Thursday, September 30, 2010

Typical reaction to UFO news from foolish press members

The fools (like the author of the Washington Post article at: are missing one of the most important stories in history. These closed-minded people have always been with us and often (too often) they are in the media and scientific fields. I don't know how someone could call himself a reporter or a scientist, without investigating the UFO stories of obviously sincere, honest members of the military and government (not only our own government but governments all over the world). Keeping this UFO info. under wraps is becoming more difficult, but the military/industrial complex that now rules us will continue to monitor our news and ridicule anyone who wants to get the facts out. It's just the way it is on our backwards planet Earth.

Some of my favorite quotes:

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common."
John Locke, 1690

"The right to search for truth implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. -- Albert Einstein 

There is a principle which is proof against all information, which is proof against all
arguments, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is
contempt, prior to investigation. --Herbert Spencer

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Arianna Huffington will provide buses to Return to Sanity Rally

I think this will shape up to be a BIG one!  If I lived on the east coast, I would GO!  See:

Enneagram personality test -- type and subtype

Interesting tests to determine your personality type (there are 9 types) -- this site has links telling about each type.  The tests are reliable for their results and can give you more insight into yourself and others.  These tests are often used by psychologists. Fun to do.

Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly -- together on the Daily Show

Did you ever think you'd live to see the day when Bill O'Reilly would be "the fairest man at Fox News"?  (or as Jon Stewart calls it, "the Temple of Doom.")  Just look at the lineup at FOX now -- with crazy fanatic Glenn Beck as the star (Bill seems to be jealous) and creatures like Sean Hannity putting out unadulterated rightwing spin.  You'll love the part where Stewart tells O'Reilly that, as he (Stewart) was leaving the FOX studio last week (after having been on O'Reilly's show--they are each plugging their books), he had to pass through a lineup of FOX employees out in the hallways, whispering in pleading voices as he passed them, "Please take us with you."


Sunday, September 26, 2010

A Must-read for anyone who really cares about our country

I agree with Mr. Green completely--he is saying what many of us have been thinking ever since the Reagan reign -- or even earlier when Eisenhower warned us about the takeover of our government by the military/industrial complex.  Junior Bush continued the death march of the middle class -- and now the Republicans are proposing the same old, same old.  There are millions who keep falling for it.  There ain't no cure for stupid.

The Dismantling of Civilized Society
By David Michael Green

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented America with a set of economic lies so transparent that even a monster like George H. W. Bush called them "voodoo economics". When he was contesting Reagan for the Republican nomination, that is. Once Bush had lost it, and when he wanted to be added to the ticket as the Vice Presidential nominee, everything became hunky dory, and no more voodoo critiques were uttered. That was one of the greatest acts of treason (I choose my words carefully) in American history.

But back to Reagan. "Watch this", he said. "I'm gonna slash taxes, especially for the rich, spend huge sums on ‘defense', and balance the budget at the same time".

Okay, so he wasn't a math major in college. Two out of three ain't bad, though, eh? Well, it is if you have to pay for his ‘mistakes', plus interest, as so many of us continue to do to this day. Prolly not a big problem, though. Even though Americans hate taxes with the passion of the truly infantile, I'm sure they don't mind working extra hours flipping burgers each week to pay for the enrichment of the previous generation of plutocrats and defense contractors. Right?

Or maybe it's just that their answer to the "How stupid" question is: "Very".

You might think that, because Reagan and Bush actually managed to quadruple the national debt with their little exercise in national folly. Or you might especially think that because Lil' Bush came along with the exact same snake oil a decade later. You had to be stupid to buy it the first time, but you had to have been really stupid to buy it the second time. We, of course, were.

And not just in terms of federal debt, either. A generation of Reaganomics has now succeeded in suspending ninety-eight percent of the country in standard-of-living formaldehyde, so that they felt zero effect whatsoever from the substantial growth in GDP over the last thirty years, and now those policies are cutting off their legs from underneath them altogether. All while the people of Reagan's class, of course, just piled on the riches. How stupid do you have to be to not notice who's diddling you?

Very, of course, but not necessarily as stupid as is maximally possible. ‘Cause, guess what? Here they come again. This week Republicans once again have issued a manifesto calling for slashing taxes on billionaires and cutting deficits, all at the same time. And once again they will win big electoral landslide victories in November despite that patent idiocy. Or perhaps because of it.

...What is happening to America today is nothing short of the dismantling of civilized society. Does anyone think the country is economically better off today than in the 1950s or 1960s? Does anyone seriously think that the Millennial Generation will be better off than their parents? Would anyone seriously bet on America today, as an economic comer? Does anyone think that the next hundred years will be the American century?

There is so much tragedy to this story that it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps the greatest ugliness of the whole affair is the self-inflicted nature of our demise, and, therefore, the complete lack of necessity for all the pain and suffering already endured and the vastly greater amounts still to come. It never had to be this way, which just makes it all the more pathetic.

If there is any silver lining here it is that the hooligans of the right will manifestly fail at governing, which at least opens up the potential for them to be rejected once again.


Saturday, September 25, 2010

Beautiful songs together

You can listen to Bob Dylan's With God On Our Side sung by the Neville Brothers on youtube at:

And then listen to Leonard Cohen's Anthem sung by
Julie Christensen & Perla Batalla
If you prefer Leonard's voice (I do!) for this song, you can view/hear it at:

These two songs go so well together.  The video images are perfect, too.  If only the hearts of our leaders could let them into their consciousness....


How did we get so lucky? Humor of the day. -- The Monty Python Galaxy Song -- good images. ENJOY!

This little quote was just sent to me by a friend who saw it on Facebook:
A thousand billion galaxies each with over 100 billion stars, a part of one Universe that is among an infinite number. And I get the one where Sarah Palin exists.


