Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Tyranny Watch: Obamacare Scandal Has Whitehouse Ties

FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Investigation For ‘Lying, Unethical Behavior’

May 14, 2013 161 Comments Jack Flash Excerpted from EO-History: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Keep reading…

Friday, October 25, 2013

The debt ceiling

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more 
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! 
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, 
cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed

Congressional Reform Act of 2013 

 No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

 Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

 Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

 Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

 Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

 Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

 All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/13. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?


Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Monsanto Protection Act Has Been Repealed

Success! The Monsanto Protection Act Has Been Repealed—This Time for Good!

October 22, 2013
Thanks to your activism, the controversial provision was removed from the government funding bill that was signed into law last week.

monsanto fieldThe bill, which passed both the House and the Senate on October 16, was a triumph of citizen involvement. Because of your emails, letters, and phone calls, and the hard work of a coalition of other organizations who joined together in this fight, we were able to wipe out the Monsanto Protection Act. The provision, which stripped federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of potentially hazardous genetically engineered crops, was inserted at the last minute in a funding bill back in March by allies of Monsanto and other GMO companies, but it is now history. (If you wish to read it for yourself, Section 101(1) of the bill contains the repeal language.)

Sen. Barbra Mikulski (D-MD), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee who led efforts to repeal the Monsanto language, said recently, “My promises made are promises kept.” Thank you, Senator Mikulski!

Saturday, July 13, 2013

A Guide To The Smear Campaign Against Occupy Wall Street

The right-wing media have engaged in a relentless smear campaign against the Occupy Wall Street movement, including calling the protesters socialists and Marxists, saying they represent the "fringe of the fringe of the fringe," and claiming they "sound like the Unabomber," among other attacks.
The Protesters Are "The Fringe" And "Lunatics"

The Protesters Are "The Fringe" And "Lunatics"

Fox's Doug Schoen Claims The Occupy Wall Street Movement "Reflects Values That Are Dangerously Out Of Touch With The Broad Mass Of The American People." In an October 18 Wall Street Journal article, Fox News contributor Doug Schoen claimed, based on in-person interviews his polling firm conducted at Zuccotti Park, that the Occupy Wall Street movement "reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people." [The Wall Street Journal, 10/18/11, via Media Matters]
For more on Schoen's flawed poll, SEE HERE
Varney: Demonstrators Are The "Fringe Of The Fringe Of The Fringe." On the October 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed:
VARNEY: I think the numbers [of protesters] start to fade away. Rain and cold will do that to demonstrators. I -- they haven't got the numbers. This is not a movement, certainly not in New York, that's numbered in the thousands. It's a few hundred, mostly. And let's not forget, it's the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. That's who is down there demonstrating. And the rest, those who are not fringe, fringe, fringe people, they're flat-out socialists. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/14/11, via Media Matters]
Hannity Graphic Labels Protesters "Lunatics Of The Left Wing." During the September 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity, an on-screen graphic aired while the co-hosts discussed the protests, reading, "Lunatics of the left wing":
[Fox News, Hannity, 9/30/11, via Media Matters]

OWS Website Reads Like "The Ravings Of ... The Unabomber"

Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "What You Will Read Is The Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber." On the October 8 edition of Fox News' America's News HQ, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta claimed, "I advise anybody who has a sense of humor left about this to go to, and what you will read is the ravings of what sounds like the Unabomber ... it's certainly better going down there and carrying signs than going out and hitting the pavement for a job." [Fox News, America's News HQ, 10/8/11, via Media Matters]

They're Only "Little Rascals" And "Petulant Little Children" ...

Doocy Quotes NY Post To Claim "Number One Reason" People Attend The Protest Is "Free Food." On the October 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed she "wanted to give you a flavor of some of the people who are" at the protests. Fox & Friends then showed a picture of an alleged "fugitive" who they said "needs some methadone every day." Carlson then showed an image of a man who was allegedly teaching protesters "how to pick a set of handcuffs with a bobby pin." Co-host Steve Doocy concluded the segment by citing a New York Post article to claim that the "number one reason people are -- you know the crowd is growing -- number one reason people are going to this thing: food, there is free food for everybody." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/10/11, via Media Matters]
Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Do Seem Like Petulant Little Children." On the October 10 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Eric Bolling hosted syndicated columnist Star Parker to attack the Occupy Wall Street protests. Bolling introduced the segment by claiming that the protesters "do seem like petulant little children ... how about going out and trying to find a job instead?" [Fox News, Your World, 10/10/11, via Media Matters]
Limbaugh Derides Occupy Wall Street Protesters As "Pure, Genuine Parasites," Says Many Are "Bored Trust Fund Kids." On the October 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh called the protesters "pure, genuine parasites" and said many are "bored trust fund kids." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/10/11, via Media Matters]
Fox's Johnson: Wall Street Protesters Are "The Little Rascals Gone Camping Down In Downtown Manhattan." On the October 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, "We basically have the Little Rascals gone camping down in downtown Manhattan." Johnson later claimed the protesters have become the "unintentional dupes of the 2012 election." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/6/11, via Media Matters]
Fox's Stephen Hayes On Occupy Wall Street: "This Is Not Going To Amount Of Any Kind Of A Serious Movement." During the October 4 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Stephen Hayes, a Fox News contributor and senior writer for The Weekly Standard, said of the Occupy Wall Street protests, "This is not going to amount to any kind of a serious movement." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 10/4/11, via Media Matters]

... Who Don't Know What They Want ...

