Obama Calls for Passage of PAYGO Legislation

Staying Ahead of the Game

In his weekly radio address, President Barack Obama called for a return to fiscal discipline, and outlined a four-step approach to reining in spending and eliminating waste.

“It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington," said Obama. "To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.”

Obama, who held his first full cabinet meeting this week, said that he used the meeting to send "a clear message: cut what doesn't work."

He added that "we will continue going through the budget line by line, and we’ll identify more than 100 programs that will be cut or eliminated.” He did specify any of the programs, or say how much those cuts might save.

The president called on Congress to pass PAYGO legislation, saying that "we need to adhere to the basic principle that new tax or entitlement policies should be paid for… so that government acts the same way any responsible family does in setting its budget."

His plan also includes establishing a system for federal employees to submit ideas for cost cutting and a private sector forum on reforming government.

“We cannot sustain deficits that mortgage our children’s future, nor tolerate wasteful inefficiency. Government has a responsibility to spend the peoples’ money wisely, and to serve the people effectively,” he said. “I will work every single day that I am President to live up to that responsibility, and to transform our government so that is held to a higher standard of performance on behalf of the American people.”

SOURCE: Politico

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

9/11 Researchers Find Explosives in Dust from WTC

Nuked!

As many people have believed, it apparently does take more than two planes to bring down skyscrapers like the World Trade Center. An article has been formally published in a Dutch peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today entitled:

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

In short, the paper debunks the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.

What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?

The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.

Thermite is a highly explosive agent consisting mostly of aluminum and iron oxide, and is used to cut steel in building controlled demolitions, and is also used in welding and in military applications.

Using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, and differential scanning calorimetry, the scientists were able to determine that the Thermite present is of a specialized type called Nano-thermite or Superthermite. It burns hotter and has a lower ignition temperature than normal Thermite, and is produced at laboratories such as Lawrence Livermore, incidentally thought to be the same lab that produced the anthrax sent out shortly after 9/11. Nano-thermite could not be accidentally present in dust samples collected at four different sites, nor could it be the result of clean-up operations at ground zero, as one of the samples was retrieved a mere ten minutes or so after the collapse of the second tower.

CLICK TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

This video includes English translation and appeared on Dutch television.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Have You Ever Heard of This Monument?

There are times when I truly wonder what motivates our media. Here are a couple of pictures that I'm sure few Americans have ever seen. This is the "TEAR DROP" made and installed by the Russians to honor those who died in 9/11 and a statement against terrorism. It is very impressive. The tear drop is lined up with the Statue of Liberty. Just more proof that the people of the world are not like the governments that oppress them.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Obama Pushes Delete Button on Bush Signing Statements

Away Goes Bush Signing Statements

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in a sideways jab at former President George W. Bush, said that President Obama will not attempt to invalidate laws with signing statements as President Bush did. Instead, Obama will use signing statements as they were used prior to President Bush. The President will "not ask that laws be disallowed simply by executive fiat," he said during a Monday press conference.

"When signing legislation, Bush often would use such statements to direct officials to ignore parts of the law he thought were incorrect or restricted the administration's constitutional powers," said the Associated Press.

President Bush's application of signing statements doubled all the statements of all the prior American presidents, combined. He was roundly criticized for effectively ignoring congressional statutes, coming under fire from at least one former president, federal agencies, watchdog groups, members of his own party, political pundits and the American Bar Association, which called the practice as used by Bush, "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." We all know that Mr. Bush had absolutely no trouble acting contrary to the rule of law.

"But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intends to use signing statements himself if Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional," reported the New York Times. "He pledged to use a modest approach when doing so, but said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately."

“In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded,” wrote Obama in a memo obtained by the Times. Here is the complete text of the President's message:  

THE WHITE HOUSE 

Office of the Press Secretary 

For Immediate Release March 9, 2009 

March 9, 2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 

SUBJECT: Presidential Signing Statements 

For nearly two centuries, Presidents have issued statements addressing constitutional or other legal questions upon signing bills into law (signing statements). Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire bill. 

In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress. 

With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following principles: 

1. The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive branch and the Congress to work together to address these concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled bill that may require a signing statement. 

2. Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded. 

3. To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection. 

4. I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one. 

To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision of a statute. 

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register. 

BARACK OBAMA 

# # # 

To obtain a copy of this Memorandum, click here.

Story source:  RAW STORY

















Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Kucinich Proposes Government Takeover of Federal Reserve

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.  No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by  conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by  the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

by: Woodrow Wilson - (1856-1924) 28th US President Date: 1916

Source: Attributed. In reference to signing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Probably a compilation of two quotes from his book The New Freedom, 1916. No source found for "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country."

On June 4 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest.  On that day, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency without going through the Federal Reserve. JFK's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of  silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous to this day.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.  It also was a major factor in his assassination.