One hour special on CNN Sunday re. the Pope and sexual abuse

"What the Pope Knew" will be on CNN at 5:00 and 8:00 Pacific Time, 8:00 and 11:00 Eastern Time. Read the following article about an Illinois man who was molested by his parish priest. Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) refused to defrock the pedophile priest.  Just one more story about Ratzinger's insistence on silence and coverup over protection of the children.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Stephen Colbert testifying at Congress

Yesterday, Stephen Colbert testified regarding immigration/migrant workers at a Congressional hearing.  He did it in character.  You can see it at the link below -- I'ts a short video:

Thursday, September 23, 2010


From the ultra-conservative paper Wall Street Journal comes a sensible, rational assessment of Don't Ask Don't Tell and why it should be repealed.  Many conservative fundamentalists will disagree. They'll tell you all kinds of things to justify their bigotry.  They have a blind spot regarding their own motives--and are unable to recognize in themselves the prejudice against gays that lies in their hearts.  Instead of following the teachings of Christ, whom they point to as their savior, they continue their hatred of gays, blacks, and all things "foreign" to their own "white pride." Most of them won't admit to this, though.  They know in their hearts they are not following Christian principles...but they can't change their narrow-minded views and will go to their graves defending them.  Too bad, too sad. 

For intelligent common sense on the DADT issue, read the following article: 


Pope is being sued in sexual abuse lawsuit by deaf victim

It's about time Ratzinger (he has the right name) was included in a lawsuit of this nature. He ignored the pleas of victims and favored the abusive priests over and over again. He covered up the sexual abuse crimes of many priests and allowed them to remain in the Church in positions where they were free to continue the abuse of more and more children.

Right now, there is also an investigation of the Vatican Bank, another criminal part of the Catholic Church, where sins committed by the hierarchy against the followers are shoved under the rug. This religion has all the trappings of a cult, as do most other organized religions. Anytime you have authority figures who set themselves above the people, proclaiming themselves to be the voice of God, you've got trouble. The Catholic hierarchy has been particularly evil for many centuries, and it is time for them to pay the dues for their crimes against the innocent children who were in their care.

“I think what the Murphy case shows is the deference that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict would give to the priests,” said David Gibson, a pope biographer and author of “The Rule of Benedict.” Ratzinger, like other Vatican officials “would always accede to the priest’s wishes first, rather than the victim’s wishes, rather than justice for the victims. They were secondary to what the priest wanted and what he felt was best for keeping things quiet and taking care of the institutional church.”


Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Common Sense from Al Franken regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell

This week, Republicans prevented us from debating the Defense Authorization bill in part because it would have repealed the foolish and unjust "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevents gay and lesbian members of our military from serving openly.

As I said on the floor, there are plenty of logical reasons to make this discriminatory policy part of our past.

  • "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" kicks out thousands of willing and capable Americans in whom we've invested time and training--at a time when our military is desperately in need of recruits. And military commanders certainly don't need to spend their time investigating troops' sexual orientation at a time when we're engaged in two wars.
  • Militaries around the world have allowed gay and lesbian citizens to serve openly without issue, and a recent article in Joint Force Quarterly concluded that "there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly."
  • And, of course, the country is ready for it--a recent poll showed that 75 percent of Americans favor ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

But the most powerful reason to repeal the policy has nothing to do with reasoned argument and everything to do with basic fairness.

I've met gay and lesbian servicemembers while visiting troops overseas on USO tours and as a Senator. They have the same pride, courage, and dedication to their jobs as every other American solider, sailor, airman, or Marine. And they shouldn't have to lie about who they are in order to serve.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said, "For me, personally, it comes down to integrity: theirs as individuals and ours as an institution." He's right.

That's why I believe that, this week's setback notwithstanding, this policy will be repealed sooner rather than later. And I believe that those who obstructed progress this week may well wish that they had been on the right side of history.


Huckabee/right wing: no health insurance for you if you have pre-existing condition

This article points out a very important difference between the Republicans and Democrats.  Before voting this November, everyone should be aware of what the right wing really wants--and doesn't want--for all of us!  If you don't want to read the entire article, here is an important excerpt:

According to the American Heart Association, more than 81,000,000 Americans suffer from one or more forms of cardiovascular disease. According to the American Cancer Society, more than 11,000,000 people in America currently suffer from some form of cancer. According to the American Diabetes Association, 23.6 million Americans currently suffer from diabetes, and the Center for Disease Control has estimated as many as half of all Americans will suffer from the disease by the year 2050, thanks to our deplorable dietary habits. According to the National Parkinson's Foundation, between 50,000 and 60,000 new cases of Parkinson's Disease are diagnosed in America each year. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, some 400,000 Americans currently suffer from MS.

That's a pretty substantial portion of the population, with more being diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's and MS every day.

All of them, every single one of them, are like a house that has already burned down, according to Mike Huckabee and the sick bastards who cheered his comments. All of them, every single one of them, are not worthy of health insurance because they had the misfortune of getting sick before they got insurance. All of them, every single one of them, therefore, are not worthy of health care in any real form, unless, of course, they are wealthy and able to afford the staggering cost of ill health in America.

All of them, in short, every single one of them, can basically just go die in Mike Huckabee's world. They are not worthy of coverage, treatment or consideration. The five diseases I listed account for well over a third of the American population, and if Mike Huckabee or someone who agrees with him somehow becomes president someday, those millions of people should just dig their own graves and lie down in them.

By William Rivers Pitt
This past weekend, an event called the Values Voters Summit was held in Washington DC. It's a kind of big-tent showcase for the fundamentalist far-right base of the Republican Party, sponsored by such leading conservative lights as the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Some of the featured speakers included Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Insane), Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, the wildly fertile Duggar family, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, anti-masturbation candidate and occasional dabbler in witchcraft Christine O'Donnell, Phyllis Schlafly, Mitt Romney, and of course, Sarah Palin.

