politicalpartypoop.com

Ok I’m trolling the Negro gossip site Media Take Out and I find this headline:

EXPLOSIVE: John McCain Wants To RE-INSTATE THE DRAFT (Video Evidence Inside)!!!

I watch the video and I’m thinking, are my ears not working, then I figure out that these idiot libs are reacting to McCain’s acknowledgment of what the audience member was ranting about:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

MCCAIN: Ma’am let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said, and thank you

Have you folks ever been to a lecture and during the question and answer section some tard feels the need to make a fucken political speech because of course THEY are the only insightful ones in the building and they feel that they must educate the rest of us dolts.

The host or moderator always says, “please ask a question, no speeches” but they don’t give a shit, the mic is in their hand so it’s their big moment to impart knowledge to the rest of us mindless slugs. That was this old bat on the video.

C’mon folks y’all know I don’t give a shit about McCain but damm since the crazy old coot would not shut the hell up the old man just wanted the Q & A to be over.
After the first minute of audience member rant he stopped paying attention!

So now all of these fucken moronic blogs are piling on and it is even sensational enough for the Negro gossip site to skip their usual coverage of the daily escapades of Negro celebrities to inform the visitors that Oooooo McCain wants to enact the draft and send you niggas to Iraq or Georgia….for the Negro impaired…the other Georgia not the Hotlanta one…

I mean seriously is there anybody stupid enough to think that a military draft is even a remote possibility unless a major world conflict breaks out?

I know y’all Poop reader know this, but the desperation is setting in for Obama fans.
We are not to September yet and they are already pushing the panic button focusing on this stupid shit!

Crooks and Liars: Does McCain want to reinstate the draft?

The Bruce Blog - John McCain May Reinstate the Military Draft

Just Ain’t Right: Does McCain want to reinstate the draft?

Dan Conley: McCain Endorses Return of Draft

What was said before: Plamegate: Mystery Solved

Funny

Ok folks ya know on some days I turn on the computer scan my news and blogs and nothing really grabs me to post and I’m like, this is not a good day to blog.

Then I know it should be a good day when the first thing I check out in my links section is some gay web site defending what I called a leather freak fest, then on my first blog scan I find this piece on the blog Citizen Against Lies, where my favorite white racist hate site Stormfront.org has an endorsement for president for my favorite candidate
Ron Paul. Oh God all I can do is laugh. Man I hope the posts continue to get better as the day rolls along. I was kinda out of it arriving at my office now I’m in a much better mood. Blogging can do that sometimes!

First the Video:

Disturbed by the Ron Paul Cult of ‘white nationalists’ yet? I will add this first of all: I’m not a big fan of AIPAC, and that’s putting it mildly. But I sure don’t want some freaky white supremacist chick pointing out any of my thoughts on YouTube.

If Ron Paul has a hope in Hades of raising any more money for his campaign, he’d better renounce this endorsement. Why? Because who endorses you speaks to your character. There’s something they see in you that they like.

If David Duke saw something in my character to like enough to endorse me, I’d be worried. And his acceptance of that endorsement speaks even more to his character. Stormfront is a vile right-wing supremacist web site that I won’t link to, it’s so vile. Yet here they are endorsing the good doctor. I don’t understand the appeal of Stormfront or of Ron Paul as a candidate for president.

Read the rest of this post here

Ah what the heck lets visit Stormfront and see what lunacy I can find on Ron Paul.
Damm it’s hard to blog when you are too busy laughing!

not one politician in this country even comes to close to the stature of this man. part of the NWO agenda is to destroy the US, they can not afford to let Ron Paul get into power but he is gaining ground everywhere he goes and on every debate he takes part in.if Ron Paul gets in there will be no going into Iran which is why i believe that the NWO-elite will cause a war to happen before the US election is over.

LOL!

Haha. Absolutely awesome. It’s fantastic to read of such success for Paul, but of course I am realistic enough to know that sadly, he will never be allowed to actually win. If there was any chance of Paul actually winning, then he had better have some very good security, because I can tell you right now, someone would kill him in order to prevent him becoming US president.
A single truth can shatter a thousand lies.

LOL!

Ron Paul 100% i do not support anyone else. tancredo’s only damn issue is immigration which granted is a good issue but he turns every question into something about immigration its very irritating the rest are politicians ron paul on the other hand is a statesman!
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children!

U. of Colorado President: Fire Ward Churchill
***

Below is an old article by Victor David Hansen on National Review from March 24, 2005
I find it remarkable that this fool is allowed to teach at a major University. The bigger fools are the people who take his classes.
Good for the CU president for speaking out and exposing this fraud.

Churchill, Rosie and Ron Paul can start a new show “A Fools View.” What is kind of disturbing is that the show would do pretty well, there are a lot of moronic people who agree with these Moonbats.

*****

(Article Link) Does Ward Churchill even exist?

Dr., Native American, original artist, serious scholar, combat veteran, highly recruited and sought-after academic, ex-Weatherman mentor: How many — if any — of these seven faces of our real-life Dr. Lao are true?

Professors outside the arts at major research universities are supposed to have Ph.D.s. The phantom Ward Churchill does not. How he was hired, promoted, and tenured without a doctorate is a mystery — the equivalent of a high-school teacher credentialed with an AA degree, or a medical doctor operating without an M.D.

Ward Churchill proclaimed that he is a Native American of various tribal affiliations; he is not. Even his ridiculous costumes, occasional threats, and puerile rants cannot disguise that fact.

He seems to be a pop artist of sorts, but his canvasses are not quite his own either. Those of like political mind have praised his scholarship, but much of what he writes seems derivative, or misrepresents or outright plagiarizes others.

Churchill has spoken of the firsthand trauma of battle service as a combat veteran, both as a paratrooper and as a sniper — among the most hazardous of corps in the United States military. Once again, there is no such evidence that he served in any capacity other than what his official duties in a motor pool and as a projectionist entailed.

Embarrassed officials claim Churchill was sought after by other universities — so they had to reel in this trophy catch before he got away — but no one can find any proof other than Churchill’s own mendacious claims.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

 

Allah, Ace, and Dean Barnett all plumbed Paul’s conspiratorial depths–including Bircher-era/Rosie O’Donnell-esque claims that America is poised to manufacture a Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war with Iran and his repeat appearances on the radio show of bottom-feeding 9/11 conspiracist Alex Jones.

