111007 News As Talked About on The Harry Thomas Show week in review

=============================================================================================

It is time to call out the media on their inaccurate and misleading reporting. No longer can or should we as Americans allow this kind of blatant bias to be plastered all over. It hurts us as a country, it hurts us individually, it hurts us as a people. The news used to be run by people that you could trust. You could at least trust that they had, to the best of their knowledge, checked out a story for accuracy before running it. You could trust that they wouldn't outright lie to you. We need a believable fourth estate. Without an honest media we can no longer live in a free country. If the news is going to lie to you or manipulate you about one thing, you can be sure they will be lying about another.

We are starting to live in an age where the bloggers on the Internet have more credibility than the official news teams you see blasting on your television set at night. It becomes very dangerous when we are misled. We trust the news to tell us the truth, if they don't, then we have no idea what is going on in the world. We become confused. We enter a zone where we don't know what to believe. If you are constantly bombarded with false images, then your view of the world becomes false. Therein lies the real danger. Once the people have a distorted view of reality they are easily manipulated. We are being told all day long that the world is a terrifying place to live and we as a people end up being happy to give away our liberties in order to get some safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, those that would give up liberty for safety deserve neither. Well, we are well on our way to getting neither.

As Ron Paul begins to do better in the campaign, the attacks against him are going to get stronger and stronger. A few days ago, it turned out that a person sent spam with Ron Paul's name on it, supposedly touting Ron Paul as the guy to vote for. The paper that wrote it ended up printing a retraction because Dr. Paul's campaign had nothing to do with it.

Now, a local NBC station is doing the same sort of thing. KXAN.com news out of Austin, Texas ran an article today with the nasty headline "Identity thieves contribute to Ron Paul Presidential Fund." Keep in mind that a large majority of people only read headlines as they skim through the news. Ok, now before you look at the article. Think about that headline for a second. What do you think happened? Do you think that thieves are making contributions to Ron Paul? Do you think that a lot of the cash he is getting he is getting illegally? Do you think that Ron Paul may not be doing well at all, is he only doing well because thieves are stealing people's money to donate to the campaign. You did hear that he raised over 5 million dollars last quarter. I guess you now have to wonder how much of that money came from thieves? Right? Or perhaps you came up with your own negative image? How many of you think that this is a positive story about Ron Paul?

Ok, so here is what did happen. Some thieves stole a bunch of credit card numbers. They wanted to see if the cards were active. In order to check to see if they were good, they looked for a website to test them out on. They picked the Ron Paul campaign. They took the card numbers and donated five dollars on each as a test. If the donation went through, then they knew that card was good. Then they tried another number and another. This is a known tactic of thieves and happens on many other websites including other presidential campaigns as KXAN reports.

The Ron Paul campaign said they discovered these odd donations over the past few days. They are now working with the banks to get all of the stolen money back to its rightful owners. So, instead of a headline like: "Ron Paul campaign thwarts thieves" also a titillating headline that would have drawn many to their website if that is their excuse, we get the misleading one that implies somehow that Ron Paul did something wrong or the campaign is only doing well because thieves are giving them a great deal of money. That story also showed up on Google news with that ugly headline. Since many people don't read past the headline I can only guess the amount of damage that has been caused to Dr. Paul.

The entire article (ok, now I will link to it) was actually about credit card theft and identity theft and how you have to be vigilant in protecting yourself. But you sure wouldn't know it from reading the headline.

I for one am sick of this! I am not going to take it anymore. I think it high time that we as Americans demand that our news tell us the truth without twisting it into something unrecognizable. I will be calling the station to complain about this and from now on, every article I see that is blatantly manipulating the truth. Perhaps if they get enough angry callers, they will stop their shenanigans. I also suggest that people boycott any station they discover has been anything less than 100% honest. I mean, really, what is the point of watching or reading a bunch of half truths and biases and manipulations? I don't want to be manipulated. Do you? The world is confusing enough without being outright misled. I don't have the time to personally check every story to see which ones are accurate.

Now, technically, KXAN.com did not lie. I am not saying that they did. I am saying that their headline was misleading and hurt the Ron Paul campaign, a man who is running for President of the United States, hurt the U.S. people by possibly turning them off to what could be a wonderful President, and that their headline had very little to do with the content of the story. Their headline was pure sensationalism and then they put the Ron Paul website picture directly on top of a picture of the victim of identity theft - implying guilt by association perhaps? In all honesty, the story had almost nothing to do with Ron Paul. It is as if a drug dealer stole money and deposited it in a bank and the headline appeared: Bank of X uses money from drug dealers to finance mortgages. Technically that headline would be true as banks use deposits as part of the financing for loans to other customers, but it would hardly be fair to Bank X or their customers.

Update: After numerous calls to the station that began within two hours of the headline's appearance, the headline has remained in place now for over 36 hours doing untold damage to the Ron Paul campaign.

A friend of mind called them and she lives in Austin, and after three days of promising to change the title, they have decided to give us the finger.

When I called the snotty girl who answered the phone snickered at me and said, "you aren't even in our viewership area". I snapped "where do think I am reading this? In Austin? Do you not know what a website is and who your viewership area is for your webpage?"

=============================================================================================

Learn why you should also listen to what this presidential hopeful has to say and why we feel that he is the only candidate worth voting for in this election. Could he be the savior of this great nation? Find out in the coming issue.

Also featuring: 60 Second Activism, Activist Profile- “Ron Paul MeetUp Austin”, Learn how to live "Off the Grid" with this feature on Organic Gardening, 9/11 Six Years Later, Constitutional RE-Education and The End of the IRS Pt 2.

Find patriot owned businesses with products and services that could help you live out the dream of our forefathers in our patriot pages.

ORDER YOUR BULK ACTIVIST COPIES NOW. We have opened the doors for you to order 25, 50, 100 copes or more of this special issue. Republic Magazine is the perfect tool to wake up the American people to the evil acts that are methodically eroding our freedoms. Order now before we sell out!

Spread the word an help us WAKE-UP America! Please help by ordering your copies now.

=============================================================================================

Updated | 11:58 p.m. Historians and British schoolchildren remember Guy Fawkes as the Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant rebel who on Nov. 5, 1605, tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Parliament. Supporters of the Republican primary campaign of the libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick.

On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $4.07 million in one day — approaching what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter — through a Web site called ThisNovember5th.com, a reference to the day the British commemorate the thwarted bombing.

Many fans of Mr. Paul know of the day primarily through a movie based on the futuristic graphic novel “V for Vendetta,” by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, in which a terrorist modeled after Fawkes battles a fascist government that has taken over Britain.

The Paul campaign has raised more than $6.84 million in the first five weeks of this quarter, more than the $5 million it raised from July 1 to Oct. 1. Many of the contributions appeared to come through the independent Fawkes effort, but how much was unclear.

On Monday alone, the campaign signed up more than 21,000 new donors, said Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman.

Among 2008 presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York holds the record for raising the most in a single day: $6.2 million on June 30. But Mr. Paul has surpassed the best day of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who raised $3.14 million on Jan. 8.

ThisNovember5th.com includes video clips and the text of a speech by Mr. Paul, a 10-term Texas congressman. In it, Mr. Paul declares, “The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual.”

Mr. Paul has stood out from the Republican field for his opposition to the war in Iraq. In the speech he argues that the fight against terrorism is threatening American democracy.

“The American Republic is in remnant status,” he says. “The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into military dictatorship, and few seem to care.”

Mr. Benton clarified that Mr. Paul did not support blowing up government buildings. “He wants to demolish things.

=============================================================================================

So when Ron Paul raked in $4 million and signed up 20,000 new Internet donors in one day on Nov. 5, a buzz went through this capital of the perpetual campaign.

Who is this guy? Who supports him? Is he more than the right-wing gadfly the political punditocracy labeled him?

The answers are a lot more complicated than the caricature of this Republican presidential candidate.

Paul is a 72-year-old Pennsylvania native and a Texas congressman who is more of a Libertarian than a Republican. He's an obstetrician so against government programs that he refused to take Medicare or Medicaid payments from patients — and even refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans. He is one of the two most fervent anti-Iraq war candidates in the presidential race, the other being Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

And as to the presidential race, Paul freely admits he has stumbled into something he didn't quite expect. He has a huge following on the Internet and routinely wins online surveys critics say are easily manipulated but supporters say are the truest measure of political action in a cyberspace age.

In a telephone interview from New Hampshire, Paul said his campaign has become the political model of his libertarianism.

"We offered the message and the message spread and the organization was spontaneous," he said. "It is interesting. We sort of see the campaign operating the way the free market works. Not by central economic planning" but by "individuals doing things in their own best interest."

His supporters include everyone from day traders and college students to unemployed caregivers and veterans fed up with the Iraq war.

Paul believes he is "tapping into a huge sense of frustration" that is even bigger than he ever imagined.

"They are tired of the war, and they are tired of spending and tired big government and finally they have heard a message" that makes sense, he said.

Paul is already advertising on the radio in South Carolina. And with millions in the bank and a fraction of the overhead his competitors have, he'll have a voice when it counts in early primary and caucus states.

Critics, however, say Paul is an Internet phenomenon and an isolationist with little mainstream appeal. They claim he has barely a campaign shell in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where organizational heft can mean the difference between winning and losing.

But Paul's campaign has been marked less by organization than by spontaneity and freelance support. When I drove through Virginia and South Carolina on two recent campaign trips, Paul's supporters routinely showed up at other candidates' rallies — not to protest or disrupt but to organize and ask questions.

Paul supporter Mark Bennett, 20, a student at East Carolina University, decried the "electability" argument espoused by other Republicans: Which GOP candidate would be best able to beat Democrat front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton?

"The best strategy is to say, 'Hey, who is the best for the American people, who is the best to return to a constitutional form of government, not one that is into nation building and getting involved in foreign entanglements," Bennett said. "The people see this."

Outside a rally for Democrat presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama in Charlottesville, Va., Trevor Pottala, a disabled veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, signed up more than 100 people to get Paul on the Virginia primary ballot.

Pottala, 42, is a day trader, and got interested in Paul because of his concerns over federal deficits, big government, civil liberties and the war in Iraq.

Paul opposed the war from the beginning, as well as the Patriot Act. He would abolish the Department of Education and decries new spending on prescription drug benefits for seniors. He opposes almost any American involvement overseas.

"As a veteran, I had an interest in the war," Pottala said. "I guess it was justified leading into it, but now it is a quagmire. People want their liberties, the country wants to know that we live under the Constitution, not the Patriot Act."

In 2004, then-presidential contender Howard Dean of Vermont thought he could circumvent traditional parties and the "big media" through online campaign "meet-ups" and fundraising.

Dean raised four times the money Paul has raised so far and caught on with the media as a campaign phenomena — and he still lost.

Paul's supporters say this is different. They see themselves as the anti-establishment movement of 2008.

"Ron Paul is just the tip of a giant iceberg that corporate media is trying to submerge," said Justin McKay, 35, who has helped organize Ron Paul "meet-ups" in Ferndale, Wash. "Thankfully, this is all being documented by his own volunteer media."

=============================================================================================

A number of “Money Bomb” individuals who wish to support the Ron Paul presidential campaign have come together to form one big donation group. A plea has gone out to all donation sites to support the Dec. 16th date. The announcement can be seen here.

The Ron Paul Money Bomb is a grassroots donation drive providing Ron Paul with funds to enable his campaign. Its purpose is to induce repeat donations. If you want to make history and become part of our effort, read on.

Ok, here is the big one! Ron Paul needs to raise at least $12 Million dollars by the end of December. We can shatter that requirement and provide far more than imagined. We need to make news again and not let up! So far the Money Bombs have done pretty well by helping to fill Ron Paul's campaign money chest.

The thisnovember5th.com project did very well! But here is the grand daddy, megaboom, blowout of all online campaign fund raising events and it's called, Boston Tea Party 07, this Massive donation will take place on December 16th 2007; $100 should be donated to the Ron Paul donation site on this date. All donation drive websites MUST/NEED to adjust your dates and ensure that 100% support is given to this day.

The Ron Paul Money Bomb is quickly turning into Ron Paul Donation Information Hub! Jesse Elder coined the phrase/words 'Money Bomb' his original concept for raising money online, in unison, quickly formed an email list of participants. A website bloomed soon after and so did other websites and donation ideas. The ronpaulmoneybomb has gone from generating a weekly surplus of funds to an agent advertiser for thisnovember5th, to helping spread the word about all other donation sites and themes and dates. We still perform our weekly money bomb of course.

We have decided to support Nathaniel Yao's great idea of the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, December 16 as the next mega-fund-raiser! Any one who signs up here at the Ron Paul Money Bomb are automatically signed up (counted) as taking part in the December 16th Ron Paul Tea Party (teaparty07.com). Opting out of this historic event is as simple as not donating. This is sure to be the final MASSIVE donation event of the year, and will surpass the totals raised in thisnovember5th.

We are hereby making a plea with all other donation drives to alter or add the date to December 16th 2007, the news should be: The Ron Paul/Boston Tea Party 2007/etc. and the visual or rebellious catch phrase could/should be something like "Taxation without Apportionment"... We need to unite online.

=============================================================================================

Mark it down: A landmark moment entered the annals of political fundraising: Nov. 5, 2007.

Texas Republican Ron Paul, the Libertarian presidential candidate who has lagged in the polls but raised as much money as top-tier candidates, passed $4.3 million in online fundraising in 24 hours.

Paul's Haul May Set Online Record

It was a big deal back in 2000 when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised $1 million online in the 24 hours after his upset victory over then-Gov. George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary.

McCain's impressive take was seen as the birth of online fundraising -- a moment when online donors gained considerable respect.

Paul raised just over $5 million in the most recent fundraising quarter, which ended September 30. The campaign has set an official goal of raising $12 million between Oct.1 and the end of 2007.

As of midnight Sunday, Nov. 4, the Paul campaign claimed to have raised $2.77 million.

Monday's drive was coordinated by an independent Web site but received the tacit endorsement of Paul on the stump this week.

He told supporters at a rally in Columbia, S.C., that the mainstream media is more likely to pay attention if he raises more money. And that attention will lead to more mainstream voters hearing his message.

Watch video of Paul on the stump from ABC News on the campaign trail in South Carolina by clicking here.

Supporters Remember Nov. 5

It's not unusual for campaigns to attach a slogan to a one-day, one-event or one-week fundraising push.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have dined with donating supporters; Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, encouraged donations for her husband's birthday.

Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., got his hand slapped by Major League Baseball for offering to raffle off World Series tickets to a lucky donor.

But leave it to Ron Paul's devoted legions to win the originality contest this year.

The catchy slogan comes from a nursery rhyme about Guy Fawkes, the 17th-century crusader for Catholics rights caught in the basement of parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He failed in his mission to blow the place up.

ABC News tracked down Trevor Lyman, the man behind the Web site that coordinated Paul's one-day money bomb on his cell phone in line at a Miami Starbucks, where the whir of the barista making his lunchtime latte could be heard in the background.

His day job is running a music promotion Web site, but he spends his free time at the helm of the grassroots Web site that conspired in online chat forums and meetup groups to send a fundraising bomb in support of Paul.

But Lyman, who has never worked for a campaign before -- and still doesn't, technically -- describes himself as "mostly apathetic" when it comes to politics, started supporting Paul back when the congressman was just exploring a presidential run.

He started a Web site devoted to Paul videos, the tagline for which is "Televising the Revolution."

The first video featured when we visited showed surfers how to use holiday lights to create and illuminated "Ron Paul Revolution" yard decoration.

Reach of the 'Revolution'

Lyman launched his most recent site only on Oct. 18, and he is hoping to move back to New Hampshire soon, not to work on the campaign, just because he went to college there and said it would be a better place than Miami to raise a family.

Asked if it is appropriate to invoke a nursery rhyme about a man who tried to blow up parliament in the 17th-century as a fundraising tool, Lyman said, "Some people want to go that way. We're not going in any way violent."

He said the idea sprang up when he saw someone propose a mass one-day online fundraising drive in a Ron Paul meetup group.

The date Nov. 5 corresponded with the movie "V for Vendetta" and the Guy Fawkes rhyme.

"If you look at the pop culture feel-good message of the movie," Lyman said, "the people in the end say we are the deciders. That's the best way to describe it. And this is a country of and by the people."