You can imagine the sort of demented gibberish that came from the podium over the weekend, and frankly, most of it was too mind-numbing to repeat in any detail. Newt Gingrich did his little song and dance about how Islam is coming to eat your children. Christine O'Donnell reprised the nonsense about "death panels." One fellow, a senior aide to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), argued that all pornography is by nature homosexual, and therefore watching any form of pornography will make the viewer instantly gay. Gay people in general, a woman's right to choose and all things Obama took it in the chops, with plenty of birth certificate speculation to go around.

So, yeah, it was pretty standard stuff, given the roster of speakers who made the scene. But at one point during the event, new ground was broken in truly astonishing fashion. One becomes accustomed to cruel, insensitive, hate-filled rhetoric from the kind of people who dwell in this particular region of politics, but when Mike Huckabee took the stage, a whole new standard was set.

Now, I used to have a certain twisted affection for Mike Huckabee. I agree with virtually nothing he says, but I credit him for handing the 2008 GOP nomination to the very beatable John McCain during the primaries. The two most viable candidates, you will recall, were Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both of whom were jockeying for the all-important GOP base vote. But Huckabee was the darling candidate of that base, and kept getting 50% of that vote in every primary, which served to drastically undercut the Giuliani and Romney campaigns. Huckabee stayed in the race just long enough to ruin Rudy and Mitt before dropping out himself, and McCain won the nomination pretty much by default. The rest, as they say, is history.

After this weekend, however, that lingering affection has curdled completely. Huckabee took the podium at the Values Voters Summit to attack and denounce the Obama administration's health care reform legislation, which was par for the course as far as the event went. But Huckabee was not content merely to repeat the "It's a government takeover, let's repeal it" rhetoric, choosing instead to carve a bold new path into the annals of infamy:

When Republicans attack health care reform, Democrats like to counter by accusing Republicans of wanting to repeal a law that requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. According to Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, that's exactly right. People with pre-existing conditions, he explains, are like houses that have already burned down.

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say, "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no pre-existing conditions."

(Emphasis added)

Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

According to the American Heart Association, more than 81,000,000 Americans suffer from one or more forms of cardiovascular disease. According to the American Cancer Society, more than 11,000,000 people in America currently suffer from some form of cancer. According to the American Diabetes Association, 23.6 million Americans currently suffer from diabetes, and the Center for Disease Control has estimated as many as half of all Americans will suffer from the disease by the year 2050, thanks to our deplorable dietary habits. According to the National Parkinson's Foundation, between 50,000 and 60,000 new cases of Parkinson's Disease are diagnosed in America each year. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, some 400,000 Americans currently suffer from MS.

That's a pretty substantial portion of the population, with more being diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's and MS every day.

All of them, every single one of them, are like a house that has already burned down, according to Mike Huckabee and the sick bastards who cheered his comments. All of them, every single one of them, are not worthy of health insurance because they had the misfortune of getting sick before they got insurance. All of them, every single one of them, therefore, are not worthy of health care in any real form, unless, of course, they are wealthy and able to afford the staggering cost of ill health in America.

All of them, in short, every single one of them, can basically just go die in Mike Huckabee's world. They are not worthy of coverage, treatment or consideration. The five diseases I listed account for well over a third of the American population, and if Mike Huckabee or someone who agrees with him somehow becomes president someday, those millions of people should just dig their own graves and lie down in them.

Yeah, that's why I'm not polite to these people. My wife has multiple sclerosis, and Mr. Huckabee this weekend compared her to a burned-down house. My wife is a vibrant, active woman who deals with a terrible, terrifying disease that costs upwards of $50,000 a year to treat. Thankfully, my wife was already insured through work when she was diagnosed, but there are many thousands of people out there with MS who have no insurance, or who won't have insurance when they get diagnosed. If Huckabee has his way, people with pre-existing conditions will be treated as burned-down houses and essentially left to die.

To hear a man who gets treated like a legitimate voice in American politics basically consign my wife and millions of other Americans to suffering and death is to hear nothing more or less than flat-out hate speech from a presidential candidate. What Mike Huckabee suggested is tantamount to eugenics, to the extermination of "weaker" people simply because they are ill.

If this kind of talk isn't enough to convince Republicans that the fringe of their party is to be avoided at all costs, then nothing in the world will. There have to be at least a few unwell Republicans in the country, right? There have to be some Republicans with heart trouble, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's or MS, right? If so, those people had better start digging that grave for themselves, especially if they are stupid enough to support Mike Huckabee or anyone else who agrees with him.

Be polite to these people if that's your nature. It is not in mine, especially after the display this past weekend. These people are the sick ones, the ones with pre-existing conditions, and they should be barred from holding public office by the voters because of it. They are all sick bastards, and I have no interest in being nice about it. Do you know anyone with heart trouble, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, MS, or some other illness like these? Maybe Alzheimer's?  If so, you shouldn't be nice, either. Someday, it may be you on the wrong end of such a diagnosis, and if people like Huckabee and his ilk have their way, dig a grave and lie down in it. You're a burned-down house, and your country has no use for you.


McCain Proven Flat-Out Wrong on DADT after Scolding Reporters

More and more every day, McCain appears to be a doddering old fool and proven liar.  Whew, we are lucky to have escaped his being in the White House!  I think he will be most remembered and blamed for having unleashed Sarah Palin on the world.  He is now being ridiculed for all his turn-around issue stances.  He has changed his public tune, from once proclaiming himself to be a "maverick" to now being a robot-like Limbaugh ditto-head.  Many who used to admire him now see him as a hypocrite.  The article below (click on link) tells of his rambling incoherency as he defended the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military practice, and denied the military's secret, relentless pursuit of homosexuals in order to drive them out of the service.  It is shameful that Congress yesterday refused to repeal the outrageously punitive DADT rule.  Stupidity, bigotry, and prejudicial hatred still continue unabated in our land--especially among the fundamentalist types who proudly call themselves "Christians," but who practice none of the teachings of Christ.


Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Be aware (and BEWARE) of what Anthem Blue Cross is telling customers

from:  by Karoli

Monday I wrote about the friend who was having a great deal of difficulty getting a straight answer from Anthem Blue Cross of California about her options after they raised premiums on her current policy 20%. Their current tactics are part of their larger war and temper tantrum about having to cover people with pre-existing conditions because for insurers, it has always been about pre-existing conditions. All of the other issues aren't a big deal, but they wanted the right to discriminate against insureds, and the Affordable Care Act robs them of that right. Not soon enough, unfortunately.

The audio file must be heard to be believed. In it, the representative spends a full ten minutes trying to talk this customer out of switching to another policy that would be regulated under the Affordable Care Act. He begins with this bizarro threat:

What that means to you specifically is if you make a change after March 23rd, you'll be subject to a [?] requirement [unintelligible] and more specifically - you'll be stepping outside of one underwritten pool of people that were upgraded due to pre-existing health conditions -- and you would be stepping outside into a non-regulated, non-grandfather classed plan.

More specifically, what will be in that pool that you'll be in? You may be very healthy but you will be a healthy fish, so to speak or a healthy person -- you'll be put in the pool of other persons that are in there and insurance is just a pool of people that come together to indemnify a particular [unintelligible].

So when you move from one pool to another and in that pool you have 18-year olds, cancer, diabetes, stroke, heart attacks, brain aneurysms, doesn't matter what it is they could not afford the insurance at that point in time. So now, in that pool is I could afford the premium that I couldn't afford before. The 18-year old. But now you're stepping in there and guess who's helping them pay their premiums?

The only changes to risk pools at this point are: a) covering children under age 19 without regard to pre-existing conditions; and b) allowing children to remain on parents' policies until they're age 26. But to hear this guy talk, you'd think every kid on the planet is one of those dirty, dirty fish with cancer, diabetes, heart disease and well, all sorts of possibilities.

The customer persists. She returns to her original question about what plans she is eligible to switch to without underwriting requirements. The representative also persists in his relentless crusade for her to remain on her grandfathered plan, which has just gone up 20%. After reminding her that she will be abandoning her perfectly good grandfathered contract for that dirty pool with just anyone in it, he tells her that premiums will go up on a quarterly basis and quotes amounts.

In the process, he appears to confuse premium increases for age changes with some kind of scheduled quarterly increase. The full transcript is at the end of this post with the details, but frankly, it's just wrong information. Insurers under CURRENT law are not permitted to make quarterly rate increases, much less under the Affordable Care Act. Yet, he persists with his insistence that yes, premium rates will go up each quarter. In fact, those rate quotes are for part-year insureds -- those who buy insurance mid-year rather than in September.

The more the customer persists with her original question, the more frenzied his anti-health reform spiel gets. At about eight minutes in, we get this:

A: So instead of annual increases, it's going to be April --

Rep: We're going to --

A: Quarterly increase in the premiums?

Rep: Every three months, that's what the rates are looking like.

A: This increase I've got now is 20%. Are you telling me it could be going up 20% every quarter?

Rep: I can tell you right now that what I'm looking at for me as a healthy male age 51 on a $3500 deductible plan is going from this much to $441.00 and I'll be 52 between July and October, and October it's going to be $793.00.

A: That's October, 2011?

Rep: mmhmm, just because I went just one age bracket up, but even in July it's $743.00, for a healthy male, $3500 deductible, PPO share.

A: Um, well --

Rep: But you're no longer grandfathered or I would no longer be grandfathered. I'm going into a plan after March 23rd, subject to being in the swimming pool or the pool with other people that are insured that have pre-existing health conditions, that were higher risk in the underwriting before March 23rd, but now after March 23rd, they're not subject to the same underwriting critiquing, because you're going from a plan that was with ABC Anthem Blue Cross and you, and just jumping into a plan that is overseen and imposed by the federal government and on every single state in the union, on every single department of insurance in every single state.

They're regulating, and making sure that every single insurance company that writes insurance in a state must comply with the federal health care reform bill, and that's being phased in. A big portion of it's going to be in January.

Got that? This Anthem rep is telling the customer (who happens to be more savvy than the average customer) that because she has opted out of the grandfathered (less beneficial) plan, the plan isn't overseen by the state but is subject to that bad, mean federal government.

Only, he's wrong. Every contract for health insurance post-Affordable Care Act must be reviewed and approved by state Insurance Departments and part of their review will be to ensure that the provisions of the Act are included. There is no higher-level federal review. We wish such a thing existed, but part of the plan was always to leave the reviews and approvals to the states rather than putting it in the hands of the federal government.

This is a major, huge big deal. The White House and Sebelius should be all over this. Every Democrat running for office should be on a soapbox taking laser-like aim at what they are doing, because they are misrepresenting the impact of the changes made by health care reform, they are threatening customers with rate increases, and they are using pressure tactics to keep customers in plans that do not incorporate ACA provisions. Further, they are fomenting fear and confusion in order to support the right wing's promise to repeal the act entirely.

Make no mistake, this is a war, and it's a war over whether they can discriminate or not.


Best article yet on Delaware nutso candidate


An O'Donnell win proves anyone can run for anything: you don't need no stinkin' merit badges or qualified resume, no character references (quite the contrary), only "values movement" sound bites and a solid born-again redemption history. Born Catholic, the sinner lapsed badly in college (sexual promiscuity and drugs, oh my!) then, guilt-ridden, went whole-hog born-again Protestant, only to recycle herself back in the devout Catholic fold. There's more consistency here than elsewhere in her life.