Go to Michelle Malkin ‘Trutheriness and Ron Paul’  read for yourself and watch the videos.Nothing like giving a crackpot moron conspiracy theorist more attention than he deserves.

This is from National Review To all of the Rosie O’Donnell crackpot supporters who keep sending me bullshit on You Tube, pay attention. You people need some serious counseling or medications, seriously!

First came the blog post in which Rosie floated the insane conspiracy theory that World Trade Center 7 was blown up by the government. Then came her meltdown on The View when co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck confronted her about it. Finally, today, we find this follow-up on her blog (emphasis added):

9/11 affected me deeply, as I know it did many Americans. The falling of the twin towers served to remind me that many of the assumptions Americans have about their lives are rooted in false feelings of security. In light of this reminder, I have begun doing exactly what this country, at its best, allows for me to do: inquire. Investigate. America is great in so many ways, one of which is the freedom to speak, and indeed think, freely. I have, of late, begun exercising the rights bestowed upon me by the democratic system I value, and the exercising of these rights has taken the form of an inquiry into what happened five years ago, an inquiry that resists the dominant explanations and that dares to entertain ideas that push me to the edge of what is bearable. I have come to no conclusions and, given the scope of the subject, will not for some time.

If the very act of asking is so destabilizing for people, than I have to wonder whether the fabric of our democracy is indeed so raveled it is beyond salvage. My own belief is that the act of asking is itself reparative, because it brings to life the values on which our constitution rests. I am, therefore, pledging my allegiance, hand over heart, trying, as always, for a rigorous truth.

Re-read Popular Mechanics‘ thorough debunking of all flavors of 9/11 conspiracy theories if you need a reminder of how truly insane this is (and read its response to Rosie here).

Instead of going to therapy every day, this clearly unwell person is hosting a television show on a major American network. Someone at ABC has a very cruel sense of humor.

Hey some of you will find this interesting. I will admit, how the hell can a reporter show such incredible ignorance on the air. Duh they are the media and British at that! Could it be she did not know which building was
WTC 7?
 Hell I don’t know, but this will spark all sorts of crazy rumors, oh well.   

“An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.” -prisonplanet.com

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won’t be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available but we fully expect this to be removed soon.

To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building’s structure.

As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building’s collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.

“Never before has all of civilization been threatened,” Gore said. “We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will. But political will is a renewable resource.”

Albert “Woody” Gore

“What we need is a moratorium on all new coal plants, on all new carbon-producing energy power technologies, and work on replacing them with renewable alternatives,” the billionaire founder of CNN said Wednesday.

Turner also called for urgent action to address global climate change, which he referred to as the “single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced.”

Ted “redneck” Turner

I know there are some drive bys that wonder, is this nigga Snoop crazy, global warming is real and we all are going to die!!

We if that tis the case then send me your money, if you think global warming is real, then you believe we are all doomed, ok then send me your money you won’t need it.

You want old Snoop to take global warming seriously, then have billionaire Ted Turner send me a check, for 1 million dollars (I can be brought cheep) I’ll post any and all pro global warming info I can get my hands on.
I want a piece of the global warming pie.
Pay this poor, scientifically ignorant black dude some money and I will jump on the global warming bandwagon in a heartbeat.

If this global warming crap is real then someone can pay a brotha to spread some more propag… er uh INFORMATION.
Heck as of this writing my timid little blog has generated 150,000 plus hits in 10 months, paltry by blogging standards but hey trying to convince the world that it is doomed has to be done one minion at a time.

So again Al, Ted, Hillary, any rich liberals out there, I’ll preach from the mountain tops that global warming is real for a measly 1 million dollars, c’mon make a brotha happy!!

 The House Judiciary Committee, under the new leadership of Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, is planning hearings on the laws, starting later this month or in early February. One of the first issues planned for review is the sentencing disparity between offenses involving powder and crack cocaine.
Read full article.

Below is an article I posted back in November and my brief on the issue.

This is why I love blogging you don’t have to reinvent the wheel and find new stuff because the Democrats keep going back to the same old playbook.  
***** 

I have never understood the crack vs Powder cocaine sentencing crap.
Also being someone that has never injected, snorted, cooked, smoked crack or cocaine I thought the simple goal was to get high.
You mean to tell me that some white person out there when offered some crack would say “goly gee no I don’t want that crack stuff, only Negros smoke that shit, besides didn’t you know about the sentencing guidelines if you get caught?”
Sorry I just can’t process that.
If there is some crackhead or other dope fiend out there that can explain it to me please feel free.   

(Published Edited - Wall Street Journal - April 29, 1997, by Wayne J. Roques. Mr. Roques is a retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent.)

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court injected some reason into the debate over alleged racial disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. The justices let stand the 10-year prison sentence of Duane Edwards, a black man convicted for selling 126 grams of crack to an undercover officer for $3,400. Edwards’s lawyers had argued that their client was a victim of discrimination because a conviction for the sale of an equal amount (in weight, not dollars) of powdered cocaine — a drug preferred by non-minorities — would have garnered a lighter sentence.

Prison reformers and advocates of [tag]drug legalization[/tag] have played this race card in an effort to divide and conquer those who demand that drug traffickers be held accountable for their crimes. Unfortunately, two prominent black leaders, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and [tag]Rep. Charles Rangel[/tag] (D., N.Y.), have bought into this scam and declared the sentencing laws racist.

Yet Jackson and Rangel held a news conference in 1986 demanding that the federal government do something about the crack epidemic that was raging through inner-city neighborhoods. They understood that the introduction of this cheap, rapidly addicting form of cocaine posed a particular danger to the weakest denizens of those areas. Mr. Rangel, in fact, voted for the statute imposing tougher sentences for [tag]crack cocaine[/tag]. Now, it appears that these two gentlemen have forgotten whence the statute came.

The crack cocaine law is not racist. It was enacted to permit federal agents to lend their enforcement efforts to combatting the growing crack cocaine menace. Most drug investigations are conducted by local law enforcement officers functioning under state laws. In instances where the [tag]U.S. Drug Enforcement[/tag] Administration gets involved, intelligence denoting the relative significance of the trafficker or organization, in addition to the actual and potential violence of the drug-trafficking organization, is a vital consideration in targeting a particular group.

Crack, which is smoked rather than snorted, is far cheaper and more rapidly addictive than powder cocaine, and it renders its users more prone to violence. The only effective way to combat it is by going after the retail end of the market. With powder cocaine, on the other hand, the federal government generally reserves its limited resources for wholesale operations. That’s why cases involving wholesale distributors of powder cocaine normally involve multiple kilograms of the drug, while crack cocaine cases generally are measured in grams. The average amount of powder cocaine per inmate in federal prison on a powder cocaine violation is about 183 pounds. The average amount of crack cocaine per convict is about 700 grams, which converts to approximately 7,000 “rocks” (dosages), hardly the stock of a small-time pusher or addict.

There has been a great deal of sophistry in the discussion of the relative sentences for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. In truth, the sentencing statute doesn’t impose longer sentences for crack cocaine. Rather, it establishes a lower weight threshold to get to an equivalent sentence for crack cocaine as compared with powder cocaine. It is predicated on the relative importance of the defendant in the phase of the market in which he operates. If federal agents were subject to the same quantity thresholds for crack cocaine investigations as they are for powder, they simply wouldn’t be able to work the retail crack market.

In the Southern District of Florida, for example, the threshold for powder cocaine cases is three kilograms. The same amount of crack is the equivalent of 30,000 rocks. It is unlikely that a crack cocaine dealer would ever have sufficient quantity to meet such a threshold.

Do tough crack sentences [tag]discriminate[/tag] against blacks? Consider: A comprehensive 1991 study revealed that of 2,980 federal crack cocaine prisoners, 2,513 (84%) were black and 467 were non-black. (The most recent figure available for the number of federal prisoners incarcerated for crack charges is 3,771 — out of roughly 100,000 total federal prisoners–in 1995.) Crack defendants are a small percentage of drug criminals behind federal bars. The same 1991 study found that there were 16,528 federal powder cocaine prisoners, of whom only 4,439 (27%) were black. And of 6,015 federal prisoners serving time for marijuana charges, only 442 (8%) were black.

Do these numbers reflect discrimination against the non-black marijuana and powder cocaine criminals? Or is it simply reflective of who is involved at the upper levels of organizations trafficking in each of these drugs? (The average amount of marijuana involved for a federal marijuana prisoners is over three tons of the drug.) And the most important question is this: Why are we focussing all this time and energy on the “plight” of drug criminals? The object of our efforts and devotion should be the victims of crack cocaine — children who are seduced by it or addicted even before birth, and law abiding citizens whose communities are devastated by its effects–not those who profit by the misery and harm they visit on our society.

 

 A comment from this individual prompted me to repost this. I forgot about this bullshit liberal conspiracy.

Posted by Brent Baker - Newsbusters - Link

Although a Monday CBS Evening News story included a soundbite from an expert dismissing the idea as “preposterous,” the newscast treated a far-left conspiracy theory — about how the Bush administration is somehow manipulating the pump 09price for gas to help in the election — as credible and worthy enough to deserve a broadcast network story. Citing how the price of a gallon of gas has fallen to the lowest all year, anchor Katie Couric wondered: “Is this an election year present from President Bush to fellow Republicans?” Over a shot of a “GOP: Grand Oil Party” bumper sticker laying on a dashboard, reporter Anthony Mason asserted: “Gas started going down just as the fall campaign started heating up. Coincidence? Some drivers don’t think so.” The man in the car insisted “I think it’s basically a ploy to sort of get the American people to think, well, the economy is going good, let’s vote Republican.”

Over headlines from Daily Kos and Huffington Post, Mason conceded you can “call the conspiracy theory crazy,” but he touted how “it’s spreading through Internet blogs and over the airwaves. And a recent poll found 42 percent of people actually believe the Bush administration has deliberately manipulated the price of gas to affect the election.”

Back in late September, CNN’s American Morning also gave credence to the conspiracy, as detailed in a September 27 MRC CyberAlert item, “CNN: Are Falling Gas Prices a Conspiracy Between Big Oil and GOP?”, which began:

For the third time in less then a month, CNN has aired a report investigating the connection between falling gas prices and the GOP’s fortunes in the looming fall election. This time, on Monday’s American Morning, reporter Ali Velshi looked into the conspiracy theory that oil companies are trying to help Republicans by dropping prices. Co-Anchor Soledad O’Brien teased the report: “Ahead this morning, is there a conspiracy behind the drop in gas prices? Bloggers say there is something fishy going on.” Velshi gave credibility to the theory: “Are lower gas prices a Republican plot? This blogger wonders if Republicans are trying to soften voters, who have spent the last year angry about high prices.” He even asked: “Could President Bush have had anything to do with plummeting gas prices?” Velshi doubted the conspiracy idea, but then offered up: “Maybe the oil companies realize that the Democrats coming in, it’s going to be bad for them, because the Democrats have pretty much said to the oil companies, we’re going to pile the taxes on if we, we take over in November.”

In late August, a NewsBusters posting by Megan McCormack recounted how CNN’s Jack Cafferty saw a conspiracy by the oil companies: “You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away.” The transcript of the October 16 CBS Evening News story, as provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth who corrected the closed-captioning against the video:

Katie Couric: “The way things are going at the gas pump, there’s no point in topping off your tank today. Chances are, the price will be even lower tomorrow. As of tonight, gas is the lowest it’s been all year, a nationwide average of $2.23 a gallon. It hasn’t been that low since last Christmas. But is this an election year present from President Bush to fellow Republicans? Here’s Anthony Mason.” Anthony Mason: “For two months now, gas prices have been in free-fall, plunging 81 cents a gallon since August and giving the President some rare good news.”

George W. Bush: “Gas prices are down.”

Mason, over “GOP: Grand Oil Party” bumper sticker laying on a dashboard: “Gas started going down just as the fall campaign started heating up. Coincidence? Some drivers don’t think so.”

Man in a car: “And I think it’s basically a ploy to sort of get the American people to think, well, the economy is going good, let’s vote Republican.”

Mason, over headlines from Daily Kos and Huffington Post: “Call the conspiracy theory crazy, but it’s spreading through Internet blogs-”

Unidentified male radio host: “Are you suspicious? Coincidence or collusion?”

Mason: “-and over the airwaves. And a recent [Gallup/USA Today] poll found 42 percent of people actually believe the Bush administration has deliberately manipulated the price of gas to affect the election.”

Prof. Larry Sabato, University of Virginia: “You don’t think gas prices matter? Just ask Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They’ll all tell you that their victories or defeats depended in part on the cost of gas at the pump.”

Mason: “In fact, there’s an uncanny connection between President Bush’s popularity and the price at the pump. Take a look at this chart. As gas prices were rising, the President’s approval rating was sinking.”

Andy Laperriere, ISI Group: “You see what appears to be almost a perfect correlation that the President’s approval is really driven by gas prices.”

Mason: “But analyst Andy Laperriere says there’s no conspiracy.”

Laperriere: “It’s preposterous.”

Mason: “Supply and demand determine gas prices, he says, and apart from controlling the relatively small Strategic Petroleum Reserve-”

Laperriere: “There’s virtually nothing the President can do to impact oil prices and gas prices.”

Mason concluded with how lower gas prices are not benefitting Bush because of Iraq: “In any case, Iraq is now weighing down President Bush’s poll numbers. Lower gas prices have made Americans feel better about the economy, but they’re not making them feel better about the President. Anthony Mason, CBS News, New York.”

 By Tom Kovach - The Sierra Times

This column was inspired by a recent Letter to the Editor in the Nashville area’s Left-leaning, Gannett-owned, major daily, The Tennessean — often nicknamed “Pravda on the Cumberland.” The letter writer extolled readers to toss out all Republicans, because it is allegedly their fault that gasoline prices are high. (By the way, at the time of the letter’s publication, gasoline prices in this area had fallen about 50 cents per gallon in the past month.) Instead of posting my reply in the newspaper’s online forum, I decided to publish this as a column, because these principles apply nationwide. I grew up in south Texas, where people paid attention to fluctuations in gasoline prices back when those fluctuations were only a penny or two. (Of course, when I was an adolescent, two pennies equaled almost ten percent of the price of a gallon!) So … the Democrats will keep gasoline prices down, huh?

When the Democrats were in total control of Congress, and a Republican (Gerald Ford) was president, our country went into an “energy crisis.” Gasoline prices went up from 27 cents per gallon to 42 cents per gallon.

People were so outraged that they voted Ford out, and Jimmy Carter in.

Then, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, plus the White House (as the Republicans do now), gasoline prices almost tripled from 42 cents to $1.14 per gallon. But, if you remember that the Democrats also controlled both houses of Congress, and the White House, in the mid-1960s when gasoline was at 25 cents, then the gasoline price actually went up almost five times its original price.

Now, let’s do the math. Gasoline was $1.14 per gallon when Ronald Reagan became president. It went up slightly, to about $1.25 per gallon. It remained stable until President Bill Clinton (Democrat) got bogged down in Somalia (which borders the Gulf of Aden, where American-bound tankers travel between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea), and started dropping bombs in the Balkans. Then, gasoline went up to about $1.55. (Has anyone ever heard of the oil fields of Ploesti? One of the largest refining regions in Europe has pipelines radiating out from it, and Clinton was bombing the Balkans. Gasoline prices went up.) Then, gasoline prices remained stable until President G. W. Bush took offices. Then, gasoline prices went down. When I moved to Nashville in early August of 2001, I paid 99 cents per gallon for gasoline for a couple weeks, during a “gas war” (at the Golden Gallon on Haywood Lane). The price stabilized at about $1.29 per gallon.

After the “9-11″ attacks, and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, gasoline prices jumped dramatically. Given that much of the world’s oil flows through the Persian Gulf, which was then put in an unstable position by the war (started by terrorists … hello, Democrats!), the price of gasoline began to rise dramatically. For those in the media that were victims of Outcome Based Education, it costs the oil companies and the shipping lines a lot of extra money to protect the oil during a war.

In summary, during a war, gasoline went from $1.29 per gallon to about $2.99 per gallon. That’s an increase of about 115 percent under the Republicans. In comparison, during peacetime (the energy crisis began after the US withdrawal from Vietnam had begun), gasoline went from 27 cents per gallon to $1.55 per gallon. (Gasoline prices remained fairly stable during the presidencies of both Reagan and “Bush 1,” when Democrats controlled the House. Gasoline prices rose sharply under Clinton, when the House changed hands from Democrats to Republicans. Therefore, the long-haul changes balance each other out from 1974 to 2000. Thus, the Democrats must take the blame for the overall increases, because they controlled most of the power most of the time.)

Liberals have such short memories when it comes to facts.

They try to sing the right song with the wrong lyrics. Hopefully, the voting “audience” here in Music City — and across this great nation — will catch the error, and dismiss the Democrats’ siren song of class envy. Elected officials do not vote on gasoline prices! However, elected officials do vote on environmental laws that tie the hands of American oil companies. Those laws, which prevent us from refining the oil beneath our own feet (or beneath the waves in American territorial waters), were ushered in mostly by Democrats.

To borrow an analogy from attorney and talk-radio giant G. Gordon Liddy, that is like killing one’s parents, and then throwing one’s self upon the mercy of the court on the grounds of being an orphan! The Democrats routinely blame Republicans for high petroleum prices, in an attempt to win elections. (But, if the Democrats lose an election, they simply turn around and claim that the Republicans used their political connections to bring the prices down just before the election. It’s the old, “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.”) It seems that high prices produce low politics.

By Jon Sanders - FrontPageMagazine.com - Link

Alex Jones dishes out mad conspiracy stew and the paranoiacs (even college professors) lap it up. But the formula is simple, and somebody is going to profit off these poor fools: everything that happens is orchestrated by a Grand Conspiracy, which can be determined post hoc — and any facts that don’t fit the conspiracy, well, the Grand Conspiracy was so clever, it even knew to plant those red herrings! It is the ultimate Procrustean bed. I have had my encounters with Alex Jones and his ilk. After my FrontPage Magazine article criticized one college professor for her course preaching the 9/11 Bush/Zionist plot, I was inundated with the most bizarre, angry, vicious, and paranoid e-mails from the conspiracymongers put onto my column by Jones — whose web sites and videos were used by the professor as her primary sources. Jones even invited me on his radio program, and immediately before he introduced me to his audience, he made a remark about being “CIA funded, like some of these writers are.” Not being CIA funded, I know firsthand how Jones makes up wild stories to continue to feed his audience conspiratorial red meat.

Breaking through the conspiracymonger’s mindset is a nearly impossible job, because a Grand Conspiracy theory almost always insulates itself from any self-test or falsifiability. When all events are assumed to be orchestrated, then each single event counter to the theory is invariably assumed to be hoaxed to put the diligent “truth-seeker” off the scent. I have tried, with some success, in personal communication with honestly seeking 9/11 doubters to communicate the tools for proper skepticism and how they must also be used on the theories themselves.

I have also tried to illustrate before the fact how a conspiracy theorist might react to events. Furthermore, a recurring theme in the 9/11 and other Grand Conspiracy theories is that “Eyewitnesses said X but the government and the controlled media are saying Y — obviously they’re trying to hide the truth, which is X.” I have tried to point out in new events how eyewitness accounts to a sudden, surprising catastrophe are often conflicted, erroneous, and wildly variable in the confusion that immediately follows.

So, was the Lidle crash a government psy-op?

Yesterday, following the tragic plane crash in New York City that claimed the life of New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, I wrote about the inevitable conflicting reports and how a conspiracymonger might treat them. I wrote:

It’s been a few hours since this accident hit the news reports, but Fox News notes this: “The Federal Aviation Administration said that the small aircraft was fixed wing, but earlier reports indicated that it may have been a small helicopter.”

Hot Air has basically live-blogged the catastrophe; you can read how many reports have come in that have later proven to be erroneous. As I’ve pointed out before, there will always be confusing and conflicting details from people on the scene when something like this happens. But conspiracymongers make no allowance for initial confusion during an event — in fact, they exploit that confusion to build a case after the fact for government (or whomever) “suppressing the truth.”

So in this instance, should it become a cause célèbre in kookdom, the tinfoil hats would start churning out bug-eyed rants about “The FAA is LYING about 10/11! Eyewitnesses report seeing black helicopters hitting the buildings! We’re living in a wag-the-dog police state! It’s time to panic!”

I couldn’t resist checking, and sure enough, Alex Jones had already started in on a governmental conspiracy angle. In an article entitled “Manhattan Plane Crash Simple Accident Or Suspicious Psy-op?,” Jones and co-author Paul Joseph Watson had speculated in the first paragraph,

Is this a government psy-op intended to invoke memories of 9/11 as the mid-term elections approach?

Shortly after my post, the news broke about Lidle. I wondered what Jones et al. would have to say about that. Would they suggest that Lidle was in on the plot? Would they propose that the late Yankees pitcher was a tool of the Neo-Cons, or would they suggest that he’s perhaps alive and well in a Secret Government Bunker sharing drinks with the 9/11 hijackers, and Elvis and Amelia Earhart, too?

No, what Jones and Watson did was even more hilarious. They changed the article, wiping out all traces of their immediate thoughts that it could be a government psy-op campaign to influence the mid-term election. The new article instead accused others of “hysterical reactions” — to wit,

Fox News’ Neil Cavuto … bizarrely put the pilot error of the Yankees’ Cory Lidle into the context of how it would affect the upcoming mid-term elections.

Yes, what Fox News (you realize, of course, that Fox is the medium of the supposed Bush/Zionist plot) put “in the context” of how it would affect the elections, Jones and Watson had put in a blaring headline as a potential “government psy-op” campaign. Which they later tried to put down the Internet memory hole.

Unfortunately for them, in their original reworking of the article, they had forgotten to change the lead paragraph. So while the new headline said “Fox News Spins Plane Accident; Says It Could Affect Election,” their second sentence still spun the plane accident: “Is this a government psy-op intended to invoke memories of 9/11 as the mid-term elections approach?”

That is what I happened upon shortly after my original post, and it’s what I took a screenshot of, figuring that Jones and Watson would later discover their mistake. I took another screenshot this morning of the rewritten article. I highlighted the “hysterical” portions of each.

The article before its complete revision:

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/AlexJonesbefore.jpg

The article after revision:

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/AlexJonesafter.jpg

I hope the 9/11 “truth” profs and their acolytes see this and realize. This is your truth guru at work.

I expect, however, that any reaction will be either along the lines of “The Zionists in charge of the CIA had Sanders make this up in a feeble effort to derail Jones and the 9/11 truth movement” or “Jones is controlled opposition; the ultimate tool of the regime.” Well, I suppose it could be both, too.

Also, with regard to my initial prediction, I see there’s already an article on Jones’ site bearing the headline “Some Eyewitnesses Claim Crash Was Helicopter.”

I swear you liberals are certifiably insane! 

Title: ALEX JONES: Fox News Spins Plane Accident; Says It Could Affect Election
Source: www.prisonplanet.com
URL Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/article … tober2006/111006planecrash.htm
Author: Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Fox News Spins Plane Accident; Says It Could Affect Election

Hysterical reactions invoke 9/11 as baseball star confirmed as pilot, passport found on street

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones /Prison http://Planet.com | October 11 2006

The FBI and Homeland Security are now labeling a small aircraft hitting an apartment building on Manhattan’s Upper East Side at 72nd Street and York Avenue, as a probable accident. Is this a government psy-op intended to invoke memories of 9/11 as the mid-term elections approach?

On Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto, Cavuto suggested during a conversation with Republican Congressman Peter King that the event would possibly affect the upcoming mid-term election by reminding Americans of the horror of 9/11.

It has now been reported that the pilot or one of the occupants of the plane was New York Yankees baseball star Cory Lidle. The fact that the accident involves a celebrity means the networks can justifiably talk about it for another three weeks and in that sense - invoking memories of 9/11 - it could impact the election.

Reports that Lidle’s passport was found on the street is also being seen as suspicious by some 9/11 truthers - because it would seemingly prop up the inconceivable notion that Mohammed Atta and other hijacker’s passports survived and were discovered. However, in the case of Lidle this could easily be explained by eyewitness reports that most of the plane debris did not enter the building and ended up on the street below. This is how investigators have already been able t o identify the plane in just the short time after the crash.

Early reports that the crash involved a helicopter have now been dismissed. The FBI have confirmed two people are dead but say there is no “indication of terrorism.”

“The initial indication is that there is a terrible accident,” said Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke.

Obviously one of the following explanations will be offered as to what happened - either Lidle was hopped up on a cocktail of drugs, was drunk, wanted to commit suicide, wanted to impress his friends, or the foggy conditions simply contributed to pilot error.

NBC reports that Lidle was “not instrument rated to fly the plane and could only fly when visibility was good.”

News networks reported that President Bush immediately ordered NORAD to defend the city of New York and other major cities. Whatever the nature of this incident, Bush is getting an opportunity to grandstand - and his Neo-Con mouthpieces at Fox News are rolling around in the hysteria like pigs in shit.

Networks also reported that the plane flew on the edge of a restricted airspace zone and thus was not flagged for interception.

The fevered reaction to this apparent accident painfully remains us of the hysteria that America remains entranced by five years and one month after 9/11.

Previous examples where small planes have deliberately been flown into buildings have been played down by the U.S. government - including a Clinton-era incident where a Cessna was flown into the White House.

Will the apartment building collapse in its own footprint like the twin towers? We know that’s what happens when planes hit buildings so we’ll wait and see what transpires.

BBC News reported that people who lived next to the building were panicking that it might collapse (from fire that was only seen emerging from four floors and is now out). That in itself is an example of how the legacy of hysteria from 9/11 has replaced common sense.

BY CARRIE ANTLFINGER
Associated Press - Article Link

MILWAUKEE — A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor who has come under scrutiny for saying that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay that his students are being required to buy.

The essay, “Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11,” is part of a $20 book of essays from 15 authors called “9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out,” according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by the Associated Press.

The book is on the syllabus for the twice-a-week course, “Islam: Religion and Culture,” being taught by part-time instructor Kevin Barrett, but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett’s essay.

Barrett is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies,” he wrote.

Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

“That’s not comparing them as people, that’s comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that’s an accurate comparison that I would stand by,” he said.

But he did say in an interview: “Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.”

Moira Megargee, publicity director for the Northampton, Mass., publisher Interlink, said the book is due out at the end of November, and the editing isn’t finished.

“It is not final, and for all we know, that essay may not be in the book or may be edited,” she said.

The UW’s decision to allow Barrett to teach the course touched off a firestorm of controversy over the summer once his views became widely known.

Sixty-one state legislators denounced the move, and one county board cut its funding for the UW-Extension by $8,247 — the amount Barrett will earn for teaching the course — in a symbolic protest, even though the course has nothing to do with that branch of the UW System.

The two major-party gubernatorial candidates said Tuesday they still believe he should have been fired.

“The governor feels this is crazy, offensive and shouldn’t be in the classroom,” said Matt Canter, spokesman for Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.

In a statement, Republican Mark Green said: “Kevin Barrett continues to make a complete mockery of the University of Wisconsin and our great state.”

One essay Barrett is requiring is entitled: “A Clash Between Justice and Greed,” about how conflicts between Islam and the western world were made up after the “collapse of the Soviet Union to justify U.S. ‘defense’ spending, and to provide a pretext of controlling the world’s resources.”

“The Remaking of Islam in the Post 911 Era” is about the assault of Islamic people by the Rand Corporation.

The author of “Interpreting Terrorism: Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare?” contends some Western intelligence agencies are doing acts of terrorism to make it look like radical Islamics.

UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell decided to retain Barrett for the course after reviewing his plans and qualifications. He said Barrett could present his ideas during one week of the course as long as students were allowed to challenge them.

He later warned Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his personal political views.

Farrell said Tuesday that he hasn’t seen the essay but faculty can assign readings that may not be popular to everyone.

“I think part of the role of any challenging course here is going to encourage students to think of things from a variety of perspectives,” he said.

Farrell said it’s common for instructors or professors to require books they have written or contributed to.

“For many faculty a book represents their best thinking on how an issue should be presented, so why not use that ‘best thinking’ for the students they teach?” he said in an e-mail.

In the essay, Barrett restates many of his controversial views of the terrorist attacks.

Barrett said required class reading will also represent mainstream views on the Sept. 11 attacks.

 Indicate U.S. far advanced in constructing bureaucracy united with Mexico, Canada

Government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal the Bush administration is running a “shadow government” with Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south, asserts WND columnist and author Jerome R. Corsi.

The documents, a total of about 1,000 pages, are among the first to be released to Corsi through his FOIA request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, which describes itself as an initiative “to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation.”

“The documents clearly reveal that SPP, working within the U.S. Department of Commerce, is far advanced in putting together a new regional infrastructure, creating a ’shadow’ trilateral bureaucracy with Mexico and Canada that is aggressively rewriting a wide range of U.S. administrative law, all without congressional oversight or public disclosure,” Corsi said.

READ THE REST HERE

When gas prices shot up in spring, some in the media were quick to criticize “corporate greed,” but as prices plummet, even that decline has to be a “conspiracy.”

If you think I’m kidding, then you don’t know Jack—Jack Cafferty that is. Cafferty shoots from the lip often enough as a CNN host, but on the August 30 edition of that network’s “Situation Room,” he outdid himself. After a story about how gas prices might get close to $2 by Thanksgiving, Cafferty grabbed his tinfoil hat and came up with his own conspiracy theory.

“You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away,” he ranted.

He ended the segment with another dig at Big Oil. “The interesting thing to watch on that story about gas prices is what happens to them right after the midterms,” he added.

An international conspiracy involving our government and evil oil companies? Sounds like the plot for Syriana. George Clooney won an Oscar for his role in that agitprop flick that depicted oil company villains in league with manipulative CIA operatives.

Only, Cafferty wasn’t in Syriana, and this wasn’t a show about a faked moon landing, aliens landing in Area 51 or Elvis and Tupac planning a concert tour together. This was a major “newscast” where one anchor just spouted off about a conspiracy with no facts at all to back it up.

On the September 3 “In The Money,” he repeated his crazy charge when he should have sounded retreat. “I mean the oil companies have a vested interest in seeing that the Republicans remain in control of the federal government,” Cafferty again claimed. “They wouldn’t pull prices down before the midterms now. Would they?”

Not just would they, but could they? If you believe that, then you and Cafferty should discuss the Illuminati’s controlling world events—just to raise gas prices. But that defies the same “logic” Cafferty claims is behind oil company support for Republicans. The increase in gas prices has hurt Bush and Republican incumbents for two years. Why then didn’t these same mysterious forces keep the price low?

Because in the real world, oil companies don’t control gas prices. They’re set on world markets. They’ve dropped significantly from their recent high on August 8—declining 42 cents between August 12 and September 12. If you’ll recall, gas prices soared from $2.26 a gallon in February as Iran increased tensions about its nuclear aims. Then, on April 11, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared, “Iran has joined the nuclear countries of the world,” according to the New York Times. Gas shot up about 25 cents in two weeks thanks to our nuclear reaction.

That was just the beginning. The inherently unstable Mideast became more so as Israel tried to root out the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah. Summer driving season came and prices went up as they do every year. The media’s favorite anti-American dictator, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, threatened to cut off oil and urged OPEC to set a minimum price of $50 per barrel.

Then in August, British Petroleum had problems with its Prudhoe Bay pipeline, making some network news reporters predict gas would hit $3.50.

Disappointed by Good News

Instead of oil skyrocketing, gas prices crashed like a North Korean missile test. Peace came temporarily to Israel. Summer driving season drew to a close. Chavez proved to have as much hot air as oil, and Iran made noises about working with the West on its nuclear aims.

Then gas began to fall.

If you’re Jack Cafferty, that was too much to bear. The huge oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico made it worse. Cafferty likes high gas prices. “I hope gas prices go as high as they have to go to get the rest of these morons off the road in these big Hummers,” he wished on the March 25 “In the Money.”

So now he’s angry because gas prices aren’t high enough. In that case, he must love OPEC. According to the September 12 New York Times, OPEC said it “would cut production if prices fell more.” That looks like they’re keeping prices high by controlling supply. By Cafferty’s logic, that would either make Ahmadinejad a big Democratic supporter or talk of such conspiracies downright silly.

If you want crazy conspiracies from your news broadcast, then tune to CNN. If you want something better, send Jack Cafferty some aluminum foil so he knows how you feel about his cooking up a kooky theory for gas prices.

Ten days after Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and the Nation’s David Corn revealed — contrary to Corn’s previous speculation — that the original leaker in the Valerie Plame controversy was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and not Karl Rove or another of former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s bogeymen, the New York Times finally got around to editorializing on the matter. And what an editorial it was.

Keep in mind that the story broke on Saturday, Aug. 27, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune editorialized on the matter on Sept. 1, five days later, the Los Angeles Times ran its editorial on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, the New York Times finally weighed in. Were the Times’ editorial writers doing extensive research and crafting a masterful editorial? Nope.

In its editorial titled “Time for Answers,” after identifying Valerie Plame as a “covert C.I.A. agent” the Times writes: “The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.”

Yes, it’s time for answers — from the Times. How does it know for certain that Valerie Plame was both “covert” and an “agent”? The source of those claims is her husband, and other major media organizations have withheld judgment. The Washington Post calls Plame merely a “former CIA employee.” The Los Angeles Times uses scare quotes when describing the “outing” of Plame. But the Times swallows the Wilson line whole.

The Times also, incredibly, persists in asserting that “Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.” Do the Times editorial writers read anything other than their own editorial page? READ THE REST OF THIS STORY FROM THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR

THEN check this out: The liberal bloggers are determined to get “someone” ANYONE in the Bush administration…and make themselves “rich” in the process…

From Firedoglake  

If it  hadn’t been for the groundbreaking work of the blogosphere, and Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel of Kos and The Next Hurrah fame) in particular, the CIA Leak Investigation probably would have turned into another Whitewater — an incomprehensible mess of spin put forward by the Administration and published on the front page of the Washington Post like it actually made sense. Thanks to the tireless work of those who read carefully and publicly held journalists accountable for their work, the abililty of the Administration to do  that was sorely hampered. 

Now the table is being set for a Libby pardon, helpfully abetted by the New York Times, the Washington Post and Bill Kristol among others. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who has worked so tirelessly and efficiently on this case, is being smeared by those who either don’t understand what has happened to date or are willfully ignorant of history.

It is for this reason that we are going to be publishing our first book through FDL Books, in order to have Marcy’s work seen by a larger audience.  We hope to publish it in much the same fashion as Glenn Greenwald’s How Would a Patriot Act, in conjunction with Jennifer Nix who did such a great job on that effort. Glenn’s book which was a true internet phenomenon, and we hope we can have a similar impact by publishing this book in conjunction with the Libby trial in February of next year. 

If George Bush wants to pardon Scooter Libby, it is important that he know that there will be a price to be paid for doing so, and that price increases as the truth spreads.  We need 650 readers to give $100 each in order to help us to make that happen. That’s less than 1% of the average readership of this blog on any given weekday.  This is an important story both for the blogosphere and the country to get right, and we need your help to do that.

From Jane “Blackface” Hamsher 

“We’re really looking forward to publishing Marcy’s book and pushing back against the “Libby did nothing wrong, it was all Armitage” narrative. Years’ worth of history has to be forgotten in order to pull that wool over the country’s eyes. “

I remember at the convention while attending the CIA leak portion of Yearly Kos how the people gave that idiot bastard Joe Wilson at huge standing ovation and treated this guy like he was some hero, people gushing over him, I’m talking about serious hero worship for a man who is a bimbo, and I thought to myself the liberal left in this country is really fucked up. This crazy blog group just as white as they can be, just as confused as they can be, and just as angry as they can be.
Anyone with common sense knew this man was a fraud and an opportunist pimping his wife around like a cheap Vegas escort.
I’m not there YET, but I think the kook left Blogsphere will be the ultimate downfall of the Democratic Party.
Many of these bloggers are Cindy Sheehan with editorial skills. If prominent Democratic leaders start relying on the support of these crazy people they are toast.  

BUT, I love liberals they are if nothing else entertaining.

People who still claim this obviously have a mental disorder. But hey nothing a good stiff drink won’t cure! 

by JAYA NARAIN
From the UK Daily Mail - Article Link

 The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an “inside job”, according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

See also…
• New DNA bid to identify 9/11 victims
• Flight 93 ‘was shot down’ claims book
• Iran’s president keeps promise to purge universities of ‘liberals’
The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.

But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.

Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.

He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.

Prof Jones said: “We don’t believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.

“We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.”

In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.

They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.

The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.

Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.

He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.

The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.

Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: “The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don’t have time to take a look at this.”

The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.

Subsequent examinations of the towers’ structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.

He said: “To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It’s too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.

“After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we’ve had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It’s a waste of time.”

But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don’t fit into their belief systems.

He said: “People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it.”

As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.

 by Lisa De Pasquale -  Human Events

This week liberals were outraged over a joke involving a Republican politician being assassinated. Was it the art exhibit depicting a gun pointed at the President’s head with “Patriot Act” written underneath? Nope. Was it the buttons depicting the President pointing a gun at his own head with the phrase “end terrorism now?” Nope. How about the T-shirt depicting Tom DeLay’s committing suicide with the caption, “We can dream, can’t we?” Wrong, again.

HUMAN EVENTS Legal Affairs Correspondent Ann Coulter is the only person who can get liberals in such a tizzy. The offensive act is the title of her column this week, “They Shot the Wrong Lincoln.” The column was perfectly timed, incisive and critical of President Bush’s endorsement of liberal candidates Senators Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.). And the title—hilarious!

In Treason, Coulter remarks that liberals think they are making a valid point simply by putting quote marks around words (example: Reagan “won” the Cold War). In this case, they certainly don’t disappoint. Editor & Publisher “reports,” “Ann Coulter periodically ‘jokes’ about the deaths of certain liberals and other enemies but this week the killing reference appears right in the headline of her column.” So that makes it doubly worse!

Media Matters “for America” was also on the case just three hours after the column was posted on HUMAN EVENTS. For the record, after reading the column I emailed to a friend that Coulter’s column this week would spark feigned outrage from Media Matters and E&P. She now owes me a diet Coke.

One can always count on the Media Matters comments section for a glimpse into the “hearts” of liberals. Here’s just a small sample of comments from their article on Coulter’s column on Chafee. [sic to infinity]

“I think Henry VIII executed the wrong Anne. Chop! Chop!”

“Exactly WHAT Is this sad charicature of a human beings obsession with killing people?”

“Why has she not been arrested? Advocating the killing of people is a crime or should be.”

“This broad should be arrested …tied up in her jail cell, and have dog crap flung in her face for a couple months.”

“Annie…..Annie you can’t run from every pie”

“I think In March 1945 a typhus epidemic in a Nazi concentration camp killed the wrong Anne–although our Anne would have been a guard, and not a prisoner.”

“She sounds like anti-social, Ted Bundy wanna be”

“Ann Coulter should be arrested for threatening the life of a United States Senator.”

“If she proposed the same actions towards any president that she proposes for those she disagrees with, her actions would be criminal and she’d be arrested. If any democrat went on TV and called for the assassination of a republican president, that person would be vilified and scorned. [Remember this one, folks]”

Read the rest at Human Events

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loose Change is a documentary written and directed by Dylan Avery which presents an alternative explanation of events during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. The film attempts to compensate for the perceived inadequacy of government investigations and the 9/11 Commission Report. It alleges that the attacks were not the result of terrorism but a series of cleverly executed events carried out by the US government. It was released through the creators’ company, Louder than Words, and received wide attention after being featured on local FOX affiliate, WICZ-TV (FOX 40).

One site that does not care for the video Screw Loose Change.

Watch, Go to Snoops Videos on the upper left of the site.

Ok, I watched, and I think it was well done and interesting.
If you want me to process this line of thinking, the one factor that cannot be left out is the “human” element.
In order for me to give credence to any of this you have to have me believe that, hundreds if not thousands of people must remain silent.
Everybody at all levels of government every conceivable co-conspirator that would include  every housekeeper, every Airman or Corporal,  NCO or officer, every operations technician, every cook, every boyfriend or girlfriend, pilot, phone operator, Every Air Traffic Controller, NASA geek, Jesus pull out all of the human elements needed to carry out such a brilliant and elaborate scheme.
I have said this to many conspiracy theorists, G Dub is either an upright Steven Hawking or he is the ignorant buffoon those on the left has painted him.
Which is it?
We are a society of lying, evil, opportunist, greedy, selfish, conniving individuals. A country of people that would sell the souls of their mothers to support a drug habit.
Sick bastards who molest kids, chastize someone over a religious choice, berate someone over a sexual orientation, malign someone over a hair style, ridicule those who are fat, and worship skinny fictional characters.
I’ve worked in a position, while in the military that dealt with secretive stuff.
I had level two Top Secret clearances (scary huh?).
Now just process my crazy ass. Working with top military individuals. Can gubment secrets pertaining to the mass deaths of thousands of civilians and billions of dollars of capital loss be concealed, manipulated and processed away.
Folks I worked for that gubment in a very intimate way… Those folks ain’t that damm smart.
Now tell me the crew from the Enterprise, came back in time, were on those planes, guided them into the Pentagon and WTC’s and beamed off before impact, yes, I could get wit dat.
Jean Luc Picard, now that tis a smart SOB!
Crew of NCC-1701D YES, Bush Administration, NO!
For me I like reading a seeing others theories on issue like these. Decent is good, healthy decent and healthy opposition only makes our nation strong.
But if you can believe that our government is capable of this type of over the top deceit and carnage. Then why ever vote, why pray, why have kids, why have relationships,
why discuss this very topic. If OUR government is capable of this, then pack it in folks, don’t go to work on Tuesday, go ahead, cheat on your husband, snort that line, don’t go to church tomorrow, fuck it.  Buy that red sports car, don’t leave it in Vegas spread it around. Have 10 shots of that fine Tequila, hell I buy the first 3 shots. Smoke it up, drink it up and sex it up cause it just doesn’t matter. Our Gubmnet is out to get us.