Johnson: "I Would Think" Wall Street Protesters "Are Deluded In A Lot Of Ways." On the October 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. attacked the Occupy Wall Street protesters, claiming, "Clearly, I would think these folks are deluded in a lot of ways and probably provide the best argument for national service for 18-year-olds that we have ever seen." Johnson later said of the protests: "I don't know what it is. I don't think they know what it is. But it's costing Americans millions of dollars in tax dollars in order to arrest them." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/3/11, via Media Matters]
Fox's Watters: Wall Street Protesters Are "The Sludge" Of "Every Left-Wing Cause." On the September 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News producer Jesse Watters said of the protests: "I think if you put every single left-wing cause into a blender and hit power this is the sludge you'd get. And it's basically anti-capitalism. And they want to redistribute the wealth. But if you eliminate capitalism, there is no wealth to redistribute." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/30/11, via Media Matters]
Guilfoyle: Protesters Have "Absolutely No Purpose Or Focus" And Are "Just Looking To ... Dirty The Streets." On the September 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle said of the protests: "It's like Woodstock meets Burning Man meets people with absolutely no purpose or focus in life. No wonder, they have nothing but free time to be down there. They make up a slogan or a cause as they go along. And they are just looking to, like, go out there and dirty the streets. And they really don't have any, like, idea about what they are doing there." [Fox News, Hannity, 9/30/11, via Media Matters]

... But We Know They're Socialists, Marxists, And Anarchists Bent On "Destroy[ing] Capitalism" ...

On Fox, NY Post's Goodwin Says OWS Is A "Socialist Movement Designed To Destroy Capitalism." On the October 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin said that Occupy Wall Street is a "socialist movement designed to destroy capitalism." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/18/11, via Media Matters]
Fox's Charles Gasparino: Occupy Wall Street Is A "Marxist Epicenter" That's Becoming "Increasingly Violent." On the October 17 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jenna Lee quoted her guest, Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino, as calling the protests a "Marxist epicenter." Gasparino went on to repeatedly call the protesters "Marxist" and later called them "anti-American" and said the protests are becoming "increasingly violent." [Fox News, Happening Now, 10/17/11, via Media Matters]
WSJ's Bret Stephens: Occupy Wall Street Protests Are "Not Populism -- This Is, Maybe, Anarchism." On the October 16 edition of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Wall Street Journal columnist and editor Bret Stephens said the Occupy Wall Street protests are "not populism -- this is, maybe, anarchism or something entirely different." [CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS, 10/16/11, via Media Matters]
Nugent: "Occupy Wall Street Is Nothing More Than Anti-American Socialism On Parade." In his October 14 Washington Times column, Ted Nugent derided the Occupy Wall Street protesters as "useful idiots" and "softheaded numskulls," and claimed that the movement is "nothing more than anti-American socialism on parade." [The Washington Times, 10/14/11, via Media Matters]

... And They Don't Even Pay Taxes!

Kilmeade: "Taxpayers [Are] Launching A Counter Protest, Saying ... 'We Are the 53 Percent That Actually Pay Our Taxes.' " During the October 11 broadcast of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade hyped conservative commentator Erick Erickson's counter protest, "We Are The 53 Percent," by saying:
KILMEADE: All right, Occupy Wall Street getting some competition. Taxpayers launching a counter protest, saying, quote, "We are the 53 percent that actually pay our taxes and the protests are costing us millions." All true. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
Crowley: Protesters Are "Useful Idiots Who Probably Haven't Paid Much In Taxes Their Whole Life." On the October 10 edition of Fox News' Your World, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley called the protesters "useful idiots who probably haven't paid much in taxes their whole life, have no concept -- and all they know is, 'Oh, profit is a four-letter word, corporations and rich folks -- millionaires and billionaires are evil, they need to be taxed more.' As if they don't pay enough." [Fox News, Your World, 10/10/11, via Media Matters]

They're Not Diverse Enough (Maybe) ...

