New collapse footage of WTC7 and North Tower - Nov 2008

Controlled demolition is self-evident to the average unbias viewer in this newly released footage. See The Corbett Report for details on this piece.

West Virginia Ballot: Chuck Baldwin for President, Constitution Party

There is another choice for President, and we are not talking about Ralph Nader. These two brief videos outline the sharp contrast between Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate on West Virginia's ballot, versus John McCain, and Barack Obama.

West Virginians should consider a much better option for President and vote their conscience, for what they really want, instead of being herded into a compelled choice between a Nanny State (Communism) and Security State (Fascism), by two major party candidates who are both rated badly on gun rights, illegal immigration, the Constitution and our liberties, and especially unjust wars on pretenses of UN resolutions.

Both McCain and Obama are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that are moving America away from the Constitution and national sovereignty toward a new world order of global government from which no nation can opt out. (This is what is really behind the "war on terrorism"). Neither McCain nor Obama talk at all of changing the "war on terrorism", and outside of Iraq they both sound almost identicle in their willingness to continue to invade sovereign countries and continue battles for "regime change", now including even against Russia. Is not one of the primary "changes" desired by many Americans to stop unconstitutional, perpetual, and unjust wars against or within sovereign nations under pretense of a "war on terrorism", which is really a Democratic Jihad for global Democracy? Both McCain and Obama will continue or expand this war policy, which also ruins the economy by driving up oil prices (war fears drive the speculators trading of oil futures), national debt (now at a record high), which in turn leads to economic domestic inflation!

The neoconservatives in particular (originally from the radical left) have hijacked the republican party (which offered nothing more than RINO primary candidates, except Ron Paul) and have destroyed true conservative and Constitutional principles under the plea of "necessity" for a radical global revolution consistent with CFR purposes toward Global Democracy. While Obama is justly being vetted for his communistic collectivist principles McCain's own dangerous corruptions and socialist policies (like taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street banksters and foreclosing homeowners) are are of the same bad principles. The truth be said it is the neoconservatives who have provoked the "blow-back" against Bush government and republicans for their unconstitutional radicalism which is driving the "change" support to give Democrats a supra-majority in Congress, and perhaps take the White House for Obama. The fall of republican majorities, therefore, can be laid directly at the feet of the radical neoconservative RINOs that infiltrated hiding behind George W. Bush.

Republicans have also almost entirely lost their plank for "individual liberty" by supporting and pushing the most liberty-killing, anti-constitutional legislation (PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security, REAL ID, domestic spy powers, military for domestic policing, etc.) for a Security State that makes the Nanny State look almost tame. That government expanded under the watch of republicans supposedly against Big Government, increasing the national debt to over $10 Trillion, perhaps was the final straw that discredited and forfeited republicans authority to rule in the eyes of those who supported them. Neither McCain nor Obama offer anything to change this course. If Americans are not truly free from their own government's intrusiveness under the plea of "necessity", what freedom will there be left to defend?

McCain is no true conservative and his policies are scary. Between Obama and McCain you have a choice only of Socialism or Socialism Lite. But there is a third option, and if people do not vote for Principle they will only get corrupt Party representatives and never obtain what is just and right for themselves. Why support candidates whose principles you plainly do not believe in, just because they are the "lesser of two evils"? Continuing to vote for two parties and candidates that never bring the change you want is irrational and political insanity. Both play the Fear card to drive you to chose ONLY between one of them.

Take a look for yourself before you vote and then vote Principles over Party, unless you really do not want the real "change" that many of you say that you are really looking for.

Are you a Globalist or an American? Chuck Baldwin vs McCain and Obama

Palin Brings Feminism to Republicans and Christians

In case it was unclear, Sarah Palin is a "card-carrying feminist", excluding only abortion. Yet religious and Christian conservatives still praise her and claim the republican party is their party, although there is some growing dissent.

No longer can Rush Limbaugh talk of the radical "Femi-nazis" then without including republican VP candidate Palin in that monologue, can he? But feminism includes more than just abortion rights. And consider the threat of what feminism really is to society's integrity and constitution, even from a strictly secular viewpoint. For a unique critique on feminism see this article which says in part:

...most contemporary feminism...is what Sommers has called "gender feminism," which is essentially based on a form of Marxist theory that substitutes "gender" for Marx's category of "class," or simply adds the two together, usually with "race" thrown in. This sort of "race, class, and gender" theory is typically a dangerous form of political moralism, with the same totalitarian characteristics as other versions of Marxism have proven to display.