Such gyrations fit the classic hustler bio, not knowing who you are, trying out everyone else's coat to see how it fits. Then finding an objective that fits insatiable ambition, she finds the salvation narrative that ties up her many loose ends. Like W. Only recently she merged personal ruthlessness with nothing less than divine will: "During the primary, I heard the audible voice of God. He said, 'Credibility.' It wasn't a thought in my head." What thoughts are in your head, then? How did God inform you, osmosis?

How simple, delightful, how convenient. How scary. Electing this empty vessel, replenished by the audible voice of God (in stereo?), fulfills historian Nancy L. Cohen's dread: "If you liked Rovian anti-gay marriage referendums, the Terry Schiavo saga, anti-abortion litmus tests for diplomatic service in a war zone, and creationism in the Grand Canyon bookstore, you'll love this season's Tea Party candidates."


Monday, September 20, 2010

Dennis Kucinich: So right on so many issues!

But his is a voice crying in the wilderness -- the wilderness of Corporate Rule that will never allow rational thinking to interfere with their greed for money and power.  The following interview with Kucinich makes me long for his kind of leadership at the top layer of our government.  He is a man who sees clearly toward a future for our planet that will assure its survival and the survival of our descendants.  Read:

Unfortunately, there are very few men and women like Kucinich in the higher echelons of government in this world at the present time. He is a man born ahead of his time, but is serving as a prophet, a man of peace talking sense in a senseless time.  The people of Ohio are lucky to have him as their representative, but many of them don't realize it, and they may turn him out of office because they would rather hear talk of war and revenge than of love and peace.  Does this remind you of other prophets in other times? 

Isn't it interesting that the people in today's world who profess to love Jesus Christ the most are the ones who refuse to follow his teachings?  We haven't come very far since the days when Jesus walked the earth 2,000 years ago. 

EXCERPT from interview: 

We have lost our way through our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have to come home. Not only do we have to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also have to take a different look at America's presence in the rest of the world. Unless we start to focus on a global position for the United States that is not hegemonic, but is cooperative with international institutions, we're looking at nothing but one nightmare after another.

MS: So, what do you think that new role in the world would look like for the United States? What would our position be if we made that shift?

DK: We would start supporting structures of international law. With friend and foe alike, we'd support compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. With friend and foe alike, we'd support compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. And we'd submit to the fullness of those treaties. We'd support the small arms treaty, the landmine treaty. We'd support the United Nations. We would participate fully in an international criminal court.

Only when you have recognized global standards of justice can there truly be respect among nations. We cannot have one set of laws for the United States and another set of laws for the rest of the world. For example, our policy on claiming the right to pursue assassination anywhere we please: that is against everything America should stand for. And we haven't worked to craft a climate change agreement that is truly mindful of the environmental challenges we see - an agreement that would phase out coal and nuclear. The US is missing a historic opportunity to chart a new path in the world.

Let it be said, we have a right to defend ourselves. But we do not have a right to take international law in our own hands. We do not have a right to be police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one fell swoop.


Friday, September 17, 2010

Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert Dueling Rallies in Washington

On October 30 -- Washington, D.C. - on the Mall
Dueling rallies: Watch video announcements at:
Reason versus Fear -- which will win?

Sunday, September 12, 2010


Jon Stewart had already called out Sean Hannity for his selective edit of President Obama's speech Monday -- making it sound as though Obama uttered the opposite of what he actually said. But Howard Kurtz noticed it too, and remarked on it today on CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Here's what I didn't like.

Sean Hannity is no fan of Barack Obama, and he's perfectly entitled to bash him night after night. But here's how the Fox News host analyzed Obama's recent speech in Ohio.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Now, the president did have a rare moment of honesty during his speech, and I hope voters around the country are watching this --

OBAMA: Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year for everybody. HANNITY: All right, that's right. I know the anointed one will make sure that that happens.


KURTZ: But just a second. Here's a little bit more of what Obama said.


OBAMA: Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year for everybody. By the way, this was by design.


KURTZ: So Hannity's careful editing just happens to leave out Obama's explanation that the Bush administration had arranged for the tax cuts to expire in 2010, not to mention that Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans while ending them for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Isn't that kind of editing -- what's the word -- deceptive? A tip of the hat to "The Daily Show" for catching that one.

Well, we're glad Kurtz has finally noticed. Because this has been going on for a long time at


Saturday, September 11, 2010

Oh, so True! Oh, so Sad!

Paying the Price
by Bob Herbert

The Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they have not effectively addressed the overwhelming concern of working men and women: an economy that is too weak to provide the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. And that failure is rooted in the Democrats’ continued fascination with the self-serving conservative belief that the way to help ordinary people is to shower money on the rich and wait for the blessings to trickle down to the great unwashed below.

It was a bogus concept when George H.W. Bush denounced it as “voodoo economics” in 1980, and it remains bogus today, no matter how hard the Democrats try to dress it up in a donkey costume....

The Democrats are facing an election debacle because they did not respond adequately to their constituents’ most dire needs. The thing that is really weird is that a strengthened G.O.P. will undoubtedly make matters so much worse.


Friday, September 10, 2010

9/11:Press for Truth video

For anyone interested in historical facts and truth, I highly recommend watching the documentary video 9/11:Press for Truth. So much has been shoved under the rug about 9/11. This video documents the brave but futile attempts of family members of 9/11 victims to get to the truth. Anyone who thinks our government doesn't keep secrets from the people should definitely watch this film. Here we are at the 9th anniversary of the tragic 9/11 event and we still are being stonewalled by the government. Warning: the film is an eye opener, relating facts that appeared in mainstream news here and there over the months and years following 9/11 -- but were mostly hidden on back pages of the news and rarely reported on TV. Most people are totally unaware of these facts. Please pass this information along to your friends if you think it worthwhile. Only if we are educated with heretofore hidden facts can we be fully informed voters/members of our society, helping to build a better future for ourselves and our children.

If you are a member of Netflix, you can play this documentary on Netflix online at:

or in 9-part segments online at youtube at:

In addition, today I came across the following PR Newswire report about 9/11 and the thousands of architects and engineers across this country and across the world who are also determined to get out the facts about the collapse of all three of the WTC buildings, which they claim were demolished by explosive detonations, in order to collapse as they did. Here is that article re. a press conference held in Washington today (but no doubt you will never hear anything about this press conference in the major media):

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Announces: Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition of World Trade Center High-rises on 9/1

Founder Richard Gage, AIA, with host, former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) Present Findings at 2pm on September 9, 2010 at National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) with former Senator Gravel, will hold a press conference to present the group's findings and to call for a new investigation into the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11. Following the press conference, there will be a Mock Debate during which public statements made by government investigators and other defenders of the official account will be addressed.

"Critically important evidence has emerged after the government building reports were completed," says Senator Gravel.

Gage points to World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building that was not hit by an aircraft, yet collapsed in free-fall acceleration and in a manner consistent with a controlled implosion: "Government investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have been forced to acknowledge the free-fall descent, an indicting fact, after being presented with analysis by AE911Truth petition signers." Other facts that AE911Truth supporters have uncovered in the course of examining the forensic evidence include:

  • The Twin Towers suffered total destruction in 10 to 14 seconds in near free-fall accelerations which can only occur as a result of pre-set demolition explosives.
  • More than 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes consistent with pre-set demolitions.
  • 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking were pulverized in mid-air, creating the signature dust clouds of controlled demolitions.
  • A massive debris field 1,400 feet in diameter, along with the absence of "pancaked" floors, indicates a very explosive destruction of each tower.
  • The presence of several tons of molten metal found in the debris is consistent with the extreme temperatures generated by the use of thermite – an incendiary used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
  • An international team of scientists found nano-thermitic composite material in World Trade Center dust samples, providing hard evidence of the presence of advanced energetic materials in the disaster debris.

"The official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory, and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction," says Gage. "We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials."

An AE911Truth petition calling for a new investigation has been submitted this week to every government representative in Congress. The petition now contains over 1,270 architect/engineer signers – altogether over 10,000 around the world have signed the petition.

Florida State Professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who coined the academic term State Crimes Against Democracy [SCAD] will be providing final comments at the debate.

Thousands of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence and government officials; pilots and aviation professionals; firefighters; scholars and university professors; and 9/11 survivors and their family members share AE911Truth's conclusions ( And today two new 9/11 truth groups, directly engaged with AE911Truth, have emerged: and

AE911Truth's findings comprise an important update to their 9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction, which is available on their website,

This press conference is being given by our petition signers and supporters concurrently in 65 locations around the world including 30 states and 4 countries.

The Washington DC press conference will be accessible via webcast at at 2:00pm EDT on September 9, 2010.

To arrange print/broadcast interviews with Richard Gage, AIA, contact Tania Torres at 510-292-4710, or CongressionalOutreachTeam[at]

SOURCE Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


And here is yet more mainstream news information for those curious enough to want truth, instead of the government lies most people have believed up until now:

9/11: Eye-opening Major Media Articles Raise Serious Questions

"It's almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA's New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened."
-- Time magazine article quoting John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission

Dear friends,

Did you know that literally hundreds of respected government officials, professors, and 9/11 survivors and family members have stated there was a major cover-up around 9/11? Did you know that over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of the buildings on 9/11? And did you know about the media articles? The below excerpts from eye-opening news articles published on highly respected major media websites raise serious questions about what those in key positions in the U.S. government really knew about 9/11 and who was behind the attacks.

Though this information may be disturbing to read, consider that the more well informed we are, the more effectively we can work together to build a brighter future. By reviewing these articles, verifying them using the links provided, and then spreading the word, you can make a significant difference in helping to make our world a better place to live for all of us. And don't miss the "What you can do" box at the end which provides excellent links to further educate yourself and to spread the word. Thanks for caring, and have a good day.

With best wishes,
Fred Burks
for PEERS and the Team

[9/11] Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
2001-09-23, BBC News

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year [and] became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines. Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects ... says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Meanwhile ... a London-based Arabic daily says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

Note: Yet these four are all later listed in the 9/11 Commission report as the hijackers. Click here and scroll down a little over half way to see their photos in the official report. For more on this, click here. For an abundance of reliable information suggesting a major 9/11 cover-up, click here.

A New Look at the 9/11 Commission
2009-09-11, Time magazine,8599,1921659,00.html

Former New Jersey attorney general John Farmer served as senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, tasked with investigating the government response to the attacks. His new book, The Ground Truth, picks up where the commission left off — taking a deeper look at the government's ... response to the attacks and exposing officials determined to hide their failings from the inquiry. Farmer uses newly released transcripts and recordings to cast doubt on the official version of events. He spoke with TIME about the attacks. [Time:] Why do you think officials tried to obscure [the truth about 9/11]? [Farmer:] It's almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA's New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened. [Time:] Some of the distortions you've discussed have fed various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Did you ever see any evidence of a conspiracy? [Farmer:] One of the harmful byproducts of not telling the truth about what happened is that it did fuel all sorts of conspiracy theories about what might have happened. If what the government is telling you isn't true, then the truth could be anything. I think there is evidence that the truth wasn't told and that at least some of that was deliberate.

Note: Many respected scholars, officials and professionals have questioned the 9/11 Commission's report. Click here and here to read some of their statements.

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
2001-05-01, ABC News

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's ... Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba. Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists." The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after.

Note: Many military and political leaders tend to look at the world as a chess board. Sacrificing pawns (innocent civilians) is sometimes necessary to capture the queen. Is it beyond comprehension that this might have been the case with 9/11? And why was ABC the only major news source to report this highly revealing story? To read the shocking declassified documents on Operation Northwoods, click here.

CNN Asks Why Government is Lying about 9/11
2006-08-09, CNN News

A shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton says Americans still don't know the whole truth about their government's initial response to those terrorist attacks that day. [The book] outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration. Fog of war ... could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue. Untrue -- the military's original timeline of United Flight 93. Equally untrue, the government's timeline for American Flight 77 and details about fighter jets scrambled to intercept it. DOD did not accurately report to the 9/11 Commission on the response to the September 11, 2001 hijackings. So far, government investigators stopped short of calling all of these inaccuracies lies. If all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that's a lie. Incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this government ... in the weeks leading up to 9/11 are established. The fact that the government would permit deception ... the fact that they would continue and perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on and what is demonstrably an incompetent and at worst deceitful federal government.

Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
2005-01-11, Los Angeles Times

Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist? To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this. "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" ... argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned ... around the world." Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people? Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing? The film ... directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet empire in order to push a political agenda. "The nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organization waiting to strike our societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy."

Note: If above link fails, click here. This highly revealing film by one of Britain's most respected documentary makers is available for free viewing on the Internet. For the link and lots more on this amazingly revealing documentary, click here. For an excellent review of the film in one of the U.K.'s leading newspapers, click here.

9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply
2006-09-08, MSNBC/Washington Post

A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act." The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" has stopped looking for truth from the government. The academic wing is led by [Prof. David Ray] Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota; and Daniel Orr, the retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. The movement's de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University, who's ... concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition. Catherine Austin Fitts served as assistant secretary of housing in the first President Bush's administration. [Robert] Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter. Fitts and Bowman agree that the "most unbelievable conspiracy" theory is the one retailed by the government. It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why ... military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded. Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor" ... never reviewed in a major U.S. newspaper, sold more than 100,000 copies and became a movement founding stone.

Note: If the above link fails, click here.

Connections And Then Some
2003-03-14, Washington Post

The Carlyle Group [is] an investment house famous as one of the most well-connected companies anywhere. Former president George H.W. Bush is a Carlyle adviser. Former British prime minister John Major heads its European arm. Former secretary of state James Baker is senior counselor, former White House budget chief Richard Darman is a partner, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt is senior adviser -- the list goes on. Those associations have brought Carlyle enormous success. The Washington-based merchant bank controls nearly $14 billion in investments, making it the largest private equity manager in the world. It buys and sells whole companies the way some firms trade shares of stock. But the connections also have cost Carlyle. It has developed a reputation as the CIA of the business world -- omnipresent, powerful, a little sinister. Media outlets from the Village Voice to BusinessWeek have depicted Carlyle as manipulating the levers of government from shadowy back rooms. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even suggested that Carlyle's and Bush's ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It didn't help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. Bush['s] primary function is to give speeches for Carlyle that attract wealthy foreigners in places where the former president is especially revered, such as Asia. The company has rewarded its faithful with a 36 percent average annual rate of return.

Note: If the above link fails, click here. To understand the amazingly powerful role of this low-profile, yet extremely wealthy and influential group, click here to view free a 48-minute documentary shown on Dutch national TV which clearly depicts the depths of corruption and deceit at the highest levels of government. You will be thankful that you watched this highly educational film.

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
2008-07-04, BBC News

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse. Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition. Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane. The National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] ... is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse. That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire. [NIST's] lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files": "Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings." However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition. The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives. "Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process. Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

Note: To watch a one-minute clip of the fall of WTC 7 from a PBS documentary, click here. For a two-page summary of some unanswered questions about what really happened on 9/11, click here. To learn about over 1,000 architects and engineers who claim a major cover-up around 9/11 click here.

Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: Osama bin Laden is Dead
2007-11-02, BBC News

David Frost: Does anyone know exactly who was responsible for this assassination attempt? There is one report that said that you arranged to send President Musharraf a letter ... in the event of your death by assassination, urging him to investigate certain individuals in his government. Is that true? Benazir Bhutto: Yes it is true that I wrote to General Musharraf. I feel these are the forces that really want to stop not just me, but the democratic process and the will of the people [from] triumphing. David Frost: In terms of these three people you mentioned where they members of or associated with the government? Benazir Bhutto: One of them is a very key figure in security. He is a former military officer. He is someone who has had dealings with Jaish-e-Mohammad, one of the band [of] groups of Maulana Masood Azhar, who was in an Indian jail for decapitating three British tourists and three American tourists. And he also had dealings with Omar Shiekh, who murdered Osama bin Laden.

Note: The key statement on bin Laden's murder happens at minute five in the video at the above link. If the link fails, click here. For a Jan. 9, 2010 BBC article also suggesting bin Laden may be dead and his death covered up, click here. Bhutto was assassinated not long after this interview on Dec. 27, 2007.

Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive?
2010-01-09, BBC News

Osama Bin Laden died eight years ago during the battle for Tora Bora in Afghanistan, either from a US bomb or from a serious kidney disease. Or so the conspiracy theory goes. The theory that has developed on the web since 9/11 is that US intelligence services are manufacturing the Bin Laden statements ... to justify the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and back at home. Numerous audio and video statements purporting to be from Bin Laden have been released, but their authenticity has been continually questioned. The veracity of all of the videos is questioned by David Ray Griffin, a former theology professor and member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which also questions mainstream accounts of the attack on the World Trade Centre. "None of them can be proven to be authentic," he says. "At least three of them can be shown to be almost certainly fake. And if somebody is faking Bin Laden videos, then that leads to the suspicion that all the videos and audio tapes have been faked." His first example is a video released by the US Department of Defense in December 2001. In it, [the] Bin Laden [figure] confesses to 9/11, yet Mr Griffin points out that al-Qaeda has only rarely admitted responsibility for terrorist attacks. He also maintains that the Bin Laden figure looks very different to previous footage - fatter, with shorter fingers, and that he is even writing with the wrong hand.

Note: To see how easily audio and video materials can be faked, read excerpts from this Washington Post article. WantToKnow team member David Ray Griffin has written extensively about the evidence regarding whether Osama bin Laden is alive or dead, including his recent book, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?

Tenet told 9/11 panel that he warned Rice of Al Qaeda
2006-10-03, Boston Globe/Washington Post

Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had warned of an imminent threat from Al Qaeda in a July 2001 meeting with Condoleezza Rice, adding that he believed Rice took the warning seriously, according to a transcript of the interview and the recollection of a commissioner who was there. The meeting has become the focus of a fierce and often confusing round of finger-pointing involving Rice, the White House, and the 9/11 Commission, all of whom dispatched staffers to the National Archives and other locations yesterday in attempts to sort out what had occurred. Members of the commission, an independent bipartisan panel created by Congress to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, have said for days that they were not told about the July 10 meeting and were angry at being left out. As recently as yesterday afternoon, both commission chairman Thomas H. Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said they believed the panel had not been told about the July 10 meeting. But it turns out that the panel was, in fact, told about the meeting, according to the interview transcript and Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, who sat in on the interview with Tenet. Rice added to the confusion yesterday by strongly suggesting that the meeting may never have occurred at all, even though administration officials had conceded for several days that it had.

Note: Could it be possible that some of our nation's top leaders are lying? How could they have just forgotten about such important matters? For lots more see

Why I Resigned From the CIA
2004-12-05, Los Angeles Times,1,471321...

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA, wrote "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror." Between January 1996 and June 1999 I was in charge of running operations against Al Qaeda from Washington. When it comes to this small slice of the large U.S. national security pie, I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden — either by capture or by U.S. military attack. I witnessed and documented, along with dozens of other CIA officers, instances where life-risking intelligence-gathering work of the agency's men and women in the field was wasted. I was never charged with deciding whether to act against Bin Laden. That decision properly belongs solely to senior White House officials. However, as a now-private American citizen, it is my right to question their judgment; I am entitled to know why the protection of Americans — most selfishly, my own children and grandchildren — was not the top priority of the senior officials who refused to act on the opportunities to attack Bin Laden provided by the clandestine service. Each of these officials have publicly argued that the intelligence was not "good enough" to act, but they almost always neglect to say that they were repeatedly advised that the intelligence was not going to get better and that Bin Laden was going to kill thousands of Americans if he was not stopped.

Note: If the above link fails, click here. For many other serious questions around the 9/11 attacks, click here.

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
2004-10-19, Los Angeles Times

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. "It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me. [The] release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief. The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible." By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation. The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain. And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes.

Note: If the above link fails, click here. For more verifiable information on the 9/11 cover-up, click here.

Transcript: Rice's Testimony on 9/11 (for 9/11 Commissioner Lehman)
2004-04-08, Washington Post

LEHMAN. Were you told that there were numerous young Arab males in flight training? RICE. I was not. LEHMAN. Were you told that the red team in F.A.A. for 10 years had reported ... that the U.S. airport security system never got higher than 20 percent effective. RICE. To the best of my recollection I was not told that. LEHMAN. Were you aware that I.N.S. had quietly internally halved its internal security enforcement budget? RICE. I was not made aware of that. LEHMAN. Were you aware that it was the U.S. government established policy not to question or oppose the sanctuary policies [which] prohibited the local police from cooperating at all with federal immigration authorities? RICE. I do not believe I was aware of that. LEHMAN. Were you aware of a program that was well established that allowed Saudi citizens to get visas without interviews? RICE. I learned of that after 9/11. LEHMAN. Were you aware of the extensive activities [of] the Saudi government in supporting over 300 radical teaching schools and mosques around the country, including right here in the United States? Were you aware at the time of the fact that Saudi Arabia ... had in their custody the C.F.O. [Chief Financial Officer] and the closest confidante of Al Qaeda, of Osama bin Laden, and that they refused direct access to the United States? RICE. I don't remember anything of that kind. LEHMAN. Were you aware that they would not cooperate and give us access to the perpetrators of the Cobar Towers attack? RICE. I was very involved in issues concerning Cobar Towers. LEHMAN. Were you aware that it was the policy of the Justice Department ... to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning? RICE. No.

Note: Don't miss the full revealing transcript at the link above. Most of the quotes above are towards the bottom of the webpage. Why didn't we hear lots more about these astounding facts put forward by one of the 9/11 commissioners, yet hardly mentioned in the final report? For lots more, click here.

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall
2001-12-25, New York Times

Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide. Experts critical of the current effort ... point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. Some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made ... the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.

Note: Our website has over 30 full articles posted from the New York Times. This is the only article for which the Times threatened to sue us if we didn't remove it. We were allowed to replace it with this short summary. For more on this, click here. For what you can do about all this, see the box below.

What you can do:
  • Inform your media and political representatives of the vital information in these 9/11 news articles. To contact those close to you, click here. Urge them also to join in calling for the release of secret documents and for a new, impartial investigation of 9/11.
  • Explore the wealth of reliable, verifiable information on 9/11, including several excellent documentaries, in our 9/11 Information Center available here.
  • Learn more about 9/11 and the secret societies likely involved in this powerful lesson from the free Insight Course.
  • Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and recommend this article on key news websites so that we can fill the role at which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a difference.

Final Note: believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. Please visit our Inspiration Center at for an abundance of uplifting material.

See our archive of revealing news articles at