Daily Caller, Malkin Claim Occupy Wall Street Protests Suffer From "A Serious Lack Of Diversity" And Are "99 Percent Non-Diverse." On October 4, The Daily Caller published an article titled, "99% what? 'Occupy Wall Street' organizers look for minorities." The article claimed "photos and videos" of protesters "indicate they suffer from a serious lack of diversity." It went on to quote right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin as saying, "When Occupy Wall Street activists call themselves the '99 percent,' it turns out they mean 99 percent non-diverse (by their own politically correct measurements)." [The Daily Caller, 10/4/11]
Fox Nation Links To Daily Caller Article Under Photo Of Diverse Crowd. On October 5, Fox Nation linked to the Daily Caller story under a picture of a racially diverse crowd of protesters:
[Fox Nation, 10/5/11]

... But They Sure Are Anti-Semitic

Limbaugh Speculates About "Anti-Semitic Code" In Phrases Like "We Are The 99 Percent" And "Occupy Wall Street." From the October 11 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Now, there's something interesting, too, about the protests. We've talked to you before, last week, week before that, I think, about this group, this magazine called Adbusters. You know, Adbusters is also very much involved in the Occupy Wall Street Now movement. And David Brooks, you know, a clock is right twice a day. David Brooks has a column in The New York Times today with an interesting implication. He writes that the impetus for Occupy Wall Street was sparked by Adbusters magazine.
Now, Adbusters magazine is known for -- you may not have heard of them, but within certain circles Adbusters magazine is known for quite a lot, and one of the things that they did that stands out was an essay in 2004 entitled "Why Won't They Say They Are Jewish?" David Brooks says that that 2004 essay in Adbusters outed influential Jews as a tiny elite with a nefarious grip on America. The old Jewish power brokers, the movies, the bankers, that stereotype, that conspiracy theory. Well, not just the neocons. This was an attack on -- neocons included in it -- but this was an attack on all Jews, this was an anti-Semitic bunch. The -- and some people no doubt are gonna think that Brooks is on to something here. The one percent line -- these people are running around saying, "I'm the 99 percent." These signs I just shared with you in the first half hour of these people writing, "I am the 99 percent" is how each of them ends. That's the last line in each of these signs, or messages, that these people are writing. But they are touting themselves as the 99 percent.
Now, some people think the 99 percent's also the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation because that group also calls themselves the 99ers, but the 99 percent versus the 1 percent is another angle that the group is talking about here. And Wall Street and bankers, those two terms have been anti-Semitic code for Jews in this country for a long time. Occupier, Occupy Wall Street Now. I mean that's -- I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate. There's a lot of interesting stuff here. Occupy Wall Street Now, 99 percent, that leaves 1 percent, roughly the percentage of Jews in the population, too. And Wall Street and bankers have been anti-Semitic code for Jews in this country going back quite a while.
Now, what's happening here is that the Democrats -- this is where Brooks may be on to something. It's too early to tell. But the Democrats are embracing this group of people. They are embracing them big time. The Democrats -- Jan Schakowsky in Illinois, members of Congress -- cannot help themselves. They are embracing this group and encouraging this group. Celebrities are showing up now. Kanye West shows up with Russell Simmons, and he was wearing his big gold chains, and he hung around for a while. He did a little -- he did a perp walk, signed some autographs and had to get out of there because he was mobbed by these people. But this Adbusters bunch has a history of anti-Semitism, proud anti-Semitism. The article about Jewish "neocons" was just one of their pieces, Snerdley, that you mentioned here, along those lines. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
Ace Of Spades Labels Occupy Wall Street Movement "Anti-Semitic." From an Ace of Spades HQ post titled "Obama to Embrace Anti-Semitic 'Occupy' Movement":
After waiting three weeks for glowing MBM reports and biased polls to give the Occupy movement some heft, the White House is ready affiliate itself with the raging hipsters.
In a call previewing Obama's upcoming bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama "will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares," about Washington's laggard response to the financial crisis.
Earnest added that while on the trip, Obama will make it clear that he is fighting to make certain that the "interests of 99 percent of Americans are well represented" -- the first time the White House has used the term to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy.
The media worked night and day to make the Tea Party out to be a racist, violent group of astroturfed malcontents without any legitimate goal, an impression the Democrats were happy to abet. This time around, the make-believe media is delighted to look the other way while the Occupiers demonstrate casual anti-Semitism. [Ace of Spades, 10/17/11]

The Protests Are Astroturfed

Daily Caller Publishes Story Claiming One Organizer "Admit[ted] To Paying Some 'Occupy DC' Protesters." On October 7, The Daily Caller published a story claiming to show that "a liberal organizer" said he "paid some Hispanics to attend 'Occupy DC' protests." [The Daily Caller, 10/7/11, via Media Matters]
Fox & Friends Hypes Daily Caller Story: It's "The Paid-To-Protest Scandal You Got To Hear To Believe." On the October 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said, "And those Wall Street protests spreading again, this time to Washington, D.C. Hundreds showing up to occupy our nation's capital. But hey -- I'd show up, too, if I was getting paid. That's right -- the paid-to-protest scandal you got to hear to believe." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/7/11, via Media Matters]
For the truth about the Daily Caller's story, SEE HERE.

Iran And Chavez Support The Protests ...

Fox's Baier Claimed Occupy Wall Street Protests "Elicit[ed] Support" From Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei. On the October 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier claimed that the protests had "elicit[ed] support" from Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei. [Fox News, Special Report, 10/12/11, via Media Matters]
Baier Previously Claimed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "Threw His Support Behind Protesters." On the October 11 edition of Special Report, Baier claimed that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "threw his support behind protesters" at Occupy Wall Street. [Fox News, Special Report, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
For the truth about Chavez's and Khamenei's statements, SEE HERE.

... And So Do Nazis!

Fox, Jim Hoft, And The Blaze Hype American Nazi Party's Endorsement Of Occupy Wall Street Protests. On October 15, Fox Nation, blogger Jim Hoft, and Glenn Beck's site The Blaze all hyped the American Nazi Party's announcement of support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. On the October 17 edition of Special Report, Baier said that the Occupy Wall Street protests were "getting support from some out-of-the-mainstream groups," including the "American Nazi Party." [Media Matters, 10/18/11]
For more on the right-wing's hyping of the American Nazi Party's endorsement, SEE HERE.

The Protesters Don't Shower Enough

Nugent: Wall Street Protesters Are "Hygiene-Challenged" "Stinky Hippies." In an October 14 Washington Times column, Ted Nugent called the Occupy Wall Street protesters "hygiene-challenged, uber-lefty America-haters" and "[s]tinky hippies." [Washington Times, 10/14/11]
Erickson: Protesters Are "Unwashed Hippies" And "Most Of The Common Ground With Most Of These Damn Dirty Communists Is Superficial." In an October 14 post on RedState, Erick Erickson wrote: "We shouldn't let unwashed hippies be the only people [the unemployed] hear speaking to their concerns. ... Most of the common ground with most of these damn dirty communists is superficial." [RedState, 10/14/11]
RedState: Wall Street Protesters Are "A Slothful And Dirty Bunch." From an October 14 RedState post:
Apparently, the protesters holed up in lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park are a slothful and dirty bunch. Or, to put it in more PC terms, as the owners of the park, Brookfield Partners, stated in a flyer:
"The manner in which Zuccotti Park has been used for the past several weeks has created unsanitary conditions."
As a result, the park that has housed the Neo-Com protesters for the last several weeks is scheduled to get a badly-needed cleaning on Friday morning.
Unsurprisingly, the squatters of Zuccotti Park are upset at the fact that their hovel needs a bath, insisting, according to CNN, that they will not be moving for the clean up.
"Come tomorrow morning, we will passively resist and make it as difficult a process to remove us as possible," said Occupy Wall Street spokesman Tyler Combelic. "It's not an occupation if you can't occupy the park."
Of course not. You can't be a squatter if you can't squat. [RedState, 10/14/11]
Kilmeade: Protesters "Sit In Their Own Squalor All Day." On the October 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Kilmeade claimed Occupy Wall Street protesters "sit in their own squalor all day." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
Kilmeade: Wall Street Protesters "Choose Not To Shower Much." On the October 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Kilmeade mocked the Wall Street protesters, claiming:
KILMEADE: Do you remember during the Bush years around 2004, 2005, the anarchists would just show up at all the G7 meetings? Lot of young people, mostly European, they would show up. This looks [like] the same thing and the same group of people who have one thing in common, they choose not to shower much. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/4/11 via Media Matters]

So Don't Support The 99% -- Support The 53%

Erickson: "I'm One Of The 53% ... Subsidizing These People So They Can Go Hang Out On Wall Street To Complain." In an October 5 post on RedState, CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote:
Well, these people apparently forgot that life is not fair and are demanding the government intervene to legislate that life suddenly become fair. They are claiming to be the "99%" against the evil 1% of rich people who work on Wall Street. They are posting pictures to a website holding up their sob stories. Some are terribly tragic, but most? Boo-freakin'-hoo. Life is not, never has been, and never will be fair.
I would like to point out to these people that I work three jobs, can't sell my house in this economy, still am paying massive student loans, and somehow or another do not blame Wall Street for my situation. In fact, I'm one of the 53% -- the 53% of Americans subsidizing these people so they can go hang out on Wall Street to complain.
Get a job hippies! [RedState, 10/5/11]
Doocy: "The Message [Of The 53 Percent Site] Is The Protesters Have Failed To Take Personal Responsibility ... They Say, 'Suck It Up, You Whiners.' " On the October 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, the co-hosts hyped Erickson's "53 percent" site. Kilmeade claimed the people posting to the 53 percent site "have jobs, and they're trying to earn a living," in contrast to the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who "sit in their own squalor all day." From the broadcast:
CARLSON: In the meantime, you know how this Occupy Wall Street stuff has continued into its fourth week? Well, now some conservatives are launching a counterattack to that, and they are calling this "We are the 53 percent." What does that mean? That means that they say that they are the 53 percent that are paying the taxes that the 47 percent who don't pay federal income taxes -- they're the other group in America who is actually paying federal income taxes.
DOOCY: Yeah, this is the brainchild of Erick Erickson, who runs the website. And the message is the protesters have failed to take personal responsibility for blaming their economic problems on other -- on others. They say, quote, "Suck it up, you whiners. I am the 53 percent subsidizing you so you can hang out on Wall Street and complain." He's taking aim at those people right there, holding the signs.
KILMEADE: And people also -- that's the picture that they have and that's their daily (unclear) -- and some of the people that write, I don't have health insurance, but I don't blame Wall Street. Stop whining, suck it up, and God bless the U.S.A. I don't blame Wall Street, it doesn't matter what Wall Street or anyone else does, I'm responsible for my own destiny, is another one of the messages. And in the big picture, I think it's interesting that they put pictures and explanations, because they have jobs, and they're trying to earn a living. And they cannot sit in - sit in their own squalor all day. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
Kilmeade: "The 53 Percent" Are "The People Who Actually Pay Their Taxes" And "Want You To Pay Your Fair Share." Later during the show, Kilmeade said:
KILMEADE: All right. Wall Street occupiers meet their match. The people who actually pay their taxes are on their way. They call themselves the 53 percent. And they want you to pay your fair share. I'm optimistic that will be a good segment.
During the tease, the following text was aired on-screen:
[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
The Blaze: "Could The 53%-ers Be The New Silent Majority In America?" An October 13 post on The Blaze promoted "a budding movement called 'I am the 53%' " whose followers, it claimed, "are not 'wealthy' people ... but they do not blame 'Wall Street.' " The post went on to claim that the "53%-ers feel a common bond with other responsible/self-sufficient citizens. They also wear their successes and failures with honor." From The Blaze:
Less than a week ago we reported on a budding movement called "I am the 53%." These folks call themselves the 53% because they claim to be part of the 53% of the American people who actually pay Federal Income Taxes, meaning they are ones who support the 47% that pay nothing in Federal taxes.
These are not "wealthy" people. Many are struggling to make ends meet or even to hold on to their homes, but they do not blame "Wall Street." In fact, most feel as if the politicians in Washington, DC are at the core of the problem and do not have the solutions to the troubles plaguing our economy.
The 53%-ers feel a common bond with other responsible/self-sufficient citizens. They also wear their successes and failures with honor. This informal, but growing group of citizens that do not identify with the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd must be of concern for the Left and those who are endorsing the "occupiers" because the Left has started attacking and mocking the 53% movement.
And yet, the growth and momentum of this fledgling movement seems to be building.
Could the 53%-ers be the new silent majority in America? [The Blaze, 10/13/11]
We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

This time, Monsanto may have gone too far.

Monsanto may have finally gone too far. Progressives in Congress are fighting to repeal the infamous "Monsanto Protection Act" and block Monsanto's attacks on state GMO labeling laws, and MoveOn members are leading the grassroots backlash. Can you chip in $5 to help stand up to Monsanto?

Chip in $5
Dear MoveOn member, 
Is there a company in the world more evil than Monsanto? I don't think so.
Last year, Monsanto spent nearly $6 million on lobbying, and their payoff was the "Monsanto Protection Act," which was written anonymously, passed in secret, and allows Monsanto to keep selling genetically engineered seeds even if a federal court says they may pose a health risk.1
Now, Monsanto has sneaked an amendment into the farm bill that would block GMO labeling laws moving forward in states like Vermont and Connecticut.2
This time, Monsanto may have gone too far. A massive backlash is growing against the Monsanto Protection Act, and Senator Jeff Merkley is demanding a floor vote to repeal it.
We can beat Monsanto, but we don't have much time to get organized, because the farm bill has already passed the House and is being debated in the Senate right now. Can you chip in $5 to help MoveOn members fight back against Monsanto?
We know that we'll never be able to outspend Monsanto, but with your help we can out-organize them with smart, well-timed, targeted campaigning. Together, we can take on Monsanto by:
  • Supporting campaigns all over the country led by MoveOn members targeting their members of Congress, asking them to stand up to Monsanto's influence.
  • Providing financial support for flyers, rallies, transportation and the other crucial nuts and bolts necessary to run a strong campaign.
  • Calling out key members of Congress who are supporting Monsanto over the public interest and making sure the public knows whose side they're on
MoveOn leaders around the country are eager to push forward, but they need your help: If we can raise $150,000 in the next two days, we can help kick-start these campaigns immediately.
Last year, Monsanto's $6 million investment bought them several favorable pieces of legislation. But right now, your investment of $5 can help launch a nationwide movement to make sure that our democracy isn't auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Thanks for all you do.
Anna, Wes, Linda, Mariana, and the rest of the team
1. "Lobbying Spending Database—Monsanto Co, 2013,", accessed May 21, 2013
"How the Monsanto Protection Act snuck into law," Salon, March 27, 2013
2. "'Monsanto Protection Act 2.0′ Would Ban GMO-Labeling Laws At State Level," International Business Times, May 20, 2013
Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Boston Marathon Bombing Truth

The Truth Behind the Boston Marathon Bombing Trial

The Truth Behind the Boston Marathon Bombing Trial

What they're not telling you...
The trial of 21-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston Marathon bomber, has concluded with a jury finding him guilty on 30 counts.
While deliberations will continue regarding whether the convicted bomber will be held in prison indefinitely or be put to death, numerous anomalies surrounding the event persist.
Drill DURING the bombing?
One of the most puzzling pieces of evidence supporting the notion that the event may indicate prior knowledge or government involvement emerged within moments of the bombs going off on April 15, 2013.
Read More:

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Navy SEALs Spotted at Boston Marathon Wearing Suspicious Backpacks?

Navy SEALs Spotted at Boston Marathon Wearing Suspicious Backpacks?

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
April 17, 2013
Savvy Internet sleuths have found images taken from surveillance cameras of members of the crowd gathered at the Boston Marathon that appear to identify Navy SEALs.
For comparison, below are a few photos of late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Note the skull logo on his baseball cap, his pants and his boots:

Now look at the individuals spotted wearing backpacks, a similar cap, and similar pants (and boots) at the Boston Marathon:

A video on Youtube also appears to capture a member wearing similar garb walking around the marathon post-explosion with something that looks like a detonator, but in actuality could be a radiation detector.

The reason this is important is because the Boston Police Commissioner is on record stating that they had “no specific intelligence” that there was a drill, while University of Mobile coach and marathon participant Alastair Stevenson has publicly stated that there was announcements telling people to stay calm and not be alarmed because beefed-up security was part of a “training exercise.”
If police were aware of a perceived threat, wouldn’t it make more sense to be announcing an evacuation order rather than tell everyone to stay calm?
This article was posted: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Dr. Steve Pieczenik: Boston Bombing, Fog of War on Steroids

PROOF! Boston Marathon Bombing is Staged Terror Attack

Monday, March 25, 2013


Published on Apr 5, 2012
* Join us on Facebook!
* Buy the DVD w/ 50+ minutes of bonus features:

Thanks with of course the USA goverment


A chemical engineer, Mr. Perkins, said after the Second World War he was one of the Americans put into the well-known I.G. Farben Company in Germany. There he discovered that I.G. Farben had developed plans during the war to fluoridate the occupied countries, because it had been found that fluoridation caused slight damage to a specific part of the brain. This damage had a very particular effect. It made it more difficult for the person affected to defend his freedom. he became more docile towards authority. More on Fluoride

Sunday, March 10, 2013

The Missing Security Tapes For The World Trade Center

9/11 Articles — 21 January 2012
By Susan Lindauer, Contributing Writer The Missing Security Tapes For The World Trade Center
Late on the night of August 23, 2001, at about 3 a.m. security cameras in the parking garage of the World Trade Center captured the arrival of two or three truck vans.
Visual examination determined the vans were separate and unique from trucks used by janitorial services, including different colors and devoid of markings. More curious, all the janitorial trucks had pulled out of the Towers by about 2:30 a.m—about half an hour before the second set of vans arrived.
According to my high-level State Department source with a top security clearance, who disclosed the unusual nightly activity, no vans matching that description had entered the World Trade Center at such an hour in any of the weeks or months prior to that date.  It was a unique event.
Security cameras caught the vans leaving the Towers at approximately 5 a.m—before the first wave of AAA personality types on Wall Street, driving Mercedes and BMWs, arrived to track the markets.
For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious truck vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour— after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the most fanatic robber barons on Wall Street showed up for work.  The vans appeared at the World Trade Center from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 3 or 4, 2001.  After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again.
The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence in the Towers three weeks before the 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Truth Community has no knowledge of this extraordinary nightly activity, either.
For all the public’s ignorance, video from the security cameras could be the most significant missing part of the 9/11 puzzle. This State Department source was convinced the mysterious trucks were used to transport explosives into the building, and that an unidentified orphan team wired the World Trade Center for a controlled demolition in those late night hours. He has stayed quiet to protect his job, his retirement pension and his reputation—knowing that others who spoke up have gotten fired or thrown in prison (myself included).
Controlled Demolition
Other evidence supports a controlled demolition of the Towers, as a supplement to the hijackings. Firefighters and maintenance crews reported hearing explosions popping through the Towers on 9/11. And previous reports indicate that dust from the World Trade Center tested positive for “thermate explosives–” a derivative of a thermite bomb.
A thermite reaction involves a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, while thermate adds an element of sulfur. When the iron oxide-aluminum mixture is ignited, a super vigorous reaction occurs, creating molten metal—and dust, in the case of thermate. The reaction is extremely exothermic, meaning that a great deal of heat is given off, making for an incredibly powerful reducing agent.
Even so, as the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 attack approaches, the majority of Americans continue to be confused as to how a controlled demolition scenario fits with the airplane hijackings and aerial strike on the World Trade Center—which the whole world witnessed on playback over and over in the media, until the image was seared like a brand on our collective consciousness.
Until now, there has been a false dichotomy that only one or the other style of attack could have occurred, but never both together.  Some parts of the 9/11 Community itself vigorously dispute that both could have occurred as synchronized events. And most of the corporate media refuses to acknowledge the controlled demolition theory whatsoever.
When the public understands 9/11 as a series of Real Time events throughout the month of August, 2001, the unfolding sequence of this tragedy makes a lot more sense.
The difficulty is throwing out everything the public has been taught about 9/11—created for the convenience of politicians and corporate media, who simplified the story for public consumption.
First and foremost, contrary to all media reports and official claims, U.S. and foreign intelligence absolutely expected the 9/11 attack to occur — citing airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. Even the timeframe was identified precisely — known to be late August through mid-September.
I relate here my own experience as evidence. It has been corroborated in courtroom testimony by Parke Godfrey, a computer science professor at York University in Toronto. He delivered his statement under oath in the Federal Courthouse of the Southern District of New York—1000 yards from where the World Trade Center once graced the skyline.
On August 2, the date of Robert Mueller’s Senate confirmation hearings to become Director of the FBI, my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, warned me not to travel to New York because the attack on the World Trade Center involving airplane hijackings was “considered imminent,” with the potential for “mass human casualties” and a “possible miniature thermo-nuclear device” (thermite).
Our team aggressively tried to block the conspiracy. But not everyone was on board.
Threats to Iraq
As far back as April and May of 2001, a decision had been made at the top levels of the government that War with Iraq would be in play in the aftermath of a 9/11 scenario.
As the primary Asset covering the Iraqi Embassy in New York, I myself was ordered to threaten Iraqi diplomats with war, if it was determined that Iraq possessed actionable intelligence about the airplane hijacking conspiracy and failed to hand it over through my back channel.
After initially balking at the message, I was informed the threat originated at the highest level of government, above the CIA Director and Secretary of State. That could only be President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Iraqi diplomats threw up their hands: They had nothing to give us, they said. But go ahead, they told me. “Send your FBI. They are welcome in Baghdad. We want peace with America. And maybe they will find something.” For all the brouhaha after 9/11, the fact remains that George Bush took no action on Iraq’s invite.
There was chatter about the 9/11 conspiracy throughout the Intelligence Community all summer long. The greatest part of the Intelligence Community abhorred the scenario. My own Intelligence team, triangulating the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency pushed and pushed for actionable intelligence from Baghdad. However, though we could not understand what the hell was going on, our efforts kept running into a wall of interference from the Justice Department, with only superficial outward support.
For the integrity of history, Americans and the world community have a fundamental right to understand what actions the Intelligence Community did undertake prior to the attack—because it exposes the high-level opposition running interference.
August Timeline
  • On Thursday, August 2, 2001— my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, and I discussed over the telephone our belief that the attack would be imminent.
  • On Saturday, August 4– I visited the Iraqi Embassy in New York for the final time before 9/11, pushing for any fragment of actionable intelligence from Baghdad that could pinpoint the conspiracy.
  • On the weekend of August 4-5—spooky NSA types “visited” the office where I had a part-time consulting job. Of course the office was closed for the weekend, and I won’t speculate how they got inside. However, while snooping, they took a “proof of life,” for want of a better expression.  It is a physical copy of the Wall Street Journal dated July 30, 2001—the same week as my conversation with Dr. Fuisz— addressed to the company, with the street address and name of the man I had been working for.
The copy of the July 30, 2001 Wall Street Journal surfaced on my desk at home—nine years after the attack— while I was traveling in Japan on a speaking tour for the advance release of my book,Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq, which features a detailed analysis of our team’s 9/11 warnings, the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework developed with Iraqi diplomats. Given the upheaval in my life throughout the intervening decade — including a year’s stint in prison on a Texas military base, while the government covered up my team’s 9/11 warnings and the true facts of Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence — there’s no way a copy of the Wall Street Journal could have survived as desk clutter.
Other Intelligence officers will recognize the significance at once. That hard copy of the Wall Street Journal proves beyond any question that other spooks were tracking our team’s conversations about the conspiracy in “real time” fully 6 weeks before 9/11 occurred.  A newspaper would have been thrown out of an office weeks before the attack. Somebody had to grab it up almost immediately after my conversation with Dr. Fuisz. 
See? Other teams tried to put together the attack scenario, too.
All of it points to the frenetic activity in advance of 9/11. There was a lot of action behind the scenes. And Intelligence folk are anything but passive individuals. Quite the opposite, there’s a lot of creative risk-taking and proactive problem solving. None of these people sit on their hands.
Americans still don’t know that:
  • On Monday, August 6, I met with Dr. Fuisz and we hammered out a plan of action for alerting the White House that this hijacking conspiracy should move to “emergency status.”
  • That same Monday, August 6, the CIA handed President Bush a memo warning about an expected terrorist conspiracy involving Al Qaeda. Though I could be mistaken, I have always believed Dr. Fuisz contributed to that report. If not, it proves again that a broad spectrum of U.S. intelligence was moving to high alert status, far enough in advance to block the attack.
  • Following instructions from Dr. Fuisz, on Tuesday, August 7 or Wednesday, August 8, I placed an emergency call to the private staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Identifying myself as the Chief U.S. Intelligence Asset covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations, I delivered our warning about a conspiracy involving airplane hijackings and a targeted strike on the World Trade Center.
I requested an emergency broadcast alert through all Federal Agencies seeking any fragment of intelligence involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. I warned the attack was “imminent” with expectations of “mass casualties,” and that it should be regarded as Emergency Status.
  • Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff immediately gave me a telephone number at the Office of Counter-Terrorism, and told me to repeat what I had just told them to the person at that number. Immediately I complied.
  • Later that week on August 9 or 10, I drove over to the Arlington, Virginia home of my second cousin, Andrew Card — Chief of Staff to President George Bush — ready to deliver the same message. I waited two hours in my car outside of his home. Occasionally neighbors peeked outside their curtains, while I chain smoked cigarettes in the hot car. (Yes, I have quit smoking.) Driving away, I remember thinking that I might be making the greatest mistake of my life.
My Own Private Hell during the Cover Up
I am extremely proud of our team’s efforts before 9/11 and throughout the 9/11 investigation.  For all that, Americans are learning about this very late because I got into great big, bad trouble with the Feds when I tried to talk. I suffered five (5) years of indictment on the Patriot Act and one year of prison on a military base without a trial, when Republicans decided to reinvent the facts about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence, denying Iraq’s contributions to the 9/11 investigation and the existence of a comprehensive peace framework.
Our relationship soured as I became convinced Republicans at the top echelons allowed 9/11 to happen, killing thousands of innocent Americans and international citizens, so they could build a phony case for war against Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was outraged that the American government has done this to itself — as a pretext for military aggression and massive deficit spending in support of the military industrial complex, which is bankrupting the Middle Class. And I was quite vocal in expressing my belief that Americans have a right to full disclosure about our activities before 9/11 and the Iraqi War. And the devil take politicians!
Without question I posed a grave threat to political grandstanding on 9/11 and the myth of Washington’s “outstanding leadership performance on terrorism.”  Many times I have thought of myself as Dorothy in the Land of Oz pulling back the curtain on the Wizard, and exposing his deceit before the hapless, trusting Munchkins.
In truth, the spooks did a great job before 9/11. Everything moved with lightning speed ahead of the threat. We could have stopped 9/11 easily if the Justice Department had fulfilled requests for inter-agency cooperation. There was plenty of time to alert NORAD or post an anti-air craft battery on top of the World Trade Center buildings.
That’s why the GOP leadership had to take me out—because I refused to back off that point. If I had been free, the American people and the world community would have learned the truth much sooner.
Controlled Demolition
Unhappily for all of us, because of private conversations with sources like my State Department colleague, I have reached additional conclusions that our team was not the only one at work before 9/11.
Though none of us expected this to happen, I have come to believe that our efforts collided with a force of equal resistance, in the form of an orphan team also watching the events unfolding like us.
As a long-time participant in multiple terrorism investigations, I have personal knowledge that most terrorist attacks are noisy, smoky and chaotic— without achieving maximum destruction of the target. The 1993 World Trade Center attack by Ramzi Youseff and Sheikh Abdul Rahmon of Egypt killed 5 people. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen killed 12 people. Without extra push, this 9/11 attack would never have killed so many people either—100 people at the very most.
Add to that a recipe of incompetent pilots — who functioned as Intelligence Assets themselves in a few cases. Again, from personal experience, I know that Assets are heavily scrutinized at all times by handlers from multiple agencies. I am convinced that an inner circle anticipated the event, and saw that their boys flying those planes could not achieve maximum damage sufficient to achieve their war agenda in Iraq.
I cannot blame Americans for feeling overwhelmed, even heartbroken by these revelations. But bottom line:  jet fuel fires could not have collapsed both of those Towers, or Building 7, pretty much evaporating the entire steel frame of the buildings into dust and molten steel. Add to that the CIA’s urgent reports that a miniature thermo-nuclear device would be used in the attack — and that’s why I had to stay out of New York City.
The strange nightly activity at the World Trade Center three weeks before the attack clinched it for me. I am 100 percent convinced those Towers were wired for explosives.
Yes, hijacked airplanes struck the towers. But bringing down the Towers to secure War with Iraq required some extra umph.
I cannot speculate who wired the towers with explosives. I could make a guess, but my training as an Asset requires me to stay focused on what I have observed first-hand, and to recognize my own limitations.
So why should the world care? At this point, it is most critical for Americans to stop politicians in Washington from using 9/11 for grandstanding and personal ambitions. The War on Terrorism has perpetrated a fraud on all of us. Those who support the War on Terror are destroying our fiscal economy and our Middle Class.
That’s why Americans must learn the truth about 9/11. It’s reached a crisis point where we must get off this merry-go-round of defense spending. We must end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise this fraud of 9/11 is going to ruin our great country for all time.
I only hope it isn’t too late already.
Susan Lindauer covered Libya at the United Nations as a U.S. Asset from 1995 to 2003, and started talks for the Lockerbie Trial. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.