There is a slow awakening of just what Palin really represents among conservative Christians. An example of such Christian dissent against Palin is represented in an article here which underlines the hypocrisy of pretending she is "conservative" or even Christian in representation, even while the political left consider her a threat:

For years, conservative Christians have been outspoken in their opposition to the political vision of the radical feminist movement. Now they are supporting a woman for the second highest office in the land who is a self-identified feminist who wants to make feminist objectives a part of her political agenda.

What you hear alot of on talk radio (Rush, Hannity, et al) is that Feminism is being redefined, for Palin, as if only for those women who are pro-abortion rights. That is purposely misleading and intellectually dishonest, what can be called pure propaganda.

PALIN IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR MCCAIN AMONG CONSERVATIVES

If the dissent grows among Christian conservatives this could potentially then cost McCain losing at least a portion of his conservative base (which never liked him) more than helping him as perhaps he thought! Palin could be McCain's downfall.

If McCain is losing "moderate republicans" and now part of the conservative base (who might not vote, or vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party), it will be impossible for him to win. Yet the better national polls show it very close, apparently meaning that conservatives have not yet left him. But could this account for some of the closing gap between McCain and Obama in West Virginia?

clipped from www.feministsforlife.org FFL Member Nominated for Vice President of the United States According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said." Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006. Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform. "FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian

The BAILOUT Fraud: Do you know who the PRIMARY DEALERS are?

There's a lot of evidence that we've been scammed. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told us they needed to spend $700 billion of your money to buy supposedly toxic assets that were crippling major firms and for which there was no immediate market. This was a lie even when they said it, because . . .

read more | digg story

BAILOUT: How the Fed Creates or "Injects" Money From Thin Air

This is a must see short video that shows how money is created in America by the Fed and why the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased. The Fed today is "injecting" billions of dollars into the Bank System for the Bailout Plan, and this is how it is done--i.e. by creating more debt! The U.S. dollar is not "money", but legal tender and debt notes, based upon NOTHING.

Rep. Mollohan Makes CREW's "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress"

clipped from www.crewsmostcorrupt.org Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) is a 13th-term member of Congress, representing the first district of West Virginia.  His ethics issues stem from misusing his position to benefit himself, his family and his friends and misreporting a dramatic increase in his personal assets.  Rep. Mollohan was included in CREW’s 2006 and 2007 reports on congressional corruption. Full Report On Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Report Exhibits Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Earmarking of Funds for His Personal Benefit Between 1997 and 2006, $250 million of that total was directed to five nonprofit organizations that were created by Rep. Mollohan, staffed by his friends, and received the largest earmarks from Rep. Mollohan.  During the same period, top-paid employees, board members and contractors of these organizations gave at least $397,122 to Rep. Mollohan’s campaign and political action committees.      Department of Justice Investigation

This non-partisan action group uncovers the worst twenty in Congress. Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia makes the list.

Documentation about this is linked.

US Economists Come Out Against the $700,000,000,000 Bailout (see the list)

Its long-term effects: If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted. We ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

read more | digg story

150 Top Economists Say "Hold Off" on Bailout

`The situation may get urgent, but it's not urgent right now. Right now it's a financial sector problem....`It's just nothing like the calamity the administration is making it out to be.''

Everyone should stop the ignorant panic and read this article from the best economists, who like doctors are best apt to understand both the problem and its cure.

Another great interview and source to better information was provided by CATO Institute's daily podcast, a Sept. 25th interview with an expert on mortgage-backed securities.

Hoppy Kerchevel had an excellent interview with a professor of Economics at West Virginia State University which was very similar in perspective to this article here. SO WHY IS NO ONE LISTENING TO THE EXPERTS, INSTEAD OF THE FED'S FRONT MAN TREASURY SECRETARY PAULSON AND A IGNORANTLY-COMPLYING PRESIDENT? Who do you trust more about the economy, ignorant lawmakers or economists?

The media also (including local talk radio) continues to parrot the "crisis", after Bush's Financial WMD Speech Wednesday, where a virtual "mushroom cloud" was imagined over the economy if "Congress does not act now".

It is a gross exaggeration and even outright lie and the bailout would make things worse, according to experts!

clipped from www.bloomberg.com Hundreds of Economists Urge Congress Not to Rush on Rescue Plan Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- More than 150 prominent U.S. economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, urged Congress to hold off on passing a $700 billion financial market rescue plan until it can be studied more closely. In a letter yesterday to congressional leaders, 166 academic economists said they oppose Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan because it's a ``subsidy'' for business, it's ambiguous and it may have adverse market consequences in the long term. They also expressed alarm at the haste of lawmakers and the Bush administration to pass legislation. ``It doesn't seem to me that a lot decisions that we're going to have to live with for a long time have to be made by Friday,'' said Robert Lucas, a University of Chicago economist and 1995 Nobel Prize winner who signed the letter. ``The situation may get urgent, but it's not urgent right now. Right now it's a financial sector problem.''

Financial Crisis and the Fed: How the Fed Obtained Its Power

historical value of dollar (click to enlarge)

In light of the present financial crisis the public needs to know how the Federal Reserve and our present money supply they control came into being. The public should also notice the interesting similarity of circumstances now playing out in which the Fed is seeking even more power under the plea of "necessity". This 8-minute video sheds alot of light on present circumstances.

Cambridge Study: West Virginia Most Neurotic State in Union

This alarming claim caught my attention at the close of CBS News Tuesday night. The part about West Virginia is at the very close. Note the study also talks about health implications as well as social behavior.

The Cambridge University Study CBS refers to is in the Telegraph (UK) here.

He said: "Although these are preliminary findings and require more evaluation, they did throw up some striking geographical trends.

"We did find pretty clear signs that there are meaningful differences in the personalities of people living in different areas of the United States.

"What is particularly impressive is that the results show the effects of personality on people's social habits, values and lifestyles are so pronounced that they have an impact on much bigger social forces."

The findings show that people living in eastern states such as New York are likely to be anxious, stressed, impulsive and prone to heart disease and cancer...

NEUROTICISM

Personality traits: Anxious, stressful and impulsive.

Highest-scoring states: West Virginia, Rhode Island, New York, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Arkansas.

Lowest-scoring states: Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, North Dakota, Nevada.

Watch CBS Videos Online

9/11: The Official Story is Mere Allegation and Fiction

THE FBI SAYS THEY HAVE 'NO HARD EVIDENCE' CONNECTING BIN LADEN TO 9/11

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Why do you think the CIA closed its "bin Laden unit" in 2006 if he is wanted "dead or alive"?

THE 9/11 DOCUMENTARY THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

Go to the 6-minute mark in Loose Change's new Final Cut with rare news clips to see the lack of evidence and the erroneous information which pinned 9/11 on Osama bin Laden (a former CIA asset) and 19 "Islamic terrorists" and justified the neoconservative's Sept. 2000 blueprint for wars for "regime change", "global hegemony", and a "new middle east" upon what they wrote then as a needed "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify their agenda.

A LIE LIKE IRAQ

The official story about 9/11 is as much of a lie as the "intelligence" about Iraq having WMD and being an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and designed to justify the neoconservative agenda, upon a false-flag attack, seize control of U.S. government, develop a fascist Homeland Security system of control and surveillance, and launch new wars for democracy for the global agenda. The War on Terrorism is Bogus, a front for global domination.

Bernanke: Economy is Bad, Most Challenging "in Memory"

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said today the financial crisis that has pounded the country -- coupled with higher inflation -- is taking a toll on the economy and poses a major challenge to Fed policymakers as they try to restore stability....the most challenging to Fed policymakers "in memory''.

read more | digg story

Georgia Attacked First, not Russia--What US Media is not Showing You

Here is the hard video proof that Georgia announced ITS ATTACK on South Ossetia on Aug. 7th, making Georgia the admitted aggressor. Argue with Georgia' s President if you do not like the plain facts that it shows!

Why did not the "liberal" US media show you this? Ask them!

Please let your Congressmen know that this documented proof contradicts the MSM and US government propaganda that has painted Russia as the aggressor in the Georgia conflict, while Russia responded to their attack on South Ossetia.

Conclusion: The same bi-partisan people, in government and media, who sold you the Iraq lies for war are selling lies about Russia for the same neoconservative agenda (and to get Georgia into NATO).

clipped from www.youtube.com

Cheney likely ordered 9/11 forgery, CIA official admits

A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer posted Friday.

read more | digg story

The FBI Obstructs Justice: Uncovering the Anthrax Cover-Up

THE FORGOTTEN ANTHRAX PROPAGANDA
Colin Powell waving the vial of anthrax at his UN Security Council presentation on February 5, 2003, making a fabricated case for war in Iraq.
CIA Director George Tenet (left), Director of National Intelligence John Negropante (right), perfectly positioned for the cameras as if to stand behind everything Powell presented.

________________

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished. Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

-- Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

By laying all blame for the anthrax letters on the award-winning Ft. Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins it can only be said that the FBI is obstructing justice. In fact, they were pressured to do just that from the very start, from very high up in the chain of command. The FBI official story now, after seven years, is highly incredulous. For whoever was behind the anthrax letters, and its several very specific targets, did more to further the neoconservative propaganda for a "war on terrorism" against radical Islam, to justify war in Iraq and regime change in the middle east, and to coerce Congress into draconian anti-constitutional legislation than any other action, other than 9/11 itself. To suggest that Ivins did all this for monetary gain is contrary to Criminology 101 which seeks solid evidence for "motive, means, and opportunity".

First, lost in the haze is that the Bush administration (per this Daily News article below) pressured the FBI from the very start to pin the anthrax letters on militant Islamics, especially overseas--without any such evidence:

FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

Second, from Glenn Greenwald in his blog article at Salon.com. Here is just a small portion, the article should be read in its entirety:

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

...If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:

The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:

We have anthrax.

You die now.

Are you afraid?

Death to America.

Death to Israel.

Allah is great.

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

Third, there is the Democracy Now podcast on anthrax, which includes an interview with Greenwald, and an anthrax researcher who personally new Ivins. These interviews also include sound bites of McCain linking the Anthrax letters to Iraq on the David Letterman Show in 2001, as well as Bush, both knowing full well (per FBI) that there in fact was no link to Iraq, or even "Islamic militants" inside or outside the US!

Anthrax Mystery: Questions Raised over Whether Government Is Framing Dead Army Scientist for 2001 Attacks

---

The FBI’s prime suspect in the October 2001 anthrax letters case died last week in an apparent suicide. Bruce Ivins was an elite government scientist at the biodefense research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. He was among the nation’s top experts on the military use of anthrax. But many of his colleagues have expressed deep skepticism over the FBI’s claims. We speak to anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass and blogger Glenn Greenwald. [includes rush transcript]

---

LISTEN WATCH

Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download More…

---

Guests:

Glenn Greenwald, attorney and blogger at Salon.com. His recent posts include “Vital Unresolved Anthrax Questions and ABC News”, “Additional Key Facts Re: The Anthrax Investigation” and “Journalists, Their Lying Sources, and the Anthrax Investigation”

Dr. Meryl Nass, expert on anthrax and editor of the blog AnthraxVaccine.blogspot.com

Finally, here is a dated article (when the FBI zeroed and harassed Hatfill with the same zeal as they did Ivins later) about another Ft. Detrick former scientist, who did have access, even motive (to blame Arabs), and an interesting profile. Dr. Zack for some reason is not a suspect while he fits the profile of the crime closer than Ivins. He is Jewish and a dual Israeli citizen, it happens, with a demonstrated hatred for Arabs (see how he persecuted his Egyptian co-worker and was fired for it), much like many of the neoconservatives behind the war on terrorism agenda that they wrote well before 9/11. There is sufficient prima facia evidence here to consider him a suspect whose behavior was both malicious and suspicious. Yet the FBI says now that Ivins is the ONLY suspect and they are convinced he would have been found guilty, contrary to a larger body of evidence and lack of witnesses.

While Media Spotlights One Anthrax Suspect, Another Is Too Hot to Touch

---

Before the investigation of Dr. Hatfill captured national headlines, another insider scientist had come under FBI scrutiny without much media fanfare. It was easy to miss the few stories published in January 2002 about Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who, like Hatfill, also had access to a well-equipped laboratory with lax security. Zack, moreover, actually worked with military-grade anthrax at Fort Detrick.

---

Dr. Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991 amid allegations of unprofessional conduct. The Jewish scientist and others were accused of harassing their co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Assaad, until the Egyptian-born American scientist quit

---

Inexplicably, the national press ignored these documented unauthorized visits to a top-secret government lab embroiled in the anthrax attacks. Did journalists fear being labeled anti-Semitic for casting suspicions on a Jewish scientist?

---

She is convinced that the FBI knows who sent the anthrax letters

Original news investigative articles from the Hartford Courant are noteworthy too about Dr. Zack, and furthers the details:

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack

Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad,who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.

Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until last October, until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter - a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known - naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. FBI agents decided the note was a hoax after interviewing Assaad.

McCain on David Letterman,
Plays Anthrax Propaganda Card to Justify Iraq War

REAL ID: Chertoff Threatens Governor (Montana), Governor Threatens Chertoff

Read this exchange! Gov. Schweitzer (D-Montana), a governor who truly fights for his citizen's constitutional freedoms, works with Gov. Manchin on the board of the Govenor's Association. Manchin has been complying while Schweitzer resisting REAL ID, as have the majority of republicans and democrats in the West Virginia legislature (see REAL ID tags). Manchin and the DMV have acted behind the scenes to stall and block any anti-REAL ID legislation. "Mountaineers are always free", if it is more than just the state Motto, is at stake.

Tell the Govenor and your legislators what you think, and take action below (DownsizeDC.org) to send your Congressmen an email on this too.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

---

Quote of the Day:

"Do you want our government to have the ability to track where you went, how you went, how you got there and when you got home? It would be naïve for someone to think this information will not be abused in the future. Virtually every decade these kinds of files have been used to violate people's privacy."
-- Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana

Subject: Chertoff threatens governor, governor threatens Chertoff

We knew that the state of Montana was resisting the REAL ID Act, but we just learned some of the details of that resistance. The story is so good we had to share it, in case you hadn't heard . . .

Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana, wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The letter informed Chertoff that Montana would not be complying with the REAL ID Act. Our quote of the day supplies one of the reasons for Governor Schweitzer's rebellion. In response to the letter . . .

Secretary Chertoff called Governor Schweitzer and threatened him. Chertoff told Schweitzer that Montana residents would be banned from airplanes, or subjected to severe, time-consuming inspections at airports.

The Governor countered with his own threat, "How about we both go on 60 Minutes a few days after the DHS starts patting down Montana driver's license-holders who are trying to get on the planes and both of us can tell our side of the story."

Chertoff didn't like that suggestion. He said, "I see the problem. We need to get this fixed."

So far, the "fix" involves granting Montana and all other rebellious states an extension of the deadline for complying with the REAL ID Act. But the real fix is to repeal REAL ID.

Have you protested to your elected representatives that the Secretary of Homeland Security has been threatening the citizens of states that don't comply with REAL ID? If not, please do so. You can mention the Chertoff-Schweitzer exchange in your personal comments. Ask Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act. You can send your message here.

If you've sent a REAL ID Act message recently, consider sending another "I am not afraid" message. We have a lot of new people who probably aren't familiar with our "I am not afraid" campaign. You can check it out here.

Please also consider making a donation to further our work. You can do so here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Netanyahu Rushes for Power in Israel, Before Bush's Term is Up

"Hurry the elections", cries "Bibi"--he wants into power NOW. The Likud Party is linked directly to the neoconservatives in America who are the authors of the "war on terrorism" agenda that was devised BEFORE 9/11. Netanyahu (who is close friends with Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and said 9/11 was good for Israel) wants power before the change of President in the U.S. in order to start war with Iran, to continue the neocon agenda beyond the Bush administration's term.

MARK THIS: If he wins, they will attack Iran immediately, and he is pushing hard to get in before Jan. '09, to control US war policy.

Pat Buchanan documented the link earlier:

In 1996, neoconservatives currently serving in the Bush administration wrote a policy paper for Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the policy paper Douglas Feith (currently Undersecretary of Defense), David Wurmser (VP Cheney’s staff) and Richard Perle (Defense Review Board) called for "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".

clipped from ap.google.com Netanyahu calls for early Israeli elections JERUSALEM (AP) — A day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he would depart political life, top rival Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel should get rid of its current governing coalition and go straight to early elections. Polls show the Likud Party's Netanyahu — a former prime minister who takes a hard line on territorial concessions to the Arabs — would most likely win such a race if it were held today. Olmert threw Israel's political system into turmoil on Wednesday by abruptly announcing he would step down after his Kadima Party's leadership race in September, called because of a series of corruption allegations against him. "The right thing to do when the prime minister goes is ... to let the people choose who will lead them and whoever is chosen, he is the one who will need to put together a government," Netanyahu said. The internal turmoil could make it difficult for Olmert to close deals with either the Palestinians or Syria

The Truth About the War in Afghanistan That Every American Should Know

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy...

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines...

But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan.

-- Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent

Obama's tour in Afghanistan demonstrated that he supports the war there and an expansion of it. In fact he justified the entire "war on terrorism" on his trip, precisely as the neoconservative Bush administration has presented it. In the previous post (below) we highlighted Obama's interview with Lara Logan on CBS where he stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are "planning attacks [on America] from here". Based on what evidence other than repetitious allegation? That is a lie straight from the neocon propaganda machine that this "change" candidate is parroting. Not only McCain then, but Obama himself would expand the "war on terrorism", in Afghanistan and even into Pakistan. Obama in fact appeared closer to McCain and Bush in this rhetoric while he claimed Bush and McCain were shifting toward him on Iraq. Americans should not be fooled by this candidate who, like the rest of the candidates that were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (i.e. McCain, Giuliani, Hillary, Romney, Thompson) will continue the global policy of regime change under guise of a "war on terrorism".