Just five months later, JFK was assassinated and no more silver certificates were issued. Our investigation fails to show any evidence that the Executive Order was ever repealed by any U.S. President and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it?  It may be that Mr. Kucinich's attempt to get this bill through Congress may be unnecessary.  Obama may already have the power.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

Ron Paul: America Must End War on Drugs

Perhaps he has been reading The Candid Blogger. First Barney Frank introduces a bill to decriminalize marijuana and now Congressman Ron Paul steps up AGAIN. He has been a constant opponent of the War on Drugs and its disastrous effects on the American people. It is time. Here is the article:

"Congressman Ron Paul is the most conservative, grandfatherly man to ever be admired by America's marijuana enthusiasts. On Friday night's episode of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, he reminded those who may have been suffering an impaired short-term memory at that late hour why, exactly, they should like him.

Speaking live from Clute, Texas, the libertarian-leaning Republican did what few other members of Congress will and openly called for the United States' War on Drugs to be abolished.

"What about when FDR came to office in '33," asked Maher. "One of the first things he did was repeal prohibition. He said we can't afford this anymore. Well, we have prohibition in this country. ... When he was making radical changes he said look, we're serious now. We're going to make serious changes and people like liquor."

"Well, in this country, people like pot," said Maher to a wave of cheers and applause. "If we ended that prohibition, that would be a giant pooling of money."

"I don't like pot," said the congressman. "But I hate the drug war, so I would repeal all of prohibition. But, I wouldn't even bother taxing it. People have the right in a free country to make important decisions on their own lives. If they want to make mistakes, they can. They just can't come crawling to the government to get bailed out or taken care of if they get sick."

"I believe in freedom of choice in all that we do, as long as the individual never hurts anybody else. So that means I would get rid of all the federal laws. I would dispose with the drug war. We're spending tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars on this, then we march into places like California, override state law, arrest sick people and put them in prison."

"It makes no sense whatsoever," he insisted.

"Amen, stoner," joked Maher.

Filed by David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
From Raw Story: http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=14476


This video is from HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, broadcast Feb. 20, 2009.


















Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

The War on Drugs - a Bush Family Production

The World's #1 Drug Dealer of All Time

From 1976 to 1979, Papa Bush directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In 1979 he made his first try to become President of the United States. He lost the Republican Party nomination to Ronald Reagan who asked Bush to be his Vice-President. Bush became Vice- President in 1980 and headed the National Security Council's "Crisis Management Team". Mr. Bush was busy during his term as Vice-President becoming the largest crack cocaine dealer in the World.  

After becoming the World's #1 Drug Dealer during his term in office as Vice-President, in 1988, George Bush was elected President. The San Jose Mercury News in August, 1996, in an expose by reporter Gary Webb based on court records described how the Nicaraguan Contras with the backing of the Reagan-Bush administration, flooded the streets of Los Angeles with crack cocaine during 1983-87, supplying gangs like the Crips and Bloods.  The Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) reported on September 20, 1996 that this was done while George Bush was overseeing the entire operation along with Oliver North (of Iran-Contra fame). As a direct result, there were 100,000 to 200,000 people imprisoned in America on drug charges.

An article, "CIA Genl. Counsel: Contra Drug Records May Not Exist" published in The New Federalist on September 30, 1996 reports that Jeff Smith, General Counsel of the CIA has "acknowledged--for the first time-- that records of such activities may not exist, for the reason that U.S. government officials may have been involved in privatized, 'off-line' secret operations."
The article goes on to say that the activities of Oliver North, Richard Secord, Felix Rodriguez, and others, were all supervised by George Bush and that the operation was actually run outside the "official" CIA through private networks and contractors. Apparently, such covert operations are permitted under the 1981 Executive Order 12333, and under National Security Decision Directives 2, 3, and others.

At a Washington, D.C. press conference on Sept. 19, 1996, EIR Washington bureau chief Bill Jones, Law Editor Edward Spannuas, Counterintelligence Editor Jeffery Steinberg, and EIR analyst Gail Billington, released a 120-page special multi-client report, 'Would a President Bob Dole Prosecute Drug Super-Kingpin George Bush?' which documents the role of the former Vice President and President, in overseeing the biggest cocaine-smuggling operations of the 1980s. Steinberg reviewed many of Reagan Presidential Executive Orders and National Security Decision Directives, many now declassified, that placed Vice President Bush -- not the CIA -- directly in charge of the Contra operation. Although active and former CIA personnel were involved in the Contra supply operations, Steinberg documented that it was senior Bush aides, including ex-CIA official Donald Gregg, ex-CIA officer Felix Rodriguez, and Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, who administered the secret program and who had first-hand knowledge of the illegal drug trafficking by Contra pilots.

'The evidence is overwhelming,' Steinberg concluded, 'that the Contras were flooding the United States with illegal drugs, to finance the war in Central America; and that Vice President George Bush sat on top.''   And who was his right-hand man? Dick Cheney! Scary, isn't it?

During his term of office he granted 6 pardons to former officials in Watergate scandals. