarchists” in response to 9/11 truthers infiltrating the Real Time with Bill Maher show. “These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation’s foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us… [this is] the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from,” declared Beck, setting a precedence followed this morning by the scurrilous Joe Scarborough and his complaisant minions.

“In thousands of 9/11 protests over the course of the last six years, not one person has been arrested for violent conduct,” Steve Watson wrote at the time. “To cart blanches suggest that the truth movement is dangerous, ‘a threat to children’ and intent on violence is extremely inflammatory and indicates just how afraid of investigating and debating the facts people like Glen Beck actually are.”
The core of the 9/11 truth movement is composed of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence and are intent on protecting a free and peaceful society which has been under dire threat ever since the attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing cover up.

Furthermore the movement represents the very antithesis of anarchism in that it is actively seeking to restore and protect our traditional form of government which has been usurped by an unaccountable cabal that continues to operate outside of Constitutional law and with little restraint using 9/11 as justification

Indeed, Beck and Scarborough are calling for such draconian measures simply because the 9/11 truth movement is comprised “of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence” and because of this they must be demonized as a threat to national security and thus the government must kidnap, torture, and murder them. Although Scarborough did not suggest 9/11 truth “idiots” be murdered, this is of course the ultimate fate of those who oppose militarized fascism, now gaining speed in the United States.

By Dawn Of Liberty | March 2, 2008   

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=7845#more-7845

In this year’s presidential election, God has blessed us in a manner of sharp contrast with, on the one hand, a candidate(now serving a 10th term in Congress) who truly represents America and the ideals of our forefathers, and on the other hand, a variety of other candidates inclined to all manner of unconstituitional evil, some to a greater, some to a lesser degree.

Can one believe this is a coincidence? Or is our Creator giving America it’s final warning?

Our forefathers warned us that character and virtue would be the great security of our Constitution, and America’s God-fearing common man the backbone. Did they not warn us that with the signing of the Declaration of Independence the American people became bound by the laws of God? Because the sins of the fathers take several generations to be visited upon posterity, does this change the equation?

We see many Christian-leaders seemingly unwilling to support rightness, make conscious choices and Godly decisions. Is it that they are so politically-conditioned as to compromise their higher self and the soul’s judgment by submitting to, and opting for, a mere “lesser evil?” Do they not realize and value what our forefathers died for?

Were they to listen to their higher self, could they not hear the great words of our forefathers echo from the realms above, and their souls thus cry out with righteous indignation in the face of wrong?

Do our modern day church leaders not realize to what great accountability their souls are held to their flocks?

As for me, better to be excommunicated from the church than from my own soul. My God has asked what it profits a man to gain the whole world, if it be at the expense of his higher self. I think it’s time to start listening to this higher self, or God have mercy on us!

The Water Cure

Debating torture and counterinsurgency—a century ago.

By Paul Kramer

21/02/08 “New Yorker” — Many Americans were puzzled by the news, in 1902, that United States soldiers were torturing Filipinos with water. The United States, throughout its emergence as a world power, had spoken the language of liberation, rescue, and freedom. This was the language that, when coupled with expanding military and commercial ambitions, had helped launch two very different wars. The first had been in 1898, against Spain, whose remaining empire was crumbling in the face of popular revolts in two of its colonies, Cuba and the Philippines. The brief campaign was pitched to the American public in terms of freedom and national honor (the U.S.S. Maine had blown up mysteriously in Havana Harbor), rather than of sugar and naval bases, and resulted in a formally independent Cuba.

[A picture of a “water detail,” reportedly taken in May, 1901, in Sual,

the Philippines. “It is a terrible torture,” one soldier wrote.] A picture of a “water detail,” reportedly taken in May, 1901, in Sual, the Philippines. “It is a terrible torture,” one soldier wrote.

The Americans were not done liberating. Rising trade in East Asia suggested to imperialists that the Philippines, Spain’s largest colony, might serve as an effective “stepping stone” to China’s markets. U.S. naval plans included provisions for an attack on the Spanish Navy in the event of war, and led to a decisive victory against the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay in May, 1898. Shortly afterward, Commodore George Dewey returned the exiled Filipino revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo to the islands. Aguinaldo defeated Spanish forces on land, declared the Philippines independent in June, and organized a government led by the Philippine élite.

During the next half year, it became clear that American and Filipino visions for the islands’ future were at odds. U.S. forces seized Manila from Spain—keeping the army of their ostensible ally Aguinaldo from entering the city—and President William McKinley refused to recognize Filipino claims to independence, pushing his negotiators to demand that Spain cede sovereignty over the islands to the United States, while talking about Filipinos’ need for “benevolent assimilation.” Aguinaldo and some of his advisers, who had been inspired by the United States as a model republic and had greeted its soldiers as liberators, became increasingly suspicious of American motivations. When, after a period of mounting tensions, a U.S. sentry fired on Filipino soldiers outside Manila in February, 1899, the second war erupted, just days before the Senate ratified a treaty with Spain securing American sovereignty over the islands in exchange for twenty million dollars. In the next three years, U.S. troops waged a war to “free” the islands’ population from the regime that Aguinaldo had established. The conflict cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos and about four thousand U.S. soldiers.

Within the first year of the war, news of atrocities by U.S. forces—the torching of villages, the killing of prisoners—began to appear in American newspapers. Although the U.S. military censored outgoing cables, stories crossed the Pacific through the mail, which wasn’t censored. Soldiers, in their letters home, wrote about extreme violence against Filipinos, alongside complaints about the weather, the food, and their officers; and some of these letters were published in home-town newspapers. A letter by A. F. Miller, of the 32nd Volunteer Infantry Regiment, published in the Omaha World-Herald in May, 1900, told of how Miller’s unit uncovered hidden weapons by subjecting a prisoner to what he and others called the “water cure.” “Now, this is the way we give them the water cure,” he explained. “Lay them on their backs, a man standing on each hand and each foot, then put a round stick in the mouth and pour a pail of water in the mouth and nose, and if they don’t give up pour in another pail. They swell up like toads. I’ll tell you it is a terrible torture.”

On occasion, someone—a local antiwar activist, one suspects—forwarded these clippings to centers of anti-imperialist publishing in the Northeast. But the war’s critics were at first hesitant to do much with them: they were hard to substantiate, and they would, it was felt, subject the publishers to charges of anti-Americanism. This was especially true as the politics of imperialism became entangled in the 1900 Presidential campaign. As the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, clashed with the Republican incumbent over imperialism, which the Democrats called “the paramount issue,” critics of the war had to defend themselves against accusations of having treasonously inspired the insurgency, prolonged the conflict, and betrayed American soldiers. But, after McKinley won a second term, the critics may have felt that they had little to lose.

Ultimately, outraged dissenters—chief among them the relentless Philadelphia-based reformer Herbert Welsh—forced the question of U.S. atrocities into the light. Welsh, who was descended from a wealthy merchant family, might have seemed an unlikely investigator of military abuse at the edge of empire. His main antagonists had previously been Philadelphia’s party bosses, whose sordid machinations were extensively reported in Welsh’s earnest upstart weekly, City and State. Yet he had also been a founder of the “Indian rights” movement, which attempted to curtail white violence and fraud while pursuing Native American “civilization” through Christianity, U.S. citizenship, and individual land tenure. An expansive concern with bloodshed and corruption at the nation’s periphery is perhaps what drew Welsh’s imagination from the Dakotas to Southeast Asia. He had initially been skeptical of reports of misconduct by U.S. troops. But by late 1901, faced with what he considered “overwhelming” proof, Welsh emerged as a single-minded campaigner for the exposure and punishment of atrocities, running an idiosyncratic investigation out of his Philadelphia offices. As one who “professes to believe in the gospel of Christ,” he declared, he felt obliged to condemn “the cruelties and barbarities which have been perpetrated under our flag in the Philippines.” Only the vigorous pursuit of justice could restore “the credit of the American nation in the eyes of the civilized world.” By early 1902, three assistants to Welsh were chasing down returning soldiers for their testimony, and Philippine “cruelties” began to crowd Philadelphia’s party bosses from the pages of City and State.

PHOTOGRAPH: ATTRIBUTED TO CORPORAL GEORGE J. VENNAGE


by Chuck Baldwin
February 15, 2008

It is time to say it: the two major parties hold a death grip on the American people. Instead of representing the people, both the Republican and Democrat parties are bought and paid for by special interest groups and multinational corporations. Neither party pays any attention to the U.S. Constitution but both are largely marching in lockstep toward bigger and bigger government. Both Republicans and Democrats eagerly sacrifice what’s good for the country for what’s good for the party. As they now exist, neither major party deserves the support of patriotic Americans.

Furthermore, blind allegiance to the two major parties has created a “lesser of two evils” mindset that has warped the thinking and perverted the values of otherwise good people. What people would never accept in any other venue of society, they gladly and willingly accept from their chosen party’s candidates.

People expect honesty and integrity from clergymen, bankers, doctors, businessmen, realtors, journalists, and even used car salesmen. Those same people, however, quickly tolerate and even excuse dishonesty and chicanery from their chosen political party.

Ever since George W. Bush became President of these United States, I have watched in disbelief as my fellow Christian conservatives have not only looked the other way as Bush repeatedly betrayed conservative/constitutional principles, but have willingly and enthusiastically supported his apostasy. Many of them are continuing to do the same thing by supporting the Big-Government, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, pro-100-year war, grubby candidacy of John McCain. Good grief! Pat Robertson even endorsed the soiled candidacy of the liberal cross-dresser, Rudy Giuliani.

It is clear, therefore, that conservatives are more than willing to support and defend someone they know to be unfaithful to both their oath of office and to bedrock conservative principles. In other words, it does not matter a whit to them whether their candidate tells the truth, obeys the Constitution, or even demonstrates fidelity to the fundamental principles of liberty. If he has an “R” behind his name, conservatives will support him.

However, the same people who will justify dishonesty in the lives of their favored party’s politicians would never accept such conduct from anyone else. Furthermore, many of these conservatives actually call themselves Christians; many are preachers. They preach and teach the virtues of honesty and integrity from the pulpit. They teach boys and girls to be honest and virtuous: to put the principles of right above personal wealth or benefit. Then, they turn around and support these lying politicians, many of whom are fornicating, greedy, arrogant reprobates. What is even more amazing is that they find no inconsistency with what they are doing.

In his Farewell Address, our first and greatest President, George Washington, eloquently lobbied the American people to guard against over-infatuation with political parties. Anyone reading his warnings today will be impressed with his insight and wisdom. Virtually everything he predicted has come to pass. Blind loyalty to political parties has corrupted our public institutions, blinded the hearts and minds of the American people, and opened wide the door to undue foreign influence.

If everyone who believes and teaches honesty and accountability would put it into practice when they walk into the voting booth, we could put a stop to this pathetic practice of electing dishonest and despicable people to high public office. Instead of hiding their own character and integrity under the bushel basket of party partisanship, voters could be proud of the fact that they are actually helping to set the ship of state aright by electing men and women of honesty and character.

Although I do not share this opinion, many people believe Abraham Lincoln to be one of America’s greatest presidents (I think he was one of the worst). Personal opinion aside, it is a fact that Lincoln’s election and subsequent influence upon this country was huge. Therefore, it is more than significant to realize that Lincoln was first elected from a four-person race with only 39% of the popular vote. Even more significant is the fact that at that time the Republican Party was a minor party, having been formed only a few years earlier. So much for the argument that a minor party cannot win a major election.

In practically every Presidential election, there are candidates from a variety of independent or “third” parties on the ballot. To ignore them merely because they are not Republicans or Democrats is absurd. Furthermore, it is more than obvious that the GOP will not tolerate principled candidates running for President. The recent Presidential candidacies of Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul make this abundantly clear.

While it may still be appropriate to support state and local Republican candidates, at the Presidential level, it is waste of time–and a wasted vote–to support the establishment Republican candidates. They are all Big-Government liberals. Yes, that includes Mike Huckabee.

I recommend that people seriously consider voting for a Third Party candidate this November. Start by taking a close look at the Constitution Party.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The Constitution Party (the third largest political party in America) has a proven track record of fidelity to pro-life, conservative principles and to constitutional government. I further believe it is time for principled columnists and journalists such as Charley Reese to start encouraging voters to support principled, independent candidates. The same goes for leaders of the Religious Right such as Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and Phyllis Schlafly. For them to continue to ignore good, independent candidates only serves to strengthen and augment the two-party death grip.

It is more than interesting that more people are currently registered as Independents than either Republican or Democrat. But it is not enough to register as an Independent, we must start voting Independent. Remember, the object is to elect honest and honorable leaders for our country, not to promote and protect the private agendas of the fat cats who control the two major parties.

It increasingly appears that the two major parties will force the American people to choose between the fascistic John McCain or the Marxist Barack Obama. Is that really the kind of choice we are willing to accept? Are we really content to continue to vote the “party line,” no matter what damage results?

Let’s face it, folks: the two major parties are strangling the life out of this country. It is indeed a death grip. Something drastic must be done, and it must be done NOW! Since it does not appear that either major party is salvageable (at the national level), it is up to “We the people” to take matters into our own hands. This means bypassing the mainstream press and relying more on the Internet for our news and information. And it means bypassing the two major parties and voting for Independent candidates for President.

If Michael Bloomberg throws his hat in the Presidential ring, it will already be a three-man race. A strong independent conservative contender would make it a viable four-man race (just like 1860). At that point, anything could happen. But first, we must awaken to the reality of the two-party death grip, and then decide to do something about it. I am ready. How about you?


*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080215.html

Original Article

911 Blogger

February 12, 2008Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.

I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.

Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).

Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, “Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters.”

BreakTheMatrix.com <– Take back the media!
Posted: 11 Feb 2008 05:39 PM CST

To All Ron Paul Supporters And Our Friends In The Grassroots

This is the beginning, ladies and gentlemen. The beginning of the end for the stranglehold of the mainstream media. The beginning of the end for the masters in high places. The beginning of the end for the media blackout of the values and philosophies expressed by Ron Paul and other political candidates that share his views. The beginning of the time when we take our country back.
It starts right here, at BreakTheMatrix.com. We are forming a grassroots organization and movement that will carry the words and values of freedom off the Internet and out to those millions of Americans who only receive their news and entertainment from mainstream radio and television. As Dr. Paul himself said so well on February 9, 2008: The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.” Indeed. The tired, empty mantras of “right and left,” of “conservative and liberal,” of “Democrat and Republican,” will no longer stand unchallenged in our mainstream media outlets. Freedom, prosperity, peace, hope—the great ideas are coming to America.
Here’s How
We’re starting our own grassroots media company. Basic Media, Inc. (in formation) will create, build and connect Internet based radio and television outlets for freedom voices and faces around the United States and worldwide. The newly forming company will develop a wide ranging array of interesting and entertaining content on the web, and transmit our shows to mainstream “off the Internet” people through a variety of communications technologies and strategies. We’re talking right now to syndicators, producers, advertising specialists, and our many grassroots friends about how this goal can best be achieved. These are friends with ideas; with skills; and with vision. Friends who understand how to develop and utilize top of the line content and the technologies needed for creation and transmittal of entertaining and informative radio and television shows to a “non Internet” mainstream audience. Very simply, we’re creating a new media network. And we’re inviting you to be part of it.
The Internet prototypes are already in existence. We in the grassroots have watched them take root over the course of the Ron Paul presidential campaign—and what tremendous work the early media pioneers have been doing! Two online radio stations have been up and running for months at ronpaulradio.com and rprradio.com. These volunteer radio outlets have provided a platform for dozens of outstanding radio hosts who spread the news of our Ron Paul movement 24/7 across the worldwide web. And the growth of online video capability has been even more impressive. The spontaneous creation of Youtube content about Ron Paul and his message is a grand story in its own right. Myspace.com has provided some powerful tools. And Justintv.com has broken new ground every day with video streams broadcasting in real time from events in the Ron Paul campaign. The core technologies are already in place for high quality content creation and delivery on the web, and Basic Media, Inc. will take this process to the next higher level with syndication and delivery platform strategies that carry our message to the radios and television sets of every household in America. Break the monopoly of the establishment media! Break the wall of silence that stifles voices of truth in our nation! Break the matrix. With Basic Media, Inc.
While “off Internet” content delivery is our first and most readily achievable goal, there is a second core aspect to what we’ll be doing in the new company. This whole process is all about organization, and communication, and the implementation of social networking tools that will bring people together as a positive force for change in America. There are many of us now. We are all across the country. So we need to find each other; to do business together; to share stories and strategies; and to build this grand freedom movement on a going forward basis that will flourish and thrive long after the 2008 presidential campaign is over. The inspiring work of grassroots organizers at ronpaulforums.com; at dailypaul.com; at meetup groups; and at other locations all across the Internet has shown us the great power of networking tools that are already in existence. The early organizers have started a process, and there is much to build upon. But the movement for change is barely beginning, and there’s so much more that we can do to bring people together. Building a nationwide/worldwide community—the second key goal of Basic Media, Inc.
Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman are the initial organizers and executive officers of the new entity in formation. For over 34 years, Mr. Williams has been a practicing lawyer in Los Angeles, California. He is a graduate of UCLA School of Law (JD 1973), where he served on the Board of Editors of the UCLA Law Review. Mr. Williams was a business administration major at Washington State University (BA 1969), and he worked in the finance and accounting group at Shell Oil Company before entering law school. Mr. Williams is an avid student of the Austrian school of economics, and he hosted radio shows throughout the Ron Paul presidential campaign talking about the Federal Reserve system and the practices of our bankers. Trevor Lyman became widely known as a grassroots fundraiser for the November 5 moneybomb, the Teaparty moneybomb, and RonPaul Blimp.com. Mr. Lyman has been the subject of numerous media profiles and interviews as a result of his efforts, and he is perhaps the most recognizable name and face in the grassroots movement. You’ve seen what Trevor Lyman has done, and you know the results that he achieved for the Ron Paul campaign. Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman have been two of the activists, but we’re not here to speak of the past. The future is what matters. So this is what we’re planning to do.
Here Are the Specifics
Basic Media, Inc., the new corporation in formation, will be structured to create and transmit top quality radio and television shows using Internet technology platforms. We hope to draw from the enormous pool of talent that already exists in the freedom movement, and capture the very best content for packaging and distribution to mainstream radio and television outlets off the web and across the United States. Our “off Internet” distribution opportunities are wide ranging and diverse—everything from nationwide/worldwide satellite delivery to locally owned radio and television stations. We’ll pick and choose. We’ll select and utilize the most valuable and efficient delivery strategies that are available for our content.
How about cash flow? Like any other media outlet, our revenues will derive primarily from the sale of advertising time. Basic Media, Inc. will be operating as a “for profit” business, and isn’t that what it’s all about? Our goal and objective is to create and deliver high quality content, spread the values and philosophies that we believe in, and make a profit in the process. There are no guarantees of profitability, of course, and we all must recognize that media advertising is a highly competitive market. The effort to achieve profitability will be challenging, and we should not fool ourselves into thinking that high paying advertisers will magically appear on our doorstep. But advertisers are constantly looking for emerging markets and new ways to get their messages out to the community. And for the most part, existing media entities don’t own their advertisers. If we capture a mainstream audience, we believe the advertisers will follow. This is how the matrix can be broken.
Basic Media, Inc. is not a political entity, and we will not affiliate with existing or future campaigns of Ron Paul or any other candidate for elective office. We will fully and cheerfully comply with all “equal time” requirements of the Federal Election Commission and other election authorities. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity to compare (and contrast) our values and philosophies of freedom, prosperity, peace and hope with those of candidates seeking election under the banner of any political party. We can sponsor debates; host candidate forums; and provide analysis of candidate positions. Our content delivery platform can be used to shed the light of truth on any serious candidate for office, and we will work to replace the existing closed media system with a free marketplace of political ideas. Picture, for example, a debate session organized by Basic Media, Inc. where Ron Paul, John McCain and Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama all receive “equal time.” An intriguing thought, isn’t it? Nothing more need be said on the subject of political activism.
This document is an initial “solicitation of interest” issued pursuant to section 254 of Part 230–General Rules and Regulations, Securities Act of 1933. We are preparing a Regulation A initial public offering of stock over the Internet through the medium of electronic delivery of securities information. Basic Media, Inc. (the newly forming company) will offer a total of 500,000 shares of common stock to the public at a price of $10 per share, with a minimum purchase requirement of 10 shares per individual purchaser. If the offering is fully subscribed and sold, the public shareholders of Basic Media, Inc. will own a total of 41.67% of the outstanding common stock of the company as of the closing date. You may indicate your interest in participation in the stock offering by visiting the website, entering your email address and pressing pledge at the top of the page. Thereafter, you might wish to visit this website at BreakTheMatrix.com for information as to when the Offering Circular will be ready for review, and when binding stock subscription documents will be available for delivery. To the extent needed, we will also provide email updates regarding our progress.
Basic Media, Inc. is organizing as a grassroots response to the deficiencies that are so glaringly obvious in our existing mainstream media structure. The company founders are confident and hopeful about our prospects for success, but none of us should underestimate the scope of the challenge that lies ahead. It’s a big task, and our success depends on your help, your talents, your energy, and your commitment to the goal of bringing real change to America. So tell us your ideas for the new venture. Write to either of us at the email addresses on this page. Share with us your talents, and let us know your views about how the new entity might best fulfill its mission. This document is the first step in a lengthy securities offering process, and please take careful note of the following rules and requirements issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission:

(1) No money or other consideration is being solicited at this time, and if sent in response, will not be accepted;

(2) No sale of the securities will be made or commitment to purchase accepted until delivery of an offering circular that includes complete information about the issuer and the offering;

(3) Any indication of interest made by a prospective investor involves no obligation or commitment of any kind.

We’re looking forward to hearing from you, and we close this letter with a few simple words that Ron Paul has spoken often on the presidential campaign trail. Dr. Paul says: “Let’s have fun!
Very truly yours,
Basic Media, Inc. (in formation)
Rick Williams
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
rdw2008@gmail.com
Trevor Lyman
Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer
lyman.trevor@gmail.com

We are not associated or affiliated with Ron Paul or his campaigns for President and Congress.