"The entire notion of Bush saying he is the decider when 70 or 80 percent of the country wants out of the war is ridiculous. He acts like a dictator."

And that, said Lyman, is why he supports Paul, who is uncompromising and strict in his support of the Constitution, as literally as possible to the way it is written.

"I like some things about Republican ideals, but it goes back to the Constitution for me," Lyman said, still in line for his coffee. "And those ideals are all about small government, even if the party in recent years has not been," he said.

=============================================================================================

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s record $4.2 million fundraiser the other day was one for the record books. Even those in the mainstream media who have been consistently ridiculing him have, however begrudgingly, had to agree with that verdict. However, Dr Paul’s spectacular success may well be only a sign of things to come, and if this turns out to be the case, then even the grumpiest of GOP resisters will have to realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate who can defeat the Democrats next year.

The media has, however, largely avoided considering future head-to-head match-ups. Largely because it’s primaries time, they have been devoting most of their efforts to nurturing the candidates that they (and their political-corporate owners) want to see nominated. First things first, right? But hold on one moment. Even with an endorsement from Pat Robertson, does Rudy Giuliani have solid enough conservative credentials to be the GOP nominee? Does Mitt Romney, for that matter? Are they capable of really firing up the conservative base? I think not.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, offers both a message and a manner that appeal strongly to traditional conservatives. He is strongly Christian, pro-life, pro-gun ownership, pro-freedom and civil liberties, while being tough on illegal immigrants and champion of a strong national defense and secured borders. He also opposes big government and public spending, generally favoring states’ rights rather than federal control. Can the alleged "front-runners" – Giuliani and Romney – boast the same package of conservative attributes, and back it up with a fastidiously consistent voting record like that of Ron Paul? I think not.

As for the latter quality, style, Ron Paul is a plain-spoken Texas country doctor, a straight-shooter who is eloquent without mincing his words, whereas Giuliani is a blowhard and a bully justifying his strengths by repeating "9/11" constantly. The American people, however, are smart enough to see through that. Romney, for his part, is not a convincing conservative, too carefully mannered and a bit foppish, just conservative enough to be elected governor of, er, Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, these alleged Republican "front-runners" believe they can defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. As the last congressional elections showed, the Republicans are now on the defensive and will need to siphon away as many votes as they possibly can to win. There are certainly opportunities here, but neither Giuliani nor Romney are convincing alternatives for left-leaning voters sick and tired of Hillary/Obama’s weaseling out of any commitment to end the war state, and for young people in general. Guess which Republican strongly appeals to these disaffected liberals? Yes, once again, it’s Ron Paul.

And herein lies the really exciting part of the Paul candidacy, and the reason I expect the $4.2 million record will be eclipsed sooner or later by another one even bigger. Unlike most politicians, Ron Paul commands real respect and admiration from a large and very diverse group of Americans, support which is growing by the day. When people believe in a candidate, they give freely and on multiple occasions. When people are merely harangued on the phone or in the mailbox because their name happens to be on a party’s list of past supporters, they give – maybe – once or twice. True, there is massive corporate largesse on the way for the likes of Hillary and Giuliani, but still, somehow, it is individuals who vote in America, not entities. It would be very interesting to do a study of what percentage of "blank slate" voters feel, once introduced to that candidate’s positions, a strong affinity with those positions. Of course, I don’t have any such data, but from reading hundreds of comments posted under web articles and blog entries, I’d be willing to bet that the victor in such a survey would be Ron Paul.

With the tremendous new publicity Ron Paul has achieved the past couple days, his message is getting out to a wider and wider audience, making his voluntary donor base larger and larger. Unlike the establishment candidates tapping into their existing lists, he is actually creating new voters. The phenomenon is self-replicating and because the message of his campaign is very appealing to so many different people, it is spread willingly and genuinely. Don’t forget that this is the post-advertising age, the age of social networks where savvy consumers no longer trust mass ads, but more often buy a product specifically on the recommendations of trusted friends. It is the same with ideological consumers in a political campaign.

Here the internet has exponentially amplified the power of what the old patrician media, self-proclaimed guardians of information and the "proper" interpretation of that information, disparagingly demeans as "grassroots support" or "an internet following." This media, and the political establishment which it serves, despises nothing more than the people, and especially the young. The worst sin of Paul supporters, for the jaded media, is that they actually believe in the man; using "passion" as a descriptor in politics is ribald to the hardened cynics of the fifth estate. The supporters of this "obscure 72-year-old iconoclast" are thus passed off as "a small but impassioned group of young people," with obvious derogatory implications. The media finds it odd and amusing that voters should care about things that they’re not supposed to know about; in the present case, the Federal Reserve and national debt, things that are supposed to be ignored, and left up to the wise old men of the establishment to sort out.

With the age of the internet, however, the media and the political establishment are now terrified of the ramifications of losing control of their time-honored role as shapers of public opinion. And they’re very, very confused. As Ed Rollins, a former adviser to President Reagan and manager of Ross Perot's 1992 campaign told the Washington Post, commenting on the record donation to Paul’s campaign:

"…I've been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I've learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there's this uncontrollable thing like the Internet. Washington insiders don't know what to make of it."

Ron Paul and his legions of supporters, however, do know what to make of it. And here emerges another key reason why his campaign is sustainable: it’s not based, like those of the alleged "front-runners," on sheer political calculation, all too obvious in their flip-flopping, half-statements, modifications and personal attacks. Dr Paul’s positions are consistent, nuanced and well informed; he doesn’t rely on sound bites or scripted answers, he doesn’t resort to petty personal attacks, and he can debate anyone anywhere at any time. These qualities inspire an awful lot of confidence in voters and, if the media wakes up and starts to do its job, a lot more Americans are going to see just why Ron Paul is the best possible candidate for America.

In the end, whether or not the big media shows up, however, is their own business; thanks largely to the internet, the American people are far more informed, and thus more empowered to choose than they have ever been. They possess that ability which the corporate media dreads most: the ability to think for themselves. This time around, free thought and free will are turning out to be pretty popular qualities indeed.

=============================================================================================

Congressman Ron Paul, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy (DIMP), and a nationally recognized expert on monetary policy, issued the following statement regarding the Federal Reserve’s decision to again lower interest rates:

Make no mistake, the problems faced by the American people are not caused by unscrupulous mortgage brokers or the rising price of oil. These are symptoms of an economic disease caused by a spendthrift Congress enabled by loose monetary policy. Too many pundits praise the weak dollar as benefiting exporters, but they fail to see the harm done to thrifty, hard-working Americans. Rather than continuing to pursue a policy of easy credit and increasing debt, we need to return to a sound monetary system.

=============================================================================================

Ron Paul's record fund-raising on Monday got me thinking about what the media polls say about his chances of getting the GOP nomination. Clearly, Ron Paul supporters are more motivated than any of the other candidates' � this is a direct consequence of a successful grassroots campaign since it relies on volunteers who choose to actively participate. Historically, primaries are a non-starter for political action: voter turnout rates are typically around 10% of registered voters for the relevant party. So can the combination of a successful grassroots campaign and general ambivalence at the polls make for a successful nomination run? I crunched the numbers and I was surprised to learn that the answer is: Yes.

Before I tell you how I arrived at that conclusion, I want to address one of the many potential complications in my analysis. Paul supporters are enthusiastic, but a subset of them, including regular readers of this website, are philosophically opposed to taking part in the political process in this country; i.e., they don't vote, not because they don't care, but because they choose not to. There are different motivations for this position, which are not the subject of this analysis and have been written about at length. I am uncertain about what fraction of registered vs. unregistered voters the non-voting block makes up (based on voter turnout for Presidential elections, it must be less than 50% of all registered voters) and, furthermore, I am uncertain about what fraction of the donors on Monday are opposed to voting.

What is relevant to this article is that Paul's candidacy is not about Ron Paul the person, but about the message of freedom, liberty, and peace. Because Ron Paul is having a somewhat successful run for President, this message is getting heard more than it ever has before. (Disclaimer: I say "somewhat" because of the third-tier press, debate and media poll attention; "successful" because of the positive attention due to talk shows, internet blogs, text-messaging polls, and fundraising.) How often do you hear someone on Jay Leno bring up Austrian Economics? To my knowledge, this has happened precisely once in the history of the Tonight Show.

To that end, who cares if he wins the election: let's keep him in the public eye for as long as possible so that this message can get voiced over and over. If he loses the nomination, this message will fade quickly starting early next spring. So there may be a loophole for those who are philosophically opposed to voting, but are believers of freedom, liberty, and peace. If Ron Paul wins the nomination, the message will be heard for at least another 362 days.

I am using the most recent CNN poll as a starting point, and I argue that Ron Paul (or any other candidate with strong grassroots support) does actually have a very reasonable shot at getting nominated. It seems that this is particularly possible because of 1) the large field of participants (there are 8 now that Brownback dropped out) and 2) no clear front-runner with a large base of support (Giuliani has 28% in the CNN poll). This poll is the most optimistic media poll for Ron Paul (5%) so far, but I don't think it's outrageously optimistic. Another recent poll by USA Today is less optimistic for Paul (1%), which does imply that it's extremely unlikely for Paul to win the nomination.

Media polls employ different methods, but they all report the responses of "likely voters." I am no expert, but there is a very thorough analysis of polling methodology and it seems that the likely voters in the CNN poll may just be those that voted in the last primary (6.6% of registered Republicans). That was a GOP re-election year, so for this calculation, I'll use a voter turnout based on the 1996 election: 8.2%. (I couldn't find an overall turnout for '98 or '00.)

So, now that I have the numbers, there are just a couple more assumptions, which, I think, are conservative but are still somewhat arbitrary.

In this calculation, the assumption that Paul supporters turn out in proportionally greater numbers means that the total number of voters increases slightly, from 8.2% to 10.7%, while Paul's share of the votes increases disproportionately, from 5% to 23%. Also, since the extra 2.1% turnout will exclusively vote for Ron Paul, the other candidate's take will decrease, i.e. Giuliani goes from 28% in the media poll to 21% in my theoretical primary.

=============================================================================================

The Ron Paul phenomenon

By far the most significant and interesting political story of the past 24 hours is the extraordinary, record-breaking outpouring of support for Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Therefore, it is being ignored by much of our establishment press � not a single article about it in The New York Times or The Washington Post (though it is discussed on a couple of their blogs ), nor even a mention of it on the websites of CNN or CBS News (which found space to report on Stephen Colbert's non-candidacy). But MSNBC and Fox News did at least both post the AP article on the Paul story.

Regardless of how much attention the media pays, the explosion of support for the Paul campaign yesterday is much more than a one-time event. The Paul campaign is now a bona fide phenomenon of real significance, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than a very positive development.

There are, relatively speaking, very few people who agree with most of Paul's policy positions. In fact, a large portion of Americans � perhaps most � will find something in his litany of beliefs with which they not only disagree, but vehemently so. Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates.

Paul, of course, is not only in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but also emphatically opposes the crux of America's bipartisan foreign policy consensus . He reserves his greatest scorn for America's hegemonic rule of the world through superior military force, i.e. , its acting as an empire in order to prop up its entangling alliances and enduring conflicts � what George Washington lamented as "permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others."

And Paul is as vigilant a defender of America's constitutional freedoms � and as faithful an observer of the constitutional limitations on government power designed to preserve those freedoms � as any national political figure in some time. In one interview, Paul put it this way:

At the same time, Paul is as much of an anti-abortion extremist as it gets, having proposed federal legislation to define conception as the beginning of life, and denying federal courts jurisdiction to adjudicate abortion cases. He is near the far end of what is considered the "right" in terms of immigration policy and favors a drastically reduced role for the federal government in everything from education to health care. So there is at least something in Paul's worldview for most people to strongly dislike, even hate, if they are so inclined. Yet that apparent political liability is really what accounts for the passion his campaign is generating: it is a campaign that defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be.

While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional wisdom, Paul's campaign � for better or worse � actually does so, and does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way. And there are a lot of people who, more than any specific policy positions, are hungry for a political movement which operates outside of our rotted political establishment and which fearlessly rejects its pieties, even if they disagree with some or even many of its particulars.

Moreover, circumstances often dictate political priorities. Individuals who historically may not have been attracted to "limited-government" rhetoric and all of the specifics it traditionally entails may find that ideal necessary now after six years of endless expansions of intrusive federal government power.

Regardless of one's ideology, there is simply no denying certain attributes of Paul's campaign which are highly laudable. There have been few serious campaigns that are more substantive � just purely focused on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues. There have been few candidates who more steadfastly avoid superficial gimmicks, cynical stunts, and manipulative tactics. There have been few candidates who espouse a more coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political values. Here is what Jon Stewart said to Paul on The Daily Show :

There is never a doubt that Paul actually believes what he is saying, nor is there any doubt that what he believes is the by-product of critical and rational thought grounded in genuine political passion. Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire � not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world. By itself, the ability of Paul's campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation which America's imperial rule wreaks on every level � economic, moral, security, liberty � makes his success worth applauding.

I actually think the Paul phenomenon is, in a very rough way, comparable to the phenomenon that fueled the early stages of the 2004 Howard Dean candidacy. Because Dean is now the head of the DNC, he's become a rather mundane Beltway politician, and that is how his candidacy is now widely remembered, but that obscures the highly unconventional genesis of Dean's ascension. When Dean first began to attract attention, he was intense, passionate, and angry � not merely at the Bush administration but also at his own party, and he was speaking in tones and about ideas that were virtually non-existent in war-crazed, Bush-revering Washington in 2002 and 2003.

Like Paul, Dean didn't actually speak in conventional ideological terms � he emphasized federalism principles and gun rights and balanced budgets and government frugality � and he attracted a large amount of support because of the anti-Beltway ethos of his candidacy, including among many people who were previously apolitical and far from ideologically rigid, at least in the standard establishment way of understanding ideology. Just as there are now, there were many conventional Democrats running in 2004. Dean's appeal lay in his unconventionality, just as Paul's does.

Part of the dynamic of an unconventional candidacy is that it can become a repository for a whole array of disparate, unrelated groups. The lack of ideological familiarity enables many people with unconventional (even extremist or bizarre) political views to read into those candidacies whatever they want to see � even if it isn't really there � and to use the candidate as a proxy for their otherwise ignored and stigmatized causes. That was true to some degree for Dean, and is probably true to a much larger extent with Paul. But there is still clearly a coherent core to the rationale of both candidacies, and it is characterized by intense dissatisfaction with the mandated assumptions of mainstream political discourse.

Additionally, the establishment's reaction to both candidacies is similar. Even though they both were espousing ideas more substantive and thoughtful on vital issues than any other candidates, both of them were depicted as radical, fringe losers not to be taken seriously. This, despite the fact that they are both eminently rational medical doctors repeatedly re-elected by the people who know them best � their constituents. But the Beltway political and media elite protect their prerogatives by demonizing anyone who challenges them as an unserious loser, and that is how they depicted Dean (until he joined them) and how they now depict Paul.

I don't want to push the Dean/Paul analogy too far. There are obviously very major differences between them and what fueled each of their candidacies. But the hallmark of both was that they tapped into the widespread and intense scorn for the rancid establishment governing the Beltway, and anything that does so is something to be cheered.

The YouTube video which I'm posting below makes, I think, as strong and compelling a case for Paul's candidacy as anything I've seen, and goes a long way towards explaining the passion it is generating. Early on in the video, one voter says this, which I think is � again, rightly or wrongly � more or less representative of the defining sentiment behind the surging support for Paul:

This is a very engaging and revealing video. Personally, I could definitely do without the sappy and cliched Simon & Garfunkel background music and all the prophet talk at the end, but other than that, this expresses rather vividly the real passion that Ron Paul's campaign is understandably igniting:

UPDATE : I want to clarify what I think is one critically important point in response to some of the comments. Paul's opposition to having the Federal Government involved in things such as education and health care is constitutional in nature. His argument is that the Constitution only permits the Federal Government to exercise explicitly enumerated powers in Articles I and II and, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thus, his argument, at least on this level, has nothing to do with whether there would be good or bad results from having the Federal Government exercise powers in these areas. His argument is that the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to do so, regardless of whether it's desirable . If one wants the Federal Government to exercise specific powers which the Constitution prohibits, then the solution is to amend the Constitution, not to violate it because of the good results it produces.

While there are certainly arguments to dispute Paul's constitutional view (the Supreme Court, for instance, has had to reach to Congress' Article I authority to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" in order to "justify" many of these Federal Government activities), the argument that there are "good results" from having the Federal Government do these things � or that there would be "bad results" if it didn't � isn't a coherent or responsive reply to Paul's position.

It's either constitutional or it isn't for the Federal Government to exercise these powers, and it's irrelevant (for this argument) whether there is a "need" for the Federal Government to do so (for exactly the same reason that it's irrelevant whether unconstitutional and illegal warrantless eavesdropping is beneficial for guarding against Terrorist attacks). Regardless of one's view of Paul's specific Tenth Amendment theories, it is critical to emphasize � as a general matter � that "good results" is not a justification for having the Government violate the Constitution or any other law. That's true when the violations are committed by the Bush administration or anyone else.

UPDATE II : I honestly don't understand why it's even necessary to point this out, but as I saw when I lauded Chris Dodd's recent actions, it absolutely is. Saying something positive about a specific candidate does not mean that one: (a) is voting for that candidate; (b) is encouraging others to support that candidate; (c) believes the candidate espouses every correct view on every issue, or (d) sees the candidate as flawless and god-like and the embodiment of political salvation.

UPDATE III : I erroneously wrote that the NYT had no article on Paul's fundraising. They published this story by David Kirkpatrick on page A20.

=============================================================================================

Fox News Buried Record Breaking Ron Paul Story
While news networks were forced to report massive donation drive, Fox featured mindless exploits of "snake man"

While most establishment media networks were forced to report on the record-breaking success of Ron Paul's November 5th donation drive, with the Congressman eventually raising over $4.2 million in a single day, Fox News chose to report on another Texas record-breaker, by showcasing a story about a man who sat in a bath tub full of snakes.

The Murdoch owned Neo-Con mouthpiece was begrudgingly forced to pick up the Ron Paul story this morning, but throughout most of last night their top feature was about the mindless exploits of Jackie Bibby, the "Texas Snake Man," who sat in a tub with 87 rattlesnakes, and news of the Texas Congressman's watershed fundraiser was buried.

Having been unable to ignore the runaway popularity of both Paul's campaign and the November 5th donation drive, most of the corporate media resorted to inferring the Congressman was a terrorist by tying the event to 400-year old British history and Guy Fawkes, relishing the chance to repeat the words "bomb Parliament" over and over.

In reality, the November 5th motif was a gimmick to help people to remember to donate, and has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his supporters being aspiring terrorists.

However, that didn't stop CNN, the Associated Press and a gaggle of Neo-Con cheerleaders from regurgitating the jibe today, in a desperate attempt to take the attention away from the fact that Ron Paul's support is real, grassroots and is accelerating at a pace that makes the establishment nervous as hell

=============================================================================================

Media Infers Ron Paul Is A Terrorist
November 5th "Money Bomb" gimmick heavily played up by terrified establishment and goblin neocon bloggers

Having been forced to report on Ron Paul's record breaking donation drive yesterday, mainstream outlets seized the opportunity to emphasize the Guy Fawkes gimmick, that was used by grassroots organizers to draw attention to Paul's campaign, as a way of tacitly suggesting that the Congressman's message of freedom and limited government is synonymous with terrorism and anarchy.

A grassroots campaign unaffiliated with the official Paul campaign was the catalyst for a huge $4.2 million cash infusion yesterday, putting the campaign well on course to raise $12 million by the end of the quarter and bringing Paul close to being the top fundraiser among the Republican candidates.

The Following headlines, however, chose not to lead with this information and instead to firstly draw attention to the November 5th theme:

"Historians and British schoolchildren remember Guy Fawkes as the Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant rebel who on Nov. 5, 1605, tried to assassinate King James I by blowing up the Parliament. Supporters of the Republican primary campaign of the libertarian Representative Ron Paul may remember Fawkes as a wildly successful fund-raising gimmick", writes the NY Times.

"On Monday, a group of Paul supporters helped raised more than $4.07 million in one day — approaching what the campaign raised in the entire last quarter — through a Web site called ThisNovember5th.com, a reference to the day the British commemorate the thwarted bombing." continues the article in the first two paragraphs.

More of this kind of stuff comes from CNN. In the following clip from Wolf Blitzer's show, the anchor wastes little time in tying the Ron Paul fundraising campaign to the gunpowder plot to "blow up the Houses of Parliament," despite the fact that the date was patently chosen as a gimmick to make people remember to donate and has nothing to do with 400-year old British history:

Rolling Stone magazine went one better, explicitly linking the Congressman's cash infusion with terror and anarchy:

The article has drawn huge swathes of attention from angry Ron Paul supporters at pains to point out that Ron Paul's endorsement of a strong free market and limited government and is the very antithesis of anarchism, it is what is directly written in the Constitution of the United States, it literally is law and order.

"We don’t want anarchy, we want The Constitution. It’s not something new, it is the law of the land. Do you get your talking points from Bill O’reilly?", writes one commenter.

The spin used here is astounding, clearly disgruntled by having to admit Ron Paul now must be considered a top tier candidate, and terrified of the Congressman's growing success, the establishment and others cannot merely report the fact that Ron Paul has raised record breaking millions via somewhere in the region of 35,000 individual donations.

Instead they spin this incredible display of grassroots organization knowing that the neocon blogs will run wild with it, now they can no longer declare Ron Paul's widespread support to be the work of "spambots".

And as expected the first set of twisted reality denying neocon goblins to disseminate their poison was once again, the Michelle Malkin worshipping dirt-sniffers over at Hot Air (please don't visit their filth den, it only encourages them), who went with the "could it be any more yellow?" headline Ron and the Paulbots celebrate a terrorist by raising $3.5 mil.

We keep returning to this key quote but in this instance it's meaning is even more relevant:

Meanwhile, others, while having to now admit Paul is a top tier candidate, have attempted to spin the amazing outpouring of support for Ron Paul as an indication of great "alienation" in America. The Baltimore Sun writes:

Though they still underplay Ron Paul's chances, in many ways the Sun is correct. What we are seeing is about more than Ron Paul. We are witnessing an awakening, Ron Paul is just one man, along with a growing movement of truth seekers, who have been continually prodding a sleeping giant.

The November 5th infusion shows that the people have power and the idea we don't is an illusion. The old line establishment media is in crisis, their popularity is dwindling and they have to act like movements generated by internet organisation do not equate to real people. More and more people are realizing that they can inject themselves into real issues and that there is great hope as long as there is still a willingness to effect change.

=============================================================================================

Ron Paul addresses supporters in South Carolina about the November 5th, 2007 fund raising effort.

=============================================================================================

Texas Republican Ron Paul campaigned in New Hampshire after setting an online fundraising record.

=============================================================================================

Ron Paul isn't leading in the polls, but he is leading in the enthusiasm his grassroots campaign is generating. The establishment GOP hacks, fake conservatives, and Republican presidential candidates are all feeling the heat from the Ron Paul machine. A couple of months ago, most considered his chances of winning slim to none, but all that has changed. He has earned a spot as a legitimate top-tier candidate, and if his trajectory and growth continue at their current pace and campaign contributions stay equal or are exceeded, he has an excellent chance of winning the nomination. It is true that there have been times when I had doubts, not in Ron Paul or his message, but in the American people's ability to seize this opportunity for hope and change. Many Americans are eating up his message of liberty in an age where their freedoms are under constant attack. Although he is getting a little more respect, many reports and articles are laced with backhanded compliments. The mainstream media and establishment-picked candidates are getting desperate, and are attempting to twist, manipulate, and misrepresent Ron Paul. They are wasting their time because the reality is that there is no scandals, no skeletons in the closet, and no smoking guns. Winning the Republican nomination is no longer a dream or a joke, and the haters can try all they want, but there is no stopping the Ron Paul revolution

Ron Paul's recent appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno will give him more name recognition with mainstream Americans, and will translate in more support and contributions. It is because of his huge support base that 3rd quarter numbers more than doubled from the 2nd quarter, with over $5 million raised. He just began running radio spots and television adds in key primary states. In the last Fox debate held in Florida, there appears to have been an effort to assemble an anti-Ron Paul crowd and twice he was booed for his non-interventionist foreign policy. This is a sharp contrast to the majority of Americans who want an end to militarism and who want to bring the troops home from Iraq. Furthermore, bringing the troops home should not be seen as a retreat or surrender as some have suggested. Despite a hostile crowd, he was able to make his points and perform well, and won the Fox post-debate poll. Sean Hannity has accused Ron Paul supporters of skewing the poll numbers by voting more then once. The truth is that most text or online polls are one vote per phone number or IP address, but Hannity isn't about to tell you that. Despite the bias that Fox and others in the mainstream media have shown, Ron Paul is still in the race, and has a shot at winning the nomination.

Ron Paul is correct in his assessment that America is less safe, and that the war on terrorism further threatens our civil liberties. Nation building, foreign entanglements, and policing the world has left us weak economically, has stretched our armed forces to the breaking point, and it has created more enemies. Our foreign policy is a failure, dangerous, and costly; it is time to admit the error of our ways and plot a different course. It was a mistake to go into Iraq and it is a mistake to stay. Although Ron Paul did not support the war in 2002, he said, “If you want to go to war you should go to war properly. Declare it, win it, and get it over with.” While other candidates call for staying the course possibly for another decade in Iraq, he would bring the troops home immediately. This further distinguishes him from the other Republican candidates and top Democrats like Hillary Clinton. He matches up well against her, and many have said he is the only one who could defeat her. He said of Hillary, “She voted for the war now she says she can't get the troops out until 2013 and she won't rule out a military first strike against Iran.” A Ron Paul foreign policy would be humble and peaceful, but not at the expense of a strong defense.

The Ron Paul revolution is a grassroots movement made up of anti-war, anti-establishment, enthusiastic, spontaneous supporters. He has sparked a fire which has lead to the same passion in regards to the message, and a willingness and a wanting on the part of his supporters to share it with the rest of America. His supporters are dedicated and highly motivated, and are taking action on their own. They aren't waiting for orders from headquarters. They are tearing down the walls, challenging the establishment, the status quo. Ron Paul's message of hope, peace and freedom is resonating. He said, “Our crowds are diverse. Freedom unites. It's not right wing, it's a humanitarian thing.” Everywhere he speaks, people are eager to be a part of the Ron Paul revolution, and are showing up in large numbers. Young, old, black and white, male, female Republican, Democrat-Ron Paul might have limitations, but his message does not.

During this campaign, the corporate-controlled media's job has been to neutralize real conservatives, ignore Ron Paul as much as possible, and pretend that he doesn't have genuine support and isn't having an effect. This is becoming harder and harder to do, but there are many polls that still don't include his name as one of the choices and some online polls where he is winning have been pulled or manipulated. When he appears on the neo-con shows under the guise of questioning, they attack and try to misrepresent him in an effort to discredit him. He has been accused of taking marching orders from Al-Qaeda, and was viciously attacked over the amount of federal funding he requested for shrimp research in his distrect. Much has been made of his association with radio talk show host Alex Jones, who is a leading figure in the 9/11 truth movement. There were accusations that a political campaign contribution refund to Jones was somehow proof that that the two were in cahoots, and that Ron Paul was paying for favorable coverage. He has been a guest on the show for years, and speaking of Alex Jones Ron Paul said, “Of course I don't support everything he says but people that I associate with, I don't endorse their views they come over to associate with me to endorse my views.” The attacks on Ron Paul are becoming more frequent, vicious, and desperate, but this guilt by association and all other tactics aren't working. The best thing the mainstream media could do would be to endorse him and his message, but these corporate shills have already sold their souls.

Ron Paul is winning the hearts and minds of the American people, and in the process is setting the stage for the Republican Presidential nomination. He is no longer just an Internet phenomenon, and everywhere he goes, there are large crowds who are inspired by his message. As his profile increases in the mainstream, so are his converts. His message of hope, liberty, peace, and prosperity is an easy sell to Americans, who are disillusioned with the whole political process. He is shattering the left/right paradigm, and attracting support from all ends of the political spectrum. With approval ratings for Congress and the Senate at all-time lows, Ron Paul offers hope. Many criticizes his policies and his vision, but in return present no alternatives or solutions except for the status quo, which obviously isn't working. It is clear that the Democrats aren't going to save us, and their betrayal to the American people in regards to Iraq will not go unpunished. Some of their presidential candidates rhetoric towards Iran parallels the war hawk neo-cons. It is frightening not to have a real choice, but with Ron Paul we do. He is the leader of the pack when it comes to defending and following the constitution. He is the leader of the pack when it comes to humility, morality, consistency, and honesty. He is deviantly the leader of the pack when it comes to the Internet. With a substantial war chest, a popular message, and support growing daily, there is no stopping this revolution. The level of desperation on the part of GOP hacks and cronies, political pundents, and strategists has reached a fever pitch. They know that there is a risk that Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination and become president.

=============================================================================================

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee on November 8, but had to face criticism from Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul.

“There is a dollar crisis out and people’s money being stolen,” Paul said. “People who have saved, they’re being robbed. I mean, if you have a devaluation of the dollar at 10 percent, people have been robbed of 10 percent.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attempted to dispel the notion people were being “robbed” of their money by explaining the relativity of the dollar in a local economy.

If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they’re going to buy consumer goods in dollars, then as a typical American … then the decline in the dollar – the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive,” Bernanke replied.

=============================================================================================

When Ron Paul was asked about the CFR, noting his relative uniqueness in being unaffiliated with the secretive think tank when so many of his opponents in both parties are subject to its gravitational pull and sphere of influence, he put forth the idea of countering their "significant" influence.

After joking that he hasn't received an invitation for membership, he suggests that "maybe someday we'll have one of our own, at least for intellectuals..."

After all, its a practical world, and any prospect of a Ron Paul presidency will need supporting members and staff and allies. Furthermore, an intellectual establishment would be useful in fighting the 'dark side' of more shadowy think tanks (though Paul notes the CFR is 'bolder' now and no longer as secret).

After all, CFR figureheads dominate the president's cabinet and have permeated throughout the administration through most of the past century (Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Vice President, National Security Council and many more).

Noted historian Carroll Quigley cites the Milner Group's unprecedented influence and power in the British empire, albeit secretly. Milner's Anglo-centric, pro-statists propagandists hail almost exclusively from Oxford (where Milner forefather Cecil Rhodes set up his scholarship) and Cambridge.

While the Milner round table group dominated the foreign and economic policies of the Western world through the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations and top media like The Times (as well as sister think tanks in other Anglo countries), its members actually passed up offers for high-level positions in the British government, including Prime Minister, because they regarded their role in the Milner group as more powerful.

Ron Paul's counterpart think tank would be an open one, but perhaps influential as well-- challenging the 'man behind the curtain' role played by the CFR and other interlocking, complimentary roundtable groups, including Bilderberg, Trilateral, RIIA, RAND Corp, Brookings, Hudson Inst. and others.

If Ron Paul can win the presidency, an allied house of ideas would make his unwelcome advocacy for the Constitution more vigorous and permeating.

If Ron Paul's upstart campaign will make lasting changes in the GOP-- and bind the wickedness of neo-cons to the Constitution-- an honest think tank might be an important way of challenging the foothold of groups like PNAC.

Even if Ron Paul is successfully marginalized by the establishment's closely-controlled election, his ideas could be lasting and his issues more threatening to the 'dark side' if the light of liberty is turned on inside something as insidious as a "think tank"-- especially if it endured well beyond 2008.

=============================================================================================

With 1430 pledges as of early morning November 9, the Veterans Day fund-raiser for Ron Paul continues to attract support. This does not count what may be donated by “lurkers” who are not signing up but will contribute on the 11th anyway. It is possible, therefore, that the November 11th donations, along with other Ron Paul support and “money bombs” will shortly help put Ron Paul “over the top” to $8 million for the quarter.

The Veterans Day money bomb is a statement in support of Ron Paul who is not in favor of foreign interventions, but does favor a strong, national defense and it is likely that many donors are in the military as well.

The November 11th money bomb makes the point that supporters of Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) are patriotic Americans, and re-emphasizes the support he has within the armed services. More in the military have reportedly given to Ron Paul than any other candidate.

=============================================================================================

Major New Ron Paul Fundraising Assault Set For December
"Sign bomb" and donation drive scheduled to coincide with Bill of Rights Day, Boston Tea Party

Fresh from the rip-roaring success of a campaign that saw Presidential candidate Ron Paul break records for the amount of pre-primary donations collected in one day, the momentum continues with a plan for a "sign bomb" and another fundraising drive scheduled for December 15th and 16th.

The creator of the November 5th fundraising drive Trevor Lyman appeared on The Alex Jones Show today to discuss the astounding impact of his project and plans for a new effort to raise $10 million over the course of one weekend next month.

After confering live on air with Jones, Lyman agreed that a new fundraising assault should be launched to coincide with simultaneous Ron Paul rallies across the country.

The weekend of December 15th and 16th marks Bill of Rights Day and the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and these are the dates that we are encouraging people to double their efforts in order to save the Republic and catapult Ron Paul, the only Constitutional candidate and America's last hope, into the White House.

On that weekend, a drive to raise $10 million dollars will go into high gear along with a "sign bomb," a coordinated effort to blanket America and the media with Ron Paul signs.

This will be the biggest attempt yet to break John Kerry's record of $5.7 million in donations for a single day, which occurred after the primaries and during the presidential race proper.

We are calling upon all Americans who love liberty and want to see respect and dignity restored to the office of the President to join us in this crusade to raise $10 million dollars for the Ron Paul campaign over the weekend of December 15-16th.

Please join the grass-roots Ron Paul Revolution and get behind this juggernaut effort to smash the record books and force the establishment to acknowledge the Texas Congressman as a powerful frontrunner for the Republican candidacy and America's only chance of defeating the elite's pro-war pick, Hillary Clinton, in the 2008 presidential election.

Now is the time to make history and restore the true American virtues that our Founding Fathers fought and died for, by rallying behind the December 15-16th fundraising campaign and making the establishment run scared of the tumultuous popular support for the principles embodied in the stance of Congressman Ron Paul.

=============================================================================================

With the Iowa caucuses less than two months out, the presidential race takes center stage on the Sunday morning talk shows, with appearances by seven — count ’em — seven presidential hopefuls.

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas leads the way on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” fresh off a week in which he broke his party’s single-day fundraising record, hauling in more than $4 million over the Internet on Monday. And with his fast-growing war chest, he’s been making his presence felt on the campaign trail.

Can he keep the momentum going?

Also on CBS, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, another contender for the GOP presidential nomination, chats with host Bob Schieffer.

NBC’s “Meet the Press” devotes its entire hour to Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Obama spent the past week asserting his independence from front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), highlighting their differences on Iran and other major policy issues.

While other Democratic candidates have sharpened their attacks on Clinton in recent days, Obama still vows not to go negative.

=============================================================================================

It is a supreme irony that Rudolph Giuliani became mayor of New York City because his opponent and predecessor, David Dinkins, is a black man. The myth of the always liberal white New Yorker was proven to be just that on election day in 1993. White voters deserted Dinkins in droves and elected a Republican mayor for the first time in 30 years.

Giuliani, a former prosecutor, took office and immediately began treating New Yorkers, particularly black New Yorkers, like criminals. He specialized in pleasing white people by beating up black people. Under his leadership the police were unleashed and given the right to arrest for petty offenses and even to kill when they felt the urge to do so.

When Haitian immigrant Patrick Dorismond was killed by a police officer, Giuliani illegally released his juvenile justice records to police. Adding insult to injury, he smeared the dead man by stating that he was "no altar boy." The Dorismond case was one of the tipping points that made even some white New Yorkers long for the day that Giuliani would be their former mayor.

His public actions involving his private life also took the bloom off of the Rudy rose. In 2000 Giuliani informed his wife he was leaving her for another woman. He brought her that news via press conference. New York sophistication should not be confused with moral laissez faire. The tacky behavior was never forgotten.

On September 11, 2001 New Yorkers were giving collective thanks because term limits legislation insured that Rudy would soon be gone for good. Only a small number of dead enders were still in his thrall. But the terror attacks on the twin towers put him back in the spotlight. He was dubbed "America's mayor," and made a Knight of British Empire. He then made a bundle by forming Giuliani Partners and making up to $200,000 for a single speaking engagement, marketing himself as a terrorism expert because he managed to look calm for a few days.

Now Giuliani is running for the Republican presidential nomination and he is the very worst of a bad lot. He unabashedly supports the occupation of Iraq and a military attack on Iran. He doesn't think simulating drowning via water boarding is torture and agrees wholeheartedly with the Bush destruction of civil liberties.

If a potential Giuliani presidency in any way resembles a Giuliani mayoralty then the country would be in for a truly awful time. As mayor Giuliani promoted the worst, least competent people to high positions in New York City government. Bernard Kerik, an undercover cop, had the shrewdness to put himself in the right place at the right time when he volunteered to drive Rudy around during his mayoral campaign. Despite the lack of any other credential, his rise to power was swift. First he was made a Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Corrections, then Commissioner.

Kerik was nothing but a crook. Fully aware that Kerik was under investigation for taking money from a construction company with organized crime connections, Giuliani nonetheless appointed him Police Commissioner. While others insist that they informed Giuliani of Kerik's mob ties, Rudy claims not to remember. He certainly didn't remember when he recommended his pal for a cabinet level position as Secretary of Homeland Security. When Kerik imploded under an avalanche of bad publicity Rudy just shrugged his shoulders, confident that he would continue to get away with doing whatever he wants.

Giuliani has credibility with most Republican voters because of his warmongering and inclination to inflict physical pain on dark people. He is still in trouble with conservative Christians for his pro-choice position as mayor of New York City and for publicly treating his wife and children like dirt. He plans to make up for that by being more overtly racist.

He will remind white Republicans of the good old days when he cut the welfare roles. He did so by breaking the law and denying benefits to eligible people, but no matter. He knows his audience. When they hear the word welfare they will salivate like Pavlovian dogs and decide that Rudy is their man.

There is every reason to believe that Giuliani will act out his every sick fantasy if he were to occupy the oval office. There is no reason to believe that Democrats would finally behave like an opposition. A Giuliani presidency is a nightmarish scenario. We will all be Patrick Dorismond, assumed to be guilty of something and therefore worthy of punishment. It is hard to imagine a worse president than George W. Bush, but Rudolph Giuliani fits that description perfectly.

=============================================================================================

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that the U.S. needs its nuclear arsenal to strengthen its position in negotiating with Iran. If Americans want to leverage a better result from talks with Iran, they must be willing to go to war, he said.

"I wouldn't ever unilaterally disarm the United States," he said in response to a question at Saint Anselm College in Manchester yesterday. "And I think I certainly wouldn't do it right now in the face of the Islamic terrorists' war against us, in the face of an Iran that wants to be nuclear."

Giuliani's aggressive stance on Iran has worried some, especially Democrats who say the Bush administration's tough talk on Iran resembles the preparation for war against Iraq in 2002 and 2003. But Giuliani's message resonated with many who attended the town hall meeting yesterday.

Betty Larson of Amherst said, "He's a mean son of a bitch, and that's exactly what we need."

None of the leading Republican and Democratic presidential candidates has ruled out a military option in Iran. Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton voted in the Senate last month to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a decision her opponents called confrontational.

But Giuliani compared Iran's advancement of its uranium-enriching program to the Cold War and said that following President Reagan's tough negotiation tactics - a mix of military display and diplomacy - is the best way to negotiate with Iran.

Giuliani aims to emulate Ronald Reagan's optimism in his campaign, even when he talks about war and nuclear weapons.

"Of the major Republican candidates, Giuliani tends to sound the most optimistically aggressive," said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. "John McCain often speaks of the war on terror as the great battle of our time, but . . . McCain has emphasized the sacrifice . . . whereas Giuliani tends to talk about the war on terror as something that we're winning."

=============================================================================================

NYC Councilman: “My promise is I’ll do everything I can to get answers.”

After receiving the names of over 20,000 people supporting your call for an investigation of the questions raised in The Real Rudy: Radios, New York City Councilman Eric Gioa pledged:

“I will do everything in my power to get answers, to get the truth. There needs to be accountability."

Councilman Gioia chairs the Oversight and Investigations Committee of the New York City Council. With his support, we can hold Giuliani accountable for his failure to equip firefighters with radios that could have saved lives on 9/11, and get answers to these questions:

=============================================================================================

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets.

Why is this important? Because, previously, some of the best-known whistleblowers have been willing to give only vague information about the government's foreknowledge. For example, they said only that the government knew of the general timeframe for the attacks, or that the government had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was one of many potential targets (of course, other whistleblowers have been more specific).

Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.

Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward. Ms. Cassaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11 whistleblowers who are afraid to come forward -- especially without a supboena -- for fear of being attacked and harassed.

Many whistleblowers have, in fact, already come forward. See for example this video . And for a more comprehensive refutation of the argument about a lack of whistleblowers, see this .

Thanks to Jon Gold for his key participation in the conference, and for the tip.

=============================================================================================

Would you be surprised to learn that the exact same investigators who headed up the government's investigation into the World Trade Center collapses and the Pentagon attack on 9/11 also headed up the government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing?

The WTC collapses, Pentagon attack and OKC bombing involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. And there are 1.5 million engineers in the U.S., many of them highly-qualified to investigate attacks and their damage.

And yet the authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the American Society of Civil Engineers' 9/11 investigation.

Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, and that would suffer if it were known that 9/11 was an inside job, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.

As if that is not bad enough, the same handful of people who came up with the unscientific "pancake collapse" theory for the Twin Towers while working for FEMA then moved over to spread unscientific theories for NIST:

FEMA Chapter 1 authors:
Therese McAllister: co-write NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor
FEMA Chapter 2 authors:
Ronald Hamburger: see above
William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom Tower
Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7
FEMA Chapter 5 authors (WTC7):
Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F
Harold Nelson: see above

All of the above information and much of the actual content and presentation comes from Kevin Ryan's presentation A New Standard for Deception and Jim Hoffman's review of that speech. All of the credit goes to Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman

=============================================================================================

Hillary Criticized Bush Admin for 'Suspicious' 9/11 Actions Despite Staff Convicted of Stealing, Destroying Classified 9/11 Documents

Hillary Clinton made statements criticizing the Bush Administration's secrecy in regard to the 9/11 Commission's investigation during a 2003 conference titled 'New American Strategies for Security and Peace,' alongside top Democratic public policy advisors including Madeline Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gen. Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger and many others.

Her key statement purported that the Bush Administration was behaving as though it had "something to hide":

"By withholding information from the 9/11 Commission and the American public, the administration unnecessarily raises the suspicion that they have something to hide. Americans will be more likely to accept what is "going right" in Iraq, if the administration is honest about what is "going wrong."
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Hillary's 2003 statements also criticized the Bush Administration for keeping secret a 28-page report on "the involvements of foreign governments with the highjackers." She even advocated the citizens know the full truth about 9/11.

"I feel absolutely without doubt that our citizens, particularly my constituents, deserve to know all the facts of how the government was prepared or not." [SEE TRANSCIPT AT BOTTOM FOR FULL CONTEXT]

Despite Hillary's hopeful sounding rhetoric on 9/11, she is far from a truther and has now recruited Sandy Berger, a former staff member from her husband's administration, into her campaign and likely her administration.

The document theft took place between September 2 and October 2, 2003, with 9/11 Commission investigation underway, according to the charges, and less than a month before the October 28 New American Strategies conference.

Thus Hillary's criticism of 'suspicious' behavior in the Bush Administration clearly stands in hypocrisy, as it is horrifyingly clear that both administrations were "hiding something" about 9/11.

Sandy Berger-- a top national security advisor-- claimed the incident was an "honest mistake" and that he had only been reviewing the documents for the 9/11 Commission and that the destroyed documents were "duplicates."

Hillary's statements-- publicly available but not publicized-- came during a policy discussion on topics related to Homeland Security and the restructuring of intelligence operations during the new era of terrorism.

The 2003 rhetoric reflected plans for a continuation of 9/11-era fear of terrorism, further integration, new intelligence structures and regional integration:

"The lost opportunity of 9/11 is that the President did not rise to the position of educator." Samuel R. Berger "We've been spending money on homeland security since 1996, but we do not have a strategy." Randall Larsen "We need economic security, new levels of public-private partnerships, a balance between homeland security and civil liberties, and collaboration among all levels of government.
Governor Mark Warner (D-VA) "We are still missing a single, integrated homeland security strategy." Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) "What states are not talking about is how to develop regional partnerships for homeland security." Mayor Ed Garza (San Antonio) "The Bush Administration has made preemptive action its guiding doctrine.... preemptive action is a useful tool, but one to be used sparingly." Ivo H. Daalder

"We should be working to strengthen and use international institutions, beginning with the United Nations and NATO." General Wesley K. Clark, USA (Ret.) "The distinction between domestic and foreign intelligence no longer makes any sense... Today, our intelligence assets are as likely to be a public health official or a cop on the street, as an FBI or CIA agent." James Steinberg "In Bosnia, we achieved our objective at an acceptable cost....that is nationbuilding...It isn't perfect, but it worked. In Afghanistan, the administration did the exact opposite of nation building." Richard Holbrooke "The day after a nuclear or other attack, we will ask ourselves, what is it that we wished we had done?" Margaret A. Hamburg

To their credit, the New American Strategies for Security and Peace did claim this notable objective:

"We can collect vital information without compromising civil liberties."
Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA)

More of Hillary Clinton's statements on the Bush Administration withholding information on 9/11 appears below:

"I believe, having had a lot of experience now in watching and listening to the American people, that they are far more willing to accept the administration's statements about what is going right in Iraq if they believe that the administration is more forthright about what is going wrong....

One is in the administration's approach to the investigations surrounding 9/11. Not only as a Senator from New York, but as an American, I don't think there is any more searing event in my personal experience than what happened to us on September 11th.

I feel absolutely without doubt that our citizens, particularly my constituents, deserve to know all the facts of how the government was prepared or not. Yet, over this weekend, we learned that the 9/11 commission, an independent commission, charged with the important task of investigating how 9/11 happened, complains that it is not getting access to all the documents it needs.

This is a hugely important issue. And it's not just important for this commission, but for these larger questions about access to information and how this government maintains the trust of the American people.

The lack of transparency on the part of the Bush administration has forced Governor King, former Republican Governor of New Jersey, to threaten subpoenas. This should not be happening.

As bad as it was for Vice President Cheney to keep secret how the administration developed its energy policy, this is far worse. The 9/11 commission is not trying to embarrass this president or any former president or anyone else. It is trying to learn what happened, what went wrong. In hopes that we can be better prepared to protect ourselves from any future attacks.

In taking their action to evade or avoid providing information, the administration unnecessarily raises the suspicion that it has something to hide, that it might use the claim of national security to hide mistakes that are literally questions of life and death for Americans.

Similarly, with respect to the prior report about intelligence and the administration's continuing refusal to release to the American public the 28 pages that concern the involvements of foreign governments with the highjackers, the administration is drawing a line that should not be drawing. There is no legitimate basis for denying the American public this information."

=============================================================================================

Why Were Bomb Squad Teams Present in the Evidence Sorting Area at Fresh Kills in Staten Island?

We approached another area almost the size of a football field surrounded by tall poles ending in powerful halogen light clusters. A large backhoe digger with a shovel full of debris raised high was inching back in reverse and scattering the stuff in small mounds for the workers to more easily pick through. Off to the side, were sifting machines that shake the rubble through a strainer before it's strewn out on the ground before the men. I counted eight workers carefully eyeing the sifted debris for any evidence as the conveyor belt carried it towards a bin. The evidence could be in the form of say, pieces of the Black Box or of the aircraft, or valuables destroyed from the collapsed buildings.

Dressed in white Tyvec suits, yellow boots and gas masks, groups of four or five of these guys sift through the debris with pitchforks and rakes. And each group employs German shepherd dog that works the debris just as hard as the men do. One guy holds a white plastic bucket and goes about looking for small objects; another is dangling an article of clothing off the end of his pitchfork. Anything of importance is quickly inspected and handed over to the specialists, either the bomb squads, Secret Service, CIA, police or whatever agency that needs to be informed. Off to the side two folding tables covered in muddied plastic are there for placing evidence that needs to be recorded. A large hand-painted cardboard seen behind the tables reads: "No body parts on the table"

=============================================================================================

NFL Star Considered 9/11 a False Flag From Day One
Super Bowl winner and former Dallas Cowboys ace Stepnoski goes further during radio interview

Former Dallas Cowboys Super-Bowl winner and five time Pro Bowler Mark Stepnoski said in a radio interview yesterday that anybody who still believes the official story of 9/11 is either incredibly naive or in complete denial, as he revealed how he considered the event to be a possible false flag operation on the very day it happened.

"I just remember at the time thinking to myself - is this really a terrorist attack on us by a foreign nation or is this a false flag operation being conducted by our government," said Stepnoski, adding that he had carefully studied the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, and the Oklahoma City bombing, which led him to immediately doubt the official story.

"I noticed there were a lot of parallels between 9/11 and that event (Oklahoma City bombing), bombs being found in the building, scientists coming out and saying that an ammonium nitrate bomb could never cause that much damage," said the former NFL star.

"Studying that time period, the Vietnam war, Watergate, all these things that signified cover-up by the government - as time moves on you become more and more aware as a citizen that secrecy is the rule of the day with our government and any time anything revelatory comes to light regarding nefarious activities of our government it's immediately discredited and hushed up," said Stepnoski, praising the role of the alternative media for providing true sources of information that can't be sanitized.

Stepnoski said there were too many instances of foreknowledge regarding 9/11 to be discounted, citing how public officials got warnings not to fly on the eve of the attacks.

"When you think about the similarities to the Oklahoma City bombing, that day the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm agents who were employed in that building didn't show up for work - the same way that John Ashcroft got a tip not to fly commercially before 11, the same way Willie Brown got a tip not to fly beforehand," said Stepnoski.

"When you listen to the transcripts of the air traffic controllers on the day of 9/11, the first words out of their mouth was 'is this live or is this an exercise'" said Stepnoski, referring to the multiple exercises that were taking place that dovetailed 9/11 on that very morning.

"Once people become familiar with the protocol that exists, it's readily apparent that the protocol was broken on that day and the events that happened on that day, the way they transpired, that is not commonplace," said Stepnoski, citing NORAD's lack of response in intercepting the errant aircraft.

"It just goes without saying - it was an anomaly, things were purposefully altered that day," he said.

The former Super Bowl champion then discussed the geopolitical maneuverings that preceded 9/11 and gave the Neo-Cons the pretext to launch the attack.

"Our military is now used basically as an instrument to secure and protect oil supplies because that is the lifeblood of our economy," said Stepnoski, adding, "Sixty per cent of the recoverable oil in the world is in the middle east - it's in a piece of land roughly the size of Texas, and that's why I believe Dick Cheney, even though he was subpoenaed several times, he would not release the records from his energy task force in 2001 because that's exactly what was discussed in that meeting."

Stepnoski discussed what he termed the "threshold concept," where people arrive at a point where they had gathered enough information to make the leap beyond the parameters of thinking that have been set for them by the consensus.

"When you look at the information that's out there and the credibility of the sources - anybody now who still believes the official story of 9/11 is either incredibly naive or is exhibiting complete and total denial," said Stepnoski.

=============================================================================================

Actor Ed Asner : Opening Remarks at the 9/11 Symposium, West Hartford CT, 11/03/07

(This a "rough cut" clip..We are currently working on the post production of the event which will be available on DVD and the Web in the coming weeks.)

=============================================================================================

British anti war campaigner, Brian Haw, talks about 9/11, this is very short clip but a much longer one (about an hour) will be uploaded soon. Brian has been living in a peace camp in Parliament Square since 2001.

=============================================================================================

Philly 9/11 Truth Confronts the Clairvoyant Rick Santorum on New 9/11 Prediction

Philly 9/11 Truth Confronts the Clairvoyant Rick Santorum on New 9/11 Prediction
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum operating under the auspices of David Horowitz’ Islamo-fascism Awareness Week entered the halls of Philadelphia’s Temple University to deliver a trenchant warning about the increasing threat of Islamo-fascism. Santorum arrogantly anticipating resistance from the “left leaning” university issued a disclaimer that he would extend equal time after his presentation to discussing the positions therein and to his credit such was realized. The question and answer session began with the bizarre monologue of a gentleman claiming to have been at Ground Zero on 9/11 and also that he was marine and victim of Islamo-fascism as a peaceful political protestor in Andalucia (see extended clip). The majority of the questions posed by the audience to Satorum were woefully uninspiring. One comment however did resonate which was in regards to the loss of civil liberties since 9/11 and spurred a telling conversation in which Santorum denied that any such loss of liberty had occurred telling an audience member to give a “real example” despite the issue of libraries being forced to disclose information on their clients being mentioned. Members of Philadelphia 9/11 Truth were able to interpolate a few extremely critical inquiries into the fiasco the most important of which Santorum’s prediction of some “unfortunate events” that would in the near future change the political opinion of the majority of Americans. Mark Peters, seasoned veteran of Philly 9/11 Truth went word for word with the sophist Santorum who attempted to spin the question about his ominous prediction into a question about Mark’s personal view of Islamo-fascism. Santorum was able to bide his time long enough to formulate a rebuttal stating that his forewarning was about the Iranian threat which in Satorum’s analysis “already has begun” to initiate this political shift. Santorum took additional questions from Philly 9/11 Truth’s members Darrell Rowlands and Nick Carangi, respectively about the euphemistic use of the term “Islamo-fascism” and about the role of covert CIA operations in the fostering of Islamic extremism. Satorum insisted that Islamo-fascism was a proper term due to the nature of the meld between religion and state, however audience members agreed that fascism was inherently about corporatism. Although Santorum anticipated resistance to his melodramatic inculcations by hubristically planning for an extended discussion session, the actions of these courageous Philly 9/11 Truth members invariably prevented him from further deleterious chicanery.

=============================================================================================

Loose Change: Final Cut Is Here
Ultimate version of the pre-eminent 9/11 truth documentary is released

Loose Change: Final Cut has arrived. Two days ahead of the original schedule, the long awaited final version of the film that took the 9/11 truth movement mainstream is now available to buy on DVD.

The original Loose Change and Loose Change 2nd Edition have been viewed at least 50 million times over the Internet, making it one of the most watched movies in history, but the Final Cut goes above and beyond, making it not simply the third in a trilogy but a completely new film with oodles of unseen footage, commentary, interviews and eyewitness testimony.

In an effort to be the catalyst for a new independent investigation of 9/11, the film features new and exclusive interviews with firefighters, EMT's, first responders and other officials who were all eyewitnesses to multiple secondary explosions in the twin towers and around the ground zero area.

Part of the revenue from the sales will be donated to 9/11 victim's charities such as The Feal Good Foundation and WTC Families for Proper Burial.

The film will be subject to selected cinematic release in 2008, but many grassroots and selected theatres have already agreed to pick up the movie from December onwards across the U.S and Europe and the Loose Change team are encouraging activists to ask that their local theatre to screen the documentary.

Throughout the year Dylan Avery Jason Bermas and Corey Rowe, have been negotiating with various different producers in Hollywood in hope of securing a mainstream release. However, the team recently decided to forgo such a deal in order to retain full editorial control of the film.

"This just wasn't an option for us, as the integrity of our message is ultimately all that we have, and we feared that 'the machine' would corrupt or squash our film and its movement." an official statement read.

The trio are also extremely proud of the manner in which their initial release of the internet phenomenon documentary has spawned a move that has seen the release of scores of successful independent grassroots films. The team wish to continue to challenge the traditional marketing channels and reinvent the way that films are distributed.

Alex Jones worked with the trio in an executive producer role on the film and has partly financed it's production and distribution.

Other consultants on The Final Cut include Professor David Ray Griffin, author of three widely read studies of the 2001 attacks.

In the coming weeks and months we expect to witness the launch of a fresh wave of attacks against the 9/11 truth movement by neocon hacks such as Bill O'Reilly, who has regularly equated the movement with terrorists , a tactic that has since been echoed by other mainstream gatekeepers.

O'Reilly admits right off the bat that he has not even seen Loose Chang e, following in the trend of his fellow debunkers who have already arrived at a judgment without even checking the evidence. O'Reilly has made the argument that " Loose Change should be banned just as some books should be banned."

The Film will be available for download at 12 Midnight (CST) on Sunday morning at PrisonPlanet.com, Infowars.com and www.loosechangethefinalcut.com .

=============================================================================================

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off — as we show in our book with other examples — when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials — essentially a political document — in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

• Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming — How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, £16.99) is available for £14.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4115 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk.

=============================================================================================

The battle to deal with climate change needs to be fought like "World War Three", the head of the Environment Agency has warned.

The agency's chief executive Lady Young said current measures to adapt to a changing climate were "too little, too slowly", and an huge effort was needed to address the crisis.

Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, warned the agency's annual conference in London that global warming was a challenge to security, migration, politics and economics as well as the environment.

Lady Young told the conference that Britain would face more droughts, flooding, coastal erosion and loss of biodiversity as the climate altered.

She said measures such as improving the resilience of existing homes to flooding, not building on floodplains and improving water use efficiency were needed.

Rising sea levels and coastal erosion threatened £130 billion worth of property around the coast, with the elderly and poor communities most vulnerable, and seaside settlements must have help adapting, she said.

"This is World War Three - this is the biggest challenge to face the globe for many, many years. We need the sorts of concerted, fast, integrated and above all huge efforts that went into many actions in times of war.

=============================================================================================

Last week, climate scientist John Christy wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal taking issue with Vice President Al Gore's assertions about global warming. Gore took the opportunity of a television appearance on Monday to address Christy's claims.

NBC's Meredith Viera asked Gore, "You know, you share the prize with scientists from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And one of those scientists, John Christy, wrote an op-ed last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal in which he criticized your dire predictions about the impact of global warming. He wrote, 'I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.'"

Gore immediately responded, "Well, he's an outlier. He no longer belongs to the IPCC. And he is way outside the scientific consensus."

Gore then attacked the news media directly, saying that "part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the 'on the one hand, on the other hand' approach. There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. But when you're reporting on a story like the one you're covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don't search out for someone who still believes the earth is flat and give them equal time."

Gore concluded that there is "as strong a consensus as you'll ever see in science that the climate crisis is real" but that "there is still time to solve it."

=============================================================================================

Lovelock: Global Warming Will Kill 6 Billion

�In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill�The real enemy, then, is humanity itself�.Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose��

�A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.�

-Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter, in both an interview with Audubon magazine and quoted in the The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June �96

Gaia theory creator says �dark time' will leave only 500 million, �but for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting.'

Six billion dead. That's the latest magic number from the eco-left that's designed to scare the world into global warming action. Climate extremist James Lovelock, the founder of the Gaia theory, used it predicting mankind will almost be wiped out by 2100 from global warming.

Lovelock told Rolling Stone that predictions of the earth's warming will be �nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.� Rolling Stone summed it up by saying �The human race is doomed,� in a story posted on its site October 17. Only as few as 500 million will survive �with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes � Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.�

Ironically, the aging scientist didn't advocate for typical eco-solutions. In fact, he said they won't work and advocates for nuclear power. �To Lovelock, cutting greenhouse-gas pollution won't make much difference at this point, and much of what passes for sustainable development is little more than a scam to profit off disaster,� wrote Jeff Goodell. ��Green,' he tells me, only half-joking, �is the color of mold and corruption.'�

The predictions arrive just in time for the media awash in post Nobel Prize climate change coverage. CNN is devoting a huge effort to promote its two-part show �Planet in Peril� that will be shown on the network Oct. 23 and 24 at 9 p.m.

Lovelock isn't even the first eco-extremist this year to say the earth is over-populated by billions of people. In May, Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society warned mankind was �acting like a virus� and 5.5 billion would die.

Now Lovelock trumps that prediction by roughly 500 million lives. �In fact, the coming of the Four Horsemen � war, famine, pestilence and death � seems to perk him up. �It will be a dark time,' Lovelock admits. �But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting,'� wrote Rolling Stone.

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie
In Gore's movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that �warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels�, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, �after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.�

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. This just shows, that even if CO2 was the cause of the current warming trend (which it isn't), the premise that warming will keep spiraling out of control is totally unsubstantiated

Gore Science Versus Real Science
In April 2006, 60 scientists sent a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stating Kyoto is unwarranted. The signatories included Dr. Ian Clark, professor of isotope hydrology and paleoclimatology at the University of Ottawa; Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor of climate change and environmental studies at the University of Victoria; and Dr. Roy Spencer, research scientist at the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Globalists Love Global Warming
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government.

=============================================================================================

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

Climate change could be one of the greatest national security challenges ever faced by U.S. policy makers, according to a new joint study by two U.S. think tanks.

The report, to be released Monday, raises the threat of dramatic population migrations, wars over water and resources, and a realignment of power among nations.

During the last two decades, climate scientists have underestimated how quickly the Earth is changing - perhaps to avoid being branded as "alarmists," the study said. But policy planners should count on climate-induced instability in critical parts of the world within 30 years

The report was compiled by a panel of security and climate specialists, sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security. The Associated Press received an advance copy.

Climate change is likely to breed new conflicts, but it already is magnifying existing problems, from the desertification of Darfur and competition for water in the Middle East to the disruptive monsoons in Asia which increase the pressure for land, the report said.

It examined three scenarios, ranging from the consequences of an expected temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2040, to the catastrophic implications of a 10-degree rise by the end of the century.

At the very least, the report said, the U.S. can expect more population migrations, both internally and from across its borders; a proliferation of diseases; greater conflict in weak states, especially in Africa where climates will change most drastically; and a restructuring in global power in line with the accessibility of natural resources.

Left unchecked, "the collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilize virtually every aspect of modern life," said the report, comparing the potential outcome with the Cold War doomsday scenarios of a nuclear holocaust.

=============================================================================================

Myth of ‘thousands’ of UNIPCC climate scientists

=============================================================================================

It's no secret that the dollar is on a downward spiral. Its value is dropping, and the Fed isn't doing a whole lot to change that. As a result, a number of countries are considering a shift away from the dollar to preserve their assets. These are seven of the countries currently considering a move from the dollar, and how they'll have an effect on its value and the US economy.

Countries are growing weary of losing money on the falling dollar. Many of them want to protect their financial interests, and a number of them want to end the US oversight that comes with using the dollar. Although it's not clear how many of these countries will actually follow through on an abandonment of the dollar, it is clear that its status as a world currency is in trouble.

Obviously, an abandonment of the dollar is bad news for the currency. Simply put, as demand lessens, its value drops. Additionally, the revenue generated from the use of the dollar will be sorely missed if it's lost. The dollar's status as a cheaply-produced US export is a vital part of our economy. Losing this status could rock the financial lives of both Americans and the worldwide economy.

=============================================================================================

Ex-Wall Street Journal Editor: Dollar Collapse to Trigger Global Financial Meltdown
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury says planet could be thrust into barter economy for a time

The father of Reagonomics and former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts has warned that the collapsing dollar will eventually cripple the European economy and may even return the world economy to a barter system as financial chaos ensues.

Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.

Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Roberts cautioned that "The loss in value of the dollar is becoming so rapid it's alarming....we've got unmanageable trade deficits, budget deficits, the economy is set for recession, the wars show no end."

Asked how bad the dollar crisis can get, Roberts responded, "It can get awfully bad - the trouble is where can they go?"

"If China removes the peg and all the surplus dollars drive up the value of the Chinese currency then given our dependence on China....it's going to drive the prices up here a tremendous amount and Americans don't have any discretionary income left," said Roberts.

"At some point the foreigners will stop financing our budget and trade deficits - then we're going to have a massive crisis the likes of which we've not experienced....if you're totally dependent on imports of manufactured goods and you can't pay for them, what do you do?" asked Roberts, explaining that the only recourse would be to print more money, pushing the dollar down even further.

Citing the fact that the dollar had lost more than 60 per cent of its value against the Euro since 2001, Roberts said that the flight from the dollar could eventually wreck the European economy because it would cripple their exports.

Asked how low the dollar could go, Roberts said that there was a limit because "There's simply so many dollars, there's not enough room in other currencies to absorb them - at some point the flight of investors from the dollar to the Euro will cause amazing troubles in Europe - they won't be able to export anything because the prices are driven up so high."

Roberts said investors will eventually desert the Euro as a safe haven from the dollar and the same process will cause a crisis in Britain as the pound is devalued due to exports being hit.

"Wages are being frozen, profit margins are shrinking, exports are down - so it's starting to impact on Europe," said Roberts.

Roberts warned that the potential destruction of the dollar as the world's reserve currency could eventually return us to a system of barter, completely altering the landscape of the economic structure as we know it.

=============================================================================================

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a joint session of the U.S. Congress the Bush administration must stem the dollar's plunge or risk triggering a trade war.

``The dollar cannot remain `someone else's problem,''' Sarkozy said today on Capitol Hill. ``If we are not careful, monetary disarray could morph into economic war. We would all be its victims.''

Sarkozy's complaints that the U.S. currency's drop against the euro is undermining European competitiveness struck a discordant note in a summit intended to demonstrate an improving U.S.-French relationship. His comments came as the euro surged to a record high against the dollar. The currency touched $1.4731 today, a 65 percent gain since the end of 2001.

Concern that the euro is too strong has been a Sarkozy theme since his presidential campaign earlier this year. Since his May 6 election, he has urged European Central Bank officials to lower interest rates to weaken the currency.

``If anything, this is a signal to the ECB that the euro has accelerated and they need to bear that in mind and not rush to raise rates,'' said Laurence Boone, chief French economist at Barclays Capital in Paris. ``When the dollar is depreciating, French firms are more affected than those in Germany.''

=============================================================================================

The US dollar is still officially the world's reserve currency, but it cannot purchase the services of Brazilian super model Gisele Bundchen. Gisele required the $30 million she earned during the first half of this year to be paid in euros.

Gisele is not alone in her forecast of the dollar's fate. The First Post (UK) reports that Jim Rogers, a former partner of billionaire George Soros, is selling his home and all possessions in order to convert all his wealth into Chinese yuan.

Meanwhile, American economists continue to preach that offshoring is good for the US economy and that Bush's war spending is keeping the economy going. The practitioners of supply and demand have yet to figure out that the dollar's supply is sinking the dollar's price and along with it American power.

The macho super patriots who support the Bush regime still haven't caught on that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, not on a military unable to occupy Baghdad. If the dollar were not the world currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an impossibility considering America's $800 billion trade deficit.

When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, foreigners will cease to finance the US trade and budget deficits, and the American Empire along with its wars will disappear overnight. Perhaps Bush will be able to get a World Bank loan, or maybe one from the "Chavez bank," to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Foreign leaders, observing that offshoring and war are accelerating America's relative economic decline, no longer treat the US with the deference to which Washington is accustomed. Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, recently refused Washington's demand to renew the lease on the Manta air base in Ecuador. He told Washington that the US could have a base in Ecuador if Ecuador could have a military base in the US.

When Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez addressed the UN, he crossed himself as he stood at the podium. Referring to President Bush, Chavez said, "Yesterday the devil came here, and it smells of sulfur still today." Bush, said Chavez, was standing "right here, talking as if he owned the world."

In his state of the nation message last year, Russian president Vladimir Putin said that Bush's blathering about democracy was nothing but a cloak for the pursuit of American self-interests at the expense of other peoples. "We are aware what is going on in the world. Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, and he eats without listening, and he's clearly not going to listen to anyone." In May 2007, Putin criticized the neocon regime in Washington for "disrespect for human life" and "claims to global exclusiveness, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich."

Even America's British allies regard President Bush as a threat to world peace and the second most dangerous man alive. Bush is edged out in polls by Osama bin Laden, but is regarded as more dangerous than Iran's demonized president and North Korea's Kim Jong-il.

President Bush has achieved his dismal world standing despite spending $1.6 billion of hard-pressed Americans' tax money on public relations between 2003 and 2006.

Clearly, America's leader and America's currency are poorly regarded. Is there a solution?

Perhaps the answer lies in those 737 overseas bases. If those bases were brought home and shared among the 50 states, each state would gain 15 new military bases.

Imagine what this would mean: The end of the housing slump. A reduction in the trade deficit. And the end of the war on terror.

Who would dare attack a country with 15 new military bases in every state in addition to the existing ones? Wherever a terrorist turned, he would find himself surrounded by soldiers.

All of the dollars currently spent abroad to support 737 overseas bases would be spent at home. Income for foreigners would become income for Americans, and the trade deficit would shrink.

The impact of the 737 military base payrolls on the US economy would end the housing crisis and bring back the 140,000 highly paid financial services jobs, the loss of which this year has cost the US $42 billion in consumer income. Foreclosures and bankruptcies would plummet.

If this isn't enough to turn the dollar around, President Bush's pledge not to appoint an attorney general if Michael Mukasey is not confirmed offers more promise. If the Democrats will defeat Mukasey's nomination, there are other superfluous cabinet departments that can be closed down in addition to the US Department of Torture and Indefinite Detention.

The American empire is being unwound on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. The year is two months from being over, but already in 2007, despite the touted "surge," deaths of US soldiers are the highest of any year of the war.

The Taliban are the ones who are surging. They have taken control of a third district in Western Afghanistan. Turkey and the Kurds are on the verge of turning northern Iraq into a new war zone, another demonstration of American impotence.

Bush's wars have endangered America's puppet regimes. Bush's Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is fighting for his life. By resorting to "emergency rule" and oppressive measures, Musharraf has intensified his opposition. When Musharraf falls, thanks to Bush, the Islamists will have nukes.

American generals used to say that the wars Bush started in the Middle East would take 10 years to win. On Oct. 31, General John Abizaid, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, put paid to that optimistic forecast. Speaking at Carnegie Mellon University, Gen. Abizaid said it would be 50 years before US troops can leave the Middle East.

There is no possibility of the US remaining in the Middle East for a half century. The dollar and US power are already on their last legs, unbeknownst to Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid who are preparing yet another blank check for Bush's latest request for $200 billion in supplementary war funding.

There isn't any money with which to fund Bush's lost war. It will have to be borrowed from China.

The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere seven years.

Even as Gisele throws off the dollar's hegemony, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Columbia are declaring independence from the IMF and World Bank, instruments of US financial hegemony, by creating their own development bank, thus bringing to an end US suzerainty over South America.

=============================================================================================

During a speech in which he criticized Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Vice President Dick Cheney sounded a bit more like his boss when he told the World Affairs Council, "The people of Peru, I think, deserve better in their leadership."

Peru is about 500 miles south of Venezuela; with the states of Colombia and Ecuador in between. Cheney said the people of Peru have "got to resolve for themselves" the issue of Hugo Chavez's socialist agenda.

The World Affairs Council bills itself as a group dedicated to educating citizens on international issues.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk

=============================================================================================

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political camp struck back on Saturday against rivals who were attacking her as overly secretive, circulating legal arguments from a Clinton ally asserting that the Clintons are not blocking the release of presidential papers about their discussions in the White House in the 1990s.

Bruce Lindsey, a top adviser to former President Bill Clinton, issued a lengthy statement on Friday evening saying that, contrary to some news reports, Mr. Clinton had “not asked that records related to communications with Senator Clinton be withheld,” and that Mr. Clinton had not blocked the release of any presidential documents.

In pushing to clarify the issue, the Clinton camp is trying to correct an image of Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, that is being painted by her critics — that she is too secretive, and that because she will not release the papers more quickly, her experience argument lacks credibility.

Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with Radio Iowa on Saturday, said she did not know what the papers would reveal, but she supported releasing them as quickly as possible. “I think it’s like people think we have boxes of records in our basement and why don’t I just go and get them and hand them over," she said. “And you know my husband has never blocked a record ever. He has been the most forthcoming of all presidents."

Three Iowa supporters of another candidate, Senator Barack Obama, of Illinois, sent Mrs. Clinton, of New York, a letter Saturday, urging that she expedite the release of documents, to “be as open as possible with the American people.”

Full article here.

=============================================================================================

Members of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth recently asked Hillary Clinton about her attendance at the 2006 Bilderberg Meeting-- which she emphatically denied.

She laughed uncomfortably before declaring that she had "no idea what they were talking about" at Bilderberg Meetings since she "wasn't there."

However, she did acknowledge that Bill Clinton had attended in 1992, but maintained that she herself had never been.

This denial goes against reports from insiders at the Brookstreet Hotel in Ottawa who claimed she attended the 2006 meeting for one day. Witnesses saw a number of vehicles which unloaded in back loading dock, away from the public's view, including a stretch limousine with U.S. diplomatic plates.

Additionally, Hillary Clinton had already attended the 1997 Bilderberg meeting in Lake Lanier, Georgia (U.S.) as First Lady, according to sources close to investigation reporters Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker.

It is clear that the Clinton-wing of public policy is well represented at Bilderberg-- while Hillary Clinton's name was left off of the 2006 attendees list (a common occurrence for sensitive guests), a number of former officials from the Clinton Administration were on the 2006 list.

These include Richard Holbrooke, James Wolfensohn, Vernon E. Jordan, James B. Steinberg, Dennis B. Ross, Mark C. Medish and Thomas E. Donilon, from the 2006 Bilderberg list of U.S. attendees alone.

Richard Holbrooke, for one, has already joined Hillary's campaign and is rumored to be a likely Secretary of State under a Hillary Administration. Rumors from the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs suggest that James B. Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor under Bill Clinton, would likely also return to a Hillary Clinton Administration.

It goes without saying that Hillary Clinton's administration would be a clear continuation of the Bilderberg agenda-- Bill Clinton was a member of the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and attended Bilderberg and all are clearly working towards some variant of world socialism.

Sources indicate that Bill Clinton's advocacy for NAFTA was a critical factor in David Rockefeller's endorsement after the 1992 Bilderberg meeting.

NAFTA, CAFTA and the Pan-American Community: "We must support the largest developing democracies in the region, Brazil and Mexico, and deepen economic and strategic cooperation with Argentina and Chile. We must also continue to cooperate with our allies in Colombia, Central America, and the Caribbean to combat the interconnected threats of drug trafficking, crime, and insurgency."

AFRICAN UNION: "Equally important are the growing ranks of democracies in Africa -- some established, some new -- which will be the engines of Africa's future. We should target these countries for aid and other forms of support and work with them to strengthen regional institutions such as the African Union. The AU seeks to emulate the European Union by requiring and supporting democracy among its members, but it has a long way to go."

CHINA & INDIA: "Finally, we must create formal links between the International Energy Agency and China and India and create an "E-8" international forum modeled on the G-8. This group would be comprised of the world's major carbon-emitting nations and hold an annual summit devoted to international ecological and resource issues."

=============================================================================================

I read Daniel Estulin’s The True Story of the Bilderberg Group over a long weekend trip to South Dakota to visit in-laws. The amazing history of the Bilderberg Group, its kindred Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission (TR), filled my mind with its awful vision of One World Government, one government uber allis, that is, over all sovereign nations, from America to Zambia.

Interestingly, the Wednesday that began our trip was Halloween. And lord knows the Bilderbergers had been spooking the world since 1954, though their ghost-like founders had been in operation since the days of Woodrow Wilson and well before.

The well-done Bilderberger called for in the headline is the one behind the fixed smile, pointy nose mask. He is one of the most aggressive Bilderberg leaders of our time, David Rockefeller, scion of the Rockefeller clan. He has also been the spook behind hundreds of think tanks, the giver of grants for studies to implement mind-control techniques, government-toppling scenarios, and other nasty business. Rockefeller is a leading man in this real-life horror movie, gathering some 200 government and corporate honchos, European Royalty, international CEO’s, bureaucrats of the highest order, to pull the strings of various governments; this along with prodding the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, European Central banks; in short to tie us all in neocon knots

And speaking of neocon knots I thought of as we passed through LaGuardia airport en route to South Dakota. After presenting passports and/or drivers licenses, we were obliged to spill shoes, change, wallets, belts, jackets, watches and disgust into plastic boxes. As I passed through security without a beep, the surly guard was doing his best to be unpleasant and make us feel like a threat to the country we loved. Once past security, we entered the electronic Matrix, each robotized traveler with cellphone in hand, earpiece, earphones, blackberry, I-pod, Palmcorders, et al, in digital touch with Big Brother and his holding companies somewhere, everywhere.

This too was part of the Bilderberg-manufactured (Bush implemented) terror state guaranteed to cripple Americans and citizens of the world with angst, fear and apathy, color codes to match. But why wasn’t David Rockefeller, his gang and forbearers being grilled for their sins of treason and dissimulation, literally the ongoing attempt to destroy the Constitution and overthrow our democratic government? Why weren’t their feet (Kissinger’s, Brzezinski’s, Schulz’s, et al,) put to the fire for their treason? What gate of a thousand eyes should they pass through to reveal their offenses? Daniel Estulin’s, of course, that’s whose, and anyone else who felt the need, the importance to reveal these cretins’ crimes.

Somehow for 15 years Estulin managed to find the location of yearly Bilderberg meetings as they were announced, always just a week before they happened, always in some small town outside a major city, cloak and daggered with armed and vicious security guards. The meetings, first held in the Bilderberg Hotel in the small Dutch town of Oosterbeek in 1954, during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, did not allow press coverage of any kind. Today that remains true, even though major news and media figures may attend, that is, to plan to alter public opinion on some issue.

In fact, here is Estulin’s latest report on Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe. Read it, please. It includes a list of this year’s objectives and a complete list of attendees. Estulin’s razor-sharp observations will boggle your mind.

Bilderberg privacy reigns, too, to make attendees feel “free enough” to utter their innermost thoughts (a truly scary thought). Uninvited, Estulin arrives days in advance of meetings, bonds with hotel staff, even security once he gives them the past history of this group. And then there are those who know the history and come to him, eager to reveal the ugly “innermost thoughts” of someone who’d like to see a government toppled, a revolution financed, a leader disappeared (as in Aldo Moro of Italy), a president made or toppled (as in the case of Richard Nixon when he bucked Bilderbergers on his price control plan that was working). In short, the agenda is to weaken all world leadership but they’re own. Bilderberger needs, mandates, and laws, in their eyes, precede even those of the US government.

Yet planning and attending these meetings is in essence a crime. Estulin points out, “A US law, called the Logan Act, states explicitly that it is against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens to develop public policies. Although Bilderberg 2005 was missing one of its luminaries, US State Department official John Bolton who was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the American government was well represented in Rottach-Egern by Alan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council; William Luti, deputy under secretary of defense; James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of state, an ideologue of the Iraq war and incoming president of the World Bank. By attending Bilderberg 2005 meeting, these people are breaking federal laws of the United States.”

But then sovereign governments and their nation-states are in Bilderberger minds outmoded. We see this in the operation of the North American Treaty Agreement (NAFTA). The multinational participating corporations’ needs and mandates supersede the laws and mandates of the nations and peoples involved, whether they be the United States, Mexico or other Canada. Curiously, the tarantula of NAFTA was gifted to us by none other than former President Bill Clinton, after his stints with the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Though President Bush is not formally a member of this triple threat, his father was, and Junior delivered CAFTA to us, the Central American Trade Agreement, extending the tentacles of participation further south.

And now we see George W. Bush attempting to wrap the US, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union. What they are doing is building a global free market for the multinationals and their profiteers, in order to loot the rest of the world’s people. National identities, cultures, aspirations, ideals be damned. This is the real meaning of their One World Government, one which maximizes their wealth and everyone else’s poverty and enslavement. Not a pretty picture. But then they’re not pretty people. They are predators.

Estulin points out that their founding precursors, JP Morgan among them, poured millions of dollars into the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia to topple the Czar who was trying to bring Russia into modernity, but unfortunately asked for 12-hour working days and every ounce of strength of the working people. This opened the door to the Bolsheviks to protest. It also opened opportunities for Morgan and his brand of capitalism to weaken the Russian people. In its second try at a coup, the Bolsheviks, with Morgan’s and other large financial and material assistance, succeeded in toppling the Czar and making Russia a satellite of their interests, not a super-power. This action provided a paradigm for future actions, right up to today.

Here is the first of Bilderberg 2007 activities that Estulin reports in his linked article: "Aside from the Iraq quagmire, energy problems continue to dominate Bilderberger discussions. Oil and natural gas are finite, non-renewable resources. That’s because once used up it cannot be replenished. As the world turns, and as oil and natural gas supplies dwindle while demand soars dramatically, especially with Indian and Chinese booming economies who want all the trinkets and privileges of an American way of life, we, as the Planet, have crossed the midpoint of oil production and discovery.

“From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world’s financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle. Goldman Sachs oil report, [another full time member of the Bilderberger elite] published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US$105-150/barrel.

“No wonder Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced several months ago during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a ‘post-industrial age.’ To bring the world into the post-industrial age, you first need to destroy the world's economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don't spend money, they don't travel, and they don't consume.”

It is obvious why Bilderbergers would have “thinking out loud” like this stay in the privacy of their confines.

Estulin continued, “Third item on the [2007] agenda is European relations with Russia not only in Europe but also in Central Asia. With Moscow making a deal with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan over the transport of gas to Europe, the US geo-strategic goal of driving a wedge between the Central Asian countries and Russia lies in shambles. While the US says this is 'not good for Europe,' the Europeans are divided. Iran, overnight has become America’s last hope in the energy war.

“Iran war, after two years of huffing and puffing by the Bush government is definitely off the table. Furthermore, with France, Russia, Japan and China investing heavily in Iran, the world has drawn a line in the sand and the U.S. will be told at the conference not to cross it. There is blood in the water, and blood in the water usually leads to a good fight.

“That notwithstanding, the United States needs to control the region, not only for its oil reserves but, most importantly to help it sustain world economic hegemony. Under this strategic design, regional states will be turned to weak domains of sectarian sheikhs with little or no sovereignty and, by implications, a pathetic agenda of their economic development. Regional chaos favours the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn reinforces the process of political and social disintegration supported by the Bilderbergers.”

Thus you see that David Rockefeller and his friends have their viewfinders on many sights. In fact, the world is in their sights. Yet this super-powerful world organization, as Estulin points out, “runs out of an 18m2 [194 square feet] offices, staffed by one person, using one telephone line and a single fax number. There is no web page and no brass name plate on the door. The independent press has never been allowed in, and no statements have ever been released on the attendees’ conclusions nor has any agenda for a Bilderberg meeting been made public . . ." It is the epitome of low-profile dark ops, a shadow government hidden in a doorway.

Yet somehow, Estulin reports in his book, the Bilderbergers were responsible for the elevation of Jimmy Carter from peanut farmer to president, and more. Thus you must read the 326-page story that moves like a novel of political intrigue, though Estulin’s facts are stranger (and truer) than any fiction. For me, on Halloween and past it, it was a treat to read and to understand the vicious trick these people have been exacting on humanity for 53 years and their forbearers for a hundred more. After all is said and done, our present is clarified by knowing the past, which illuminates the journey for global hegemony begun with the royals and elites of Europe, America, and Asia. It really is us against them. And now is the time to arm yourself with knowledge, to take action for the defense of your country, its freedoms and your survival.

=============================================================================================

Demands for a referendum are sweeping England but Prime Minster Gordon Brown remains adamantly opposed to letting the voters have a say about the new European Union Treaty.

On October 27, protest rallies in London and throughout Britain saw politicians and grass-roots anti-EU campaigners demand that Prime Minster Brown schedule a referendum on the matter of Britain’s approval of the new EU Treaty.

European Parliament member Daniel Hannan, a British national, told a large London gathering that Great Britain had already ceased to be an independent nation and was largely run from EU headquarters in Brussels. He insisted that approval of the recently constructed EU treaty formed as a substitute for the rejected EU Constitution, would "make the British people completely subservient to Europe." He supported the demands for a referendum issued by over 100 elected officials — members of Parliament, members of the European Parliament, and local elected representatives from the country’s cities and towns. Danish political leader and anti-EU activist Jens-Peter Bonde journeyed from his country to participate in the rally.

Speakers claimed that the newly created treaty would make the EU a single legal entity with an EU head of state, an EU foreign minister, an EU police force, an EU judicial system, and an EU army. They also claimed that the new treaty would do away with any remaining ability for Britain to veto EU legislation.

In a related event, a "Counter-Jihad Conference" met in Brussels on October 18. Referring to their homelands as "Eurabia," participants addressed the continuing strong influx of Muslims into all parts of Europe. Of particular note to Americans, reporter Baron Bodissey, who attended the conference, issued the following warning to the people of the United States:

And for those who think America is exempt from all of this, bear in mind the "North American Union." The NAU is also considered a paranoid fantasy by most people, but it is being constructed in the same manner, piecemeal, boring document by boring document. Agreements, protocols, joint understandings, etc. — none of them requires the consent of Congress. They are not secret, but they are never noticed by the public at large, and so never generate any popular counter-pressure on elected officials.

Imagine a Rip Van Winkle, who went to sleep in the 1950s during the heady days of the Common Market when removing trade barriers was supposedly the only issue. Waking up fifty years later, he discovers that a totalitarian European regime has been imposed from Brussels, without so much as a by-your-leave from the citizens of the nations of Europe.

It begins with the removal of trade barriers. Then comes the talk about "the free flow of goods and people." Then, the "harmonization of laws within the community." With politically correct multicultural indoctrination to grease the skids, no one notices until it’s too late. They wake up and find their God-given rights have evaporated, and decisions are made on their behalf and without their consent by a distant and unaccountable group of bureaucratic mandarins.

What has occurred and continues to occur in Europe does not have to be America’s fate. Resistance here in our nation to the threat posed by those who seek to create an EU-style single legal entity is real and growing. It must become a force that cannot be resisted by any of this nation’s would-be "bureaucratic mandarins."

=============================================================================================

Female Falun Gong Practitioner Subjected to Sexual Abuse in Shandong Province

Sang Chunlian, a female resident of Shouguang City, Shandong Province in eastern China, was abducted by local police in September 2007. The police subjected her to torture, including sexual abuse, to force her to give up practicing Falun Gong. NTDTV reporters interviewed Nie Zuokun, the director of the Public Security Bureau, about this matter.

Sang Chunlian was abducted by Shouguang City police on September 24, 2007. According to her account, in the police office, two policemen pressed her on the ground and forcibly pulled her hands behind her back, and then violently pushed her chin and wrung her neck backward. They continually slapped her face on both sides, wringing her ears in between. The policemen also stomped on her thighs and legs with their heavy leather shoes. They burned her elbows and hands with lighters and seriously blistered them. They burned her for so long that they used up the lighter and had to find a new one. The policemen adjusted the flame to the highest level, and used it to burn the most sensitive parts of her body. Sang was soon covered with blood and blisters. While carrying out these atrocities, the policemen exclaimed, "Tonight, we won't stop until your skin is all burnt off." One of the policemen even stripped her naked, and said to others, "All of you get out of here now, and let me burn her private parts."

When interviewed, Nie Zuokun, director of the Shouguang City Public Security Bureau, denied all of these allegations. Below is an excerpt of the telephone interview between the NTDTV reporter and Nie Zuokun.

Nie (shouting): "If you are not out of your mind, would you believe what you alleged is true?"

Reporter: "I have photos and other evidence in my hand, and your atrocities have been exposed overseas. Aren't you afraid?"

Nie: "What should I be afraid of? If I were afraid, how could I do these things."

Shouguang is under the administration of Weifang City. Weifang is the most notorious region in mainland China for persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. Over 40 types of torture methods have been reported to be employed in Weifang. The number of Falun Gong practitioners tortured and abused to death in Weifang is the highest among all third tier cities in China. At least 121 Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured to death in the city by end of 2006. The first known death of Falun Gong practitioners also happen in Weifang when a 59-year-old woman, Chen Zixiu, died after three days' continuous torture in February 2002. Numerous Falun Gong practitioners in Weifang have been forced to pay fines, jailed in detention centers, labor camps and prisons without legal proceedings, and their properties confiscated.

=============================================================================================

Despite years of denials, a secret planning document issued by the U.S. military's nuclear-weapons command in 2003 ordered preparations for nuclear strikes on countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Saddam Hussein-era Iraq, Libya and Syria.

A briefing (pdf) on the document obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, showed that the document itself was created to flesh out a 2001 Bush administration revision of long-standing nuclear-weapons policy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review . That review was a Defense Department-led attempt to wean nuclear policy off a Cold-War focus on Russia and China, but the shift raised questions about what purpose nuclear forces would serve apart from deterring an attack. In March 2002, leaks indicated that the review would recommend preparations for nuclear attacks against WMD-aspirant states. Arms Control Today pointed out at the time that planning to attack non-nuclear states that were signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty reversed decades of U.S. nuclear policy.

The administration's response was to deny that the review moved the U.S. from deterrence to a first-strike posture. After the leaks, the Defense Department issued a statement in March 2002 saying cryptically, "This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of WMD. ... A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st century." Speaking to CNN around the same time, General Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Nuclear Posture Review was "not a plan, it's not an operational plan. It's a policy document. And it simply states our deterrence posture, of which nuclear weapons are a part." Vice President Dick Cheney said at the time that the notion that the review paved the way for "preemptive nuclear strikes" was "a bit over the top."

But that now looks to be an explanation too clever by half. Perhaps the review itself didn't contain operational plans. But guidance documents created to flesh it out did.

One such document is known as OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. That document is an update of the basic nuclear-weapons plan, formerly known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan. It was created by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), which has responsibility for nuclear-weapons planning, doctrine and maintenance. Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Federation of American Scientists obtained a briefing on how Stratcom's OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 changed the nuclear-policy paradigm. For the first time in U.S. nuclear history, plans for nuclear attack on regional targets around the world were included in the basic nuclear war planning document.

It's not entirely easy to tell from the planning document what WMD-desiring countries are listed as targets for a possible U.S. nuclear attack. (See page 11 for all the redactions on this crucial point.) But the FAS hazards an educated guess based on photography included in the briefing document: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.

The briefing document also references a "target base" for prospective elimination with nuclear weapons. However, the actual document redacts what that target base might be. FAS contends it probably refers to either the stockpiles of WMD themselves or the command center for any state seeking to deploy WMD. And that's a further sign of specific planning for a full-blown nuclear conflict, the FAS writes: "The creation of a 'target base' indicates that the planning went further than simple retaliatory punishment with one or a few weapons, but envisioned actual nuclear warfighting intended to annihilate a wide range of facilities in order to deprive the states the ability to launch and fight with WMD."

It's difficult to tell whether OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 is still in place. A further revision of the plan, known as Revision 05, was still in effect as recently as July. "Presumably," writes FAS, Revision 05 carries with it planning for nuclear strikes on Iran, North Korea and Syria.

The new glimpse of OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 comes at an awkward time for the Bush administration. Just last week, a State Department official at an international arms conference met with rebuke for suggesting that U.S. nuclear forces weren't on "hair-trigger alert," even though the U.S. nuclear arsenal is known to experts to be capable of launching within minutes of an order. Certainly Iran, North Korea, and Syria are wondering at whom those weapons are currently aimed.

=============================================================================================

I AM SO HAPPY THAT GLENN BECK IS ON A BOTTOM-RATED CABLE SHOW AND NOT IN GOVERNMENT!

Listen to what this military and world history genius thinks is the answer to martial law in Pakistan:

But right now, I want to focus on one important one, and that is �You can't make deals with Islamic extremists.� Pakistan has tried everything so far to stomp out the Islamicist threat. They've tried bringing them into the fold. They've tried to negotiate with them. They've even tried to co-exist with them by creating �no-go� zones. But despite all of that, along with all of the billions in aid, and all the intel that we've given them, everything they've tried has failed. There's one thing in my book they haven't tried yet and that is: Killing. Every. Single. One. Of the radicals.

Good lord, how can someone this stupid actually find his way to the studio every day, much less have his own show? CNN, you owe the world an apology for inflicting this upon us.

=============================================================================================

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will discuss gun control today in a private conference that soon could explode publicly.

Behind closed doors, the nine justices will consider taking a case that challenges the District of Columbia's stringent handgun ban. Their ultimate decision will shape how far other cities and states can go with their own gun restrictions.

"If the court decides to take this up, it's very likely it will end up being the most important Second Amendment case in history," said Dennis Henigan, the legal director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Henigan predicted "it's more likely than not" that the necessary four justices will vote to consider the case. The court will announce its decision Tuesday, and oral arguments could be heard next year.

Texas, Florida and 11 other states weighed in on behalf of gun owners who are challenging D.C.'s strict gun laws. New York and three other states want the gun restrictions upheld. Pediatricians filed a brief supporting the ban. A Northern California gun dealer, Russell Nordyke, filed a brief opposing it.

=============================================================================================

Suspects accused of trivial "crimes" such as picking wild flowers or defacing coins can have their DNA stored for life on a national database, police guidelines reveal.

A report by police chiefs lists more than 5,000 offences that qualify for lifelong inclusion on the database. Anyone arrested for any of the crimes will have his or her DNA taken and stored, even if charges are later dropped or the suspect is acquitted in court.

The offences show up in employment-vetting checks for years after the event. Campaigners called the guidelines a step on the road to a "surveillance society" and said the inclusion of petty offences was accelerating the growth of the database, which already holds details on four million people.

The 210-page list of crimes, drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), includes such minor offences as "opening an incorrectly delivered packet", an offence under the 2000 Postal Services Act; "wantonly disturbing any inhabitant by any ringing doorbell", an offence under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act, and picking wild flowers for sale, an offence under the 1968 Theft Act.

Police have categorised the crimes into three grades of severity. If an adult is convicted of a crime in the least-serious category, group C, it will show up in employment checks for the next 10 years. If the offender admits guilt and accepts a police caution, it will show up for five years. After that period, the only potential employers who will see it are those conducting "enhanced checks" on job-seekers applying to work with children.

It also remains visible to detectives during crime investigations until the individual's 100th birthday, when the record is finally deleted.

All the crimes on the list are classed as "recordable offences", in most cases because they can lead to prison.

A row broke out earlier this year after ministers proposed that the database – already the world's biggest – should be extended to include those accused of "non-recordable" offences, which include speeding and dropping litter.

Dr Helen Wallace, of the pressure group Genewatch, said the ACPO list illustrated the "unnecessary" expansion of the database which, she said, "allows the Government to restrict rights on the basis of arrest, rather than of being convicted".

The records are kept for life so that they can be matched to DNA samples. Even suspects who turn out to have been wrongfully arrested normally stay on the database.

Nationwide, one in 15 people are included on it. Police say that keeping the details of those who have never been convicted of an offence has helped to solve serious crimes including rapes and murders.

=============================================================================================

The right to crack jokes or be rude about homosexuals could fall victim to new government laws to stamp out "homophobic" behaviour, Rowan Atkinson, the Blackadder star warned yesterday.

Atkinson, who mounted a successful campaign in 2004 to water down legislation aimed at criminalising expressions of religious hatred, has returned to the fray to defend the art of gay leg-pulling.

His concern is that Labour ministers are so obsessed with creating laws to stop people being rude about each other that they are putting in danger the right to free speech and, equally dear to his heart, the comedian's craft.

In a letter to a newspaper he accused ministers of filling their legislative programme with measures that have "serious implications for freedom of speech, humour and creative expression".

Atkinson was referring to measures in the Criminal Justice Bill, currently passing through Parliament, which could mean people who stir up hatred against homosexuals being put in prison for up to seven years.

He said the Government measures, which could be expanded to cover hatred against disabled or transgendered people, seemed to be "infinitely extendable".

=============================================================================================

A Kelowna couple says they are appalled by what they call the careless use of a Taser by RCMP, after a 68-year-old stroke survivor, with a neurological disorder that affects his ability to comprehend language, was tasered after a dispute over double-parking on a downtown street.

“Somebody with this condition was tasered twice,” said Anne Peters, who’s husband John was hit with the electric voltage shocks. “This is what frustrates me.”

She said the incident is especially concerning after the fatal tasering of a Polish man at Vancouver International Airport last month.

The incident here started when John Peters stopped along Leon Avenue around 9 a.m. on Monday to pick her up after delivering newspapers for the Capital News.

As Anne approached the vehicle, a police vehicle with two officers pulled up beside her husband and an officer got out of his vehicle.

“He said very clearly, ‘I’m going to give you a ticket,’” Anne recalled.

She interjected that people drop off and pick up people all the time along that stretch of road, located near a medical lab, but the officer told her he was going to arrest her for obstruction if she protested the ticket.

After Anne got into the vehicle, John drove off, leaving the police officers in his wake. “In John’s mind, he couldn’t believe they could give him a ticket,” said Anne.

She admited it wasn’t the best way for her husband to handle the situation, but she said it doesn’t warrant what happened next.

John eventually pulled over in a nearby parking lot and he said the pursuing officers then “charged” at him.

“They didn’t want to talk,” said John. “They just wanted to arrest me.”

“Instinctively,” the 68-year-old, who suffers blindness in his left eye, put up his left arm to resist after officers reached for him.

John, who weighs approximately 145 pounds, said an officer grabbed him by the shirt, ripping off some of the buttons.

Meanwhile, Anne tried to tell the other officer that her husband had previously had a stroke and tried to explain his neurological disorder—aphasia.

“He gets very agitated,” said Anne. “It’s just part of his neurological condition.”

However, she said one of the officers told her: “We don’t have to know about people’s medical conditions.”

John said he was tasered twice by the officers, and calls the incident “very humiliating.”

“This was after I told him he had a stroke. It’s just too surreal,” said Anne.

John also suffered a bleeding lip, and Anne initially thought it was caused by the Taser.

That’s why she was confused by an officer telling her three times that “when someone hits me, I hit him back.”

She was later told by her husband that the officer struck him, and that he did not punch the officer.

However, the officers took John to the RCMP station, and he now faces a court date on three charges, including assaulting a police officer, in relation to the incident.

The couple feels the problem with the officer stems back to May, when John drove the wrong way on a one-way street as he tried to navigate through a confusing construction zone.

“He started arguing because he was frustrated with all the construction,” said Anne.

The officer gave him a ticket for several offences, including failing to obey a flag person, despite the flag person saying that many people were confused about where to go, said Anne.

John planned to dispute the ticket related to the flag person, but before that could happen all the tickets were dropped, said Anne.

The city’s top cop, Supt. Bill McKinnon, said he was made aware of the Taser situation on Monday and is reviewing the incident.

“I am conducting an administrative review, as to date I don’t have a public complaint,” said McKinnon.

Every time a Taser is used, reports must be filled out by the officers. However, the review will look at the incident as a whole to determine if officers followed procedure.

As part of the review, McKinnon will look at whether or not further action—such as training or discipline—is warranted in the case.

=============================================================================================

They all discovered that the riflemen of the British Army do not lay down their arms easily - if at all.

Nonetheless, Hilary Beach decided to call for 1Bn The Rifles to leave their weapons behind at tomorrow's Remembrance Day parade because she feels they are too "violent".

Miss Beach, the Labour mayor of Chepstow in Monmouthshire, said: "I would prefer for there not be any guns at the parade - and raised it because it is an issue I personally feel very strongly about.

"I am very much against guns and think they are awful things. Killing in any war is awful and I am against this violence.

"But I want to make it clear that I hold Remembrance Day as extremely important and it is vital that members of the Armed Forces are in attendance.

"I have always thought about Remembrance Day as a time for peace and to remember those who have lost their lives in combat. However, I think this could be done better without any guns.

"Everybody is worried about the rise in gun crime and violence in this country at the moment, and the destruction these weapons cause is terrible."

=============================================================================================

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule on Saturday and deployed troops across the capital in a bid to reassert his flagging authority against political rivals and Islamist militants.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan's internal security has deteriorated sharply in recent months with a wave of suicide attacks by al Qaeda-inspired militants, including one that killed 139 people.

State-run Pakistan Television said General Musharraf, who is also chief of army staff, had suspended the constitution and declared an emergency. The move is expected to put off parliamentary elections due in January.

Witnesses said paramilitary troops were deployed at Pakistan Television and radio stations ahead of the announcement, which follows weeks of speculation that U.S. ally Musharraf might impose emergency rule or martial law.

Troops sealed off Constitution Avenue, the thoroughfare where the presidency building, the National Assembly and the Supreme Court are located.

Television channels also said that Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whose earlier dismissal in March marked the beginning of a slide in Musharraf's popularity, had been told that his services were "no longer required."

Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he was eligible to run for re-election last month while still army chief.

=============================================================================================

Police detained Pakistani opposition figures and lawyers on Sunday as military ruler President Pervez Musharraf tried to stifle the outcry over the imposition of emergency powers.

The United States and other Western allies condemned General Musharraf's decision to announce emergency rule on Saturday.

Musharraf said he acted in response to rising Islamist militancy in nuclear-armed Pakistan and what he called a paralysis of government by judicial interference.

Most Pakistanis and foreign diplomats believe his main motive was to prevent the Supreme Court invalidating his October 6 re-election by parliament while still army chief.

Musharraf, in a midnight televised address, said the country was in grave danger of becoming destabilised.

"I cannot allow this country to commit suicide," he said, after purging the Supreme Court of judges opposed to him and rounding up lawyers.

The United States, which regards Musharraf as a crucial ally against al Qaeda in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan, had earlier urged Musharraf to avoid taking authoritarian measures.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who became a cause celebre after Musharraf suspended him eight months ago and was reinstated in July, was fired after refusing to take a fresh oath following the suspension of the constitution.

A lawyers' movement that emerged at the vanguard of an anti-government campaign last March called for a countrywide strike on Monday to protest Musharraf's move.

Pakistan's English-language newspapers were unforgiving of the draconian measures that included a ban on any coverage "that defames, and brings into ridicule or disrepute the head of state" on pain of up to three years' jail.

"He has sent the country into a tailspin just to save his job," the Nation said in an editorial.

=============================================================================================

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann delivered a blistering special comment on Monday concerning the true significance of the dispute over waterboarding and the essential role played by torture in maintaining the George W. Bush presidency.

�The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush,� Olbermann began. �All of it is now, after one revelation last week, transparently clear for what it is � the refocusing of our entire nation towards keeping this mock president � and all the others from potential prosecution for having approved or ordered the illegal torture of prisoners being held in the name of our country.�

The revelation to which Olbermann referred was the account of former acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin, who, when assigned to assess the legality of the administration's �enhanced interrogation techniques,� decided the most direct method was to have himself waterboarded.

�Have you, Mr. Bush, ever done anything that personally courageous?� Olbermann asked. �Perhaps when you've gone to Walter Reed and teared up over the maimed servicemen and then gone back to the White House and confirmed and determined that there would be more maimed servicemen?�

�Daniel Levin should have a statue in his honor in Washington, right now,� Olbermann stated. �Instead, he was forced out as acting assistant attorney general nearly three years ago because he had the guts to do what George Bush could not do in a million years. � They waterboard him, and he wrote that even though he knew those doing it meant him no harm � he could not stop the terror screaming from inside him, could not quell the horror.�

�Waterboarding, he said, is torture,� Olbermann continued. �And he wrote it down � somewhere where it could be contrasted with the words of this country's 43rd president, �The United States of America does not torture.'�

According to Olbermann, Levin was forced to modify his report to suggest that waterboarding might not be torture if it was done carefully and then was fired because of his inability to lie to protect the president. �If it ever got out,� Olbermann noted, once more addressing Bush directly, �you would have been screwed. And screwed you are.�

Olbermann then went on to ask why waterboarding was even used on terrorists when it's well documented that �torture does not get them to tell the truth.�

�Of course, Mr. Bush,� Olbermann stated, �this isn't a problem, is it, if you don't care if the terrorist plots they tell you about are the truth. � If, say, a president simply needed a constant supply of terrorist threats to keep the country scared � if, say, he realized that even terrorized people still need good ghost stories before they will let a president pillage the Constitution � well, heck, Mr. Bush, who better to dream them up for you than an actual terrorist. He'll tell you everything he ever fantasized of doing.�

�Now, if that's what this is all about � you tortured not because you're stupid � but you tortured because you're smart enough to know it produces really authentic-sounding fiction � well then, you're going to need all the lawyers you can find, because that crime wouldn't just mean impeachment, would it, sir? That crime would mean George W. Bush is going to prison.�

That, Olbermann asserted, is the real explanation for the peculiar inability on the part of Gonzales, Cheney, and Mukasey to agree on a definition of torture � along with �the giddying prospect that maybe you could � remake a nation into a fascist state so efficient and so self-sustaining that the fascism itself would be nearly invisible.

�But ultimately,� Olbermann concluded, speaking of men like Levin, �these patriots will defeat you, and they will return this country to its righteous standards and to its rightful owners � the people.�

=============================================================================================

On October 31, Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, offered his incredulity over the so-called Peru Free Trade Agreement, passed the House a few days later: �I'm astounded that members of Congress would even consider passing more of these free trade agreements that workers hate.�

Mr. Hoffa should understand by now that Congress is no friend of workers. Congress is a whorehouse long ago sold out to corporate interests. It acts as a rubber stamp factory for the globalist agenda. Even so, a sizeable number of Democrats voted against the �free trade��as in unhindered looting and pillaging�bill, understanding well enough the possible wrath of voters, or at least the minority paying attention.

�While the deal was easily approved in a 285-132 vote, more Democrats voted against the deal than supported it. Despite backing from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, 116 Democrats voted against the deal while 109 Democrats supported it. Eight Democrats did not cast votes,� reports Ian Swanson, writing for the Hill.

Most of the freshman class that provided the Democrats with their majority also voted against the deal. Thirty freshman Democrats, including Reps. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) and Laura Richardson (D-Calif.), who joined the House after this Congress began, voted against the Peru deal. Eleven freshman Democrats supported it, while two freshman Democrats did not vote.

Republicans were much more unified in supporting the Peru agreement. Only 16 Republicans voted against it, while 176 voted to approve it. The deal now goes to the Senate, which is expected to approve it.

Some business sources said they were encouraged that more than 100 House Democrats did support the Peru deal.

Obviously, the so-called �freshman class� want to be around after the next election cycle, less than a year away, and that's why they voted against the bill, for all the good it did. Some of them, as well, may actually care about the fate of workers, now sealed.

�Has the Democratic Party gone soft on trade? Or has it opened a bitter internal split that could come back to haunt the party in the coming elections?� asked the New York Times. �The Peru deal was approved by an overwhelming vote of 285 in favor to 132 against. But its most striking aspect was that 109 Democrats voted yes and 116 voted no, reopening the fissure that developed during the Clinton administration, when much of the party bucked President Bill Clinton as he pressed for the North American Free Trade Agreement and liberalizing trade with China.�

In other words, at least some Democrats understood the obvious: NAFTA and �liberalized� (as in neoliberalism) trade with the massive slave plantation China would result in an egregious loss of American jobs. But then the neoliberal agenda is all about �leveling the playing field,� that is to say impoverishing the average American who has, according to our globalist rulers, had it too good for too long.

As noted by the Teamsters, the Peru Free Trade Agreement, based on �the job-killing NAFTA model,� will accomplish the following:

Foreign investors based in Peru will have the right to question our domestic laws and receive compensation if such laws if they undermine corporate profits.
Incentives are provided for U.S. companies to leave the U.S. under the investment chapter of the agreement.

The sovereignty of local, state and federal U.S. government bodies will be undermined. Foreign companies will be able to bypass �Buy America� laws.
For workers in Peru, the prospect is even more dismal:

Nothing will change for the 33,000 slave-laborers cutting down the Amazonian rainforest.

Subsistence farmers will be forced off their land because cheap U.S. food produced by agribusiness will undercut their prices. The same thing happened with NAFTA, which resulted in millions of poor Mexicans leaving their farms.
According to some interpretations, Citibank will have the right to sue the Peruvian government if the country tries to reverse its disastrous system of privatized Social Security � thus allowing a powerful multinational to profit at the expense of the elderly, the sick and the poor.

Of course, it is not a coincidence many of those �poor Mexicans leaving their farms� are trekking northward to displace American workers.

It's all part of the globalist plan to turn the planet into a fascist corporate slave plantation.

You'd think Democrats would be calling for Pelosi's head. But they are not. In fact, come November, many of them will be voting for the Bilderberg Queen Hillary in the Great Horse Race known as the American election cycle.

�Reuters is reporting that Clinton says she will vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement�the first agreement in a package of corporate-crafted agreements to vastly expand the NAFTA trade model,� David Sirota wrote for the Huffington Post yesterday. �The announcement, which flies in the face of polls showing the public strongly opposed to NAFTA-style trade policies, comes on the same day the New York Times reports that Clinton is being endorsed by NAFTA architect Robert Rubin, the CEO of Citigroup - a company that stands to reap financial rewards from the NAFTA model. Rubin's announcement came with a promise to raise Clinton more money from Wall Street.�

=============================================================================================

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty Would Give the UN Control Over Everything About the Oceans

The Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world's oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

On October 31 the authoritative Capitol Hill news publication, CQ Today, stated:

That's right. After 25 years of stalemate, the Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world's oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

This is the same UN famous for its corrupt oil-for-food scandal. This is the organization that consistently votes against American interests.

In order to understand just how comprehensive and sweeping are the powers over the oceans that LOST would confer on the UN, read what was said at an official UN celebration of the 25th anniversary of LOST on Oct. 17:

In short, the LOST treaty provides the legal framework within which all activities on, over and under the oceans and the seas must be carried out. In other words, the LOST treaty would give the UN jurisdiction over everything concerning the oceans and seas of the earth.

Everything would certainly include military and commercial uses of the oceans and seas. How do you think the anti-American UN would rule on U.S. Air Force planes and U.S. Navy ships using the oceans for military purposes? What would this mean for our national security? How about our commercial airliners flying over the oceans? How about the necessary transportation between our mainland states and Hawaii? And, on and on.

We would not have veto power protection in the UN's International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea like we do in the Security Council. We'd have one vote among a membership of over 150 nations.

For confirmation of just how bad it would be for the Senate to ratify LOST, take a look at these two videos of recent Senate hearings, featuring one of LOST's most articulate critics, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.): (1) DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty: Part 1 ; (2) Round 2: DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty.

This vote on LOST is arguably the most important vote the Senate will cast this year. The John Birch Society is urging its members and allies, especially the leaders and members of other organizations that also believe in preserving American sovereignty and security, to phone their senators within the next few days in opposition to the LOST treaty. Click here for a link to your senators' phone numbers and talking points for the calls.

If enough Americans contact their senators, we can stop LOST just like we stopped amnesty back in June. However, fewer organizations are involved in this fight, so those of us who understand the long range threat posed by surrendering our sovereignty to the UN need to step up our activism and get the job done!

Our personal freedom and security depend on preserving American sovereignty and security by winning this fight against LOST!

=============================================================================================

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not always have been specifically Authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit to those who have expressed an interest in the included information for research and educational purposes.

	Ron Paul on MSNBC with Tucker Carlson 11.06.2007

	Ron Paul on ABC News with Sam Donaldson 11.06.227

	Ron Paul on Fox News 11.06.2007

	More Videos

`	media poll	additional Paul supporters	total	`
# voters	82,000	20,900	107,000	(per 1,000,000)
% turnout	8.2%	2.1%	10.7%	`

`	media poll %	poll votes per million	# supporters per million	est. votes per million	est. final vote %
Giuliani	28%	22,960	280,000	22,960	21%
Thompson	19%	15,580	190,000	15,580	15%
McCain	16%	13,120	160,000	13,120	12%
Romney	11%	9,020	110,000	9,020	8%
Huckabee	10%	8,200	100,000	8,200	8%
Paul	5%	4,100	50,000	25,000	23%
Hunter	4%	3,280	40,000	3,280	3%
Tancredo	3%	2,460	30,000	2,460	2%
No opinion	5%	4,100	50,000	4,100	4%
Total	100%	82,000	1,000,000	107,000	100%

Paul's Haul May Set Online Record

Supporters Remember Nov. 5

Reach of the 'Revolution'

The Ron Paul phenomenon

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

NFL Star Considered 9/11 a False Flag From Day One
Super Bowl winner and former Dallas Cowboys ace Stepnoski goes further during radio interview

Lovelock: Global Warming Will Kill 6 Billion

Myth of ‘thousands’ of UNIPCC climate scientists

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/wargames.html

War Games

Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01

Operation Northern Vigilance

The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises

The Global Guardian Exercise

The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill

The Timely Alert II Terrorism Drill

The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise

Paul's Haul May Set Online Record

Supporters Remember Nov. 5

Reach of the 'Revolution'

The Ron Paul phenomenon

9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets

NFL Star Considered 9/11 a False Flag From Day One Super Bowl winner and former Dallas Cowboys ace Stepnoski goes further during radio interview

Lovelock: Global Warming Will Kill 6 Billion

Myth of ‘thousands’ of UNIPCC climate scientists

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/wargames.html

War Games

Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01

Operation Northern Vigilance

The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises

The Global Guardian Exercise

The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill

The Timely Alert II Terrorism Drill

The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise

NFL Star Considered 9/11 a False Flag From Day One
Super Bowl winner and former Dallas Cowboys ace Stepnoski goes further during radio interview