The truth is that most Americans have justly criticized the Iraq war (finely seeing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor had WMD to produce "mushroom clouds") while giving Afghanistan a pass, since the Taliban are based there. This is because the basic argument used against the Bush administration's Iraq war was that IF the "war on terrorism" was legitimate (the premise), THEN it should be waged against those blamed in the official 9/11 story--i.e. bin Laden and the Taliban connected to him in Afghanistan (conclusion). But most have not examined that claim about the Taliban that was asserted as often as Saddam having WMD. To claim that the Taliban, or even bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11 is beyond any evidence available, and they both denied any knowledge or participation (CNN report here) in that "catalyzing event", as the neoconservative's forenamed it in their Project for New American Century policy paper (Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept. 2000) drafted a year prior to 9/11.

The following article excerpt from Eric Margolis (Foreign Correspondent and Defense Analyst), At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan, is a must read then for just how Americans were tricked into war with not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, on the basis of 9/11, while the plans to begin both wars for "regime change", per the neoconservative blueprint for a "new middle east", were already in works, and only waiting on some "catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify attacking and invading and overthrowing the governments of two sovereign countries. Here is the truth about the War in Afghanistan, and even into Pakistan, which Obama is legitimizing, that every American should know, and consider during this campaign season where the Democrat and Republican candidates are sounding closer together on war policy than ever, and the fraud of a war on terrorism is being perpetuated by both. The question that begs an answer is this: If the war in Afghanistan, like Iraq, is based upon plans laid well before 9/11, and in fact there is no connection between the Taliban and 9/11, how can the war continue to be justified? An oil pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan explains a great deal about the "war on terrorism", in this region.

At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan

...Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west. ...

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan...

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it `on side’ for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.

The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former Unocal `consultant’ Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route...

Obama's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon--Unjust Wars Will Continue

The real Obama policy, "Al Qaeda, Taliban, war on terrorism" continues. Must see video from CBS interview where Obama:

1 legitimizes the neoconservative war on terrorism as a necessary and true war ;
2 escalate war in Afghanistan for regime change, like Iraq, continues (which is also a civil war);
3 willing to attack targets inside Pakistan--i.e. invade any sovereign country to kill and destroy alleged terrorists (think collateral damage on civilians or wrongly accused from missiles and UAV drones).

Watch the interview, Obama does not answer one "why?" question (a great question) of Lara Logan with any credible response ("they are planning attacks from here?"--evidence please) about the necessity of the war on terrorism , he simply dodges and assumes its legitimacy without reason or debate. UNJUST WAR is the problem here. Where is the protest?



The war on terrorism is not a true or legal constitutional war, and enabling Obama to do the same as Bush without criticism is hypocritical and partisan blindness. It has always been the goal to finish Iraq and legitimize and spread the war on terrorism.

Note the media here in this article, where being "hawkish" is elevated and War equals Patriotism.

The only conclusion one could have then is that a vote for Obama is a vote to continue Unjust Wars under pretense of fighting "terrorism" while it is plainly for "regime change". The war against Afghanistan for the neoconservative agenda is as unjust as the war in Iraq, for there was no evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban or bin Laden (both of which denied knowledge or participation in 9/11 in BBC and foreign press in Oct. 2001) had anything to do with what the neocons called "the new Pearl Harbor".

Is it enough for hypocrites to have a black man and democrat in the White House to constitute "change"? What has everyone been complaining about for over 5 years, if not unjust war, and how would THIS, from Obama's own mouth, change any of it? Dare we mention again his vote FOR the Telecom Immunity and Spy Powers bill?

There is no escape from these facts, and burying your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, or turning your head and voting for Obama CONTINUES THE SAME AGENDA.

clipped from www.cbsnews.com Obama Shows Hawkish Side On Mideast Trip CBSNews.com Reports: Democrat Talks Tough About Afghanistan To Show Skeptics He Can Be Strong Commander In Chief Exclusive: Obama In Afghanistan Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks with CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about his visit to the Middle East and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. | Share/Embed It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism - just 37 percent of voters identified Obama as "very patriotic" in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll - and his toughness when it comes to foreign policy. On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on "Face The Nation." He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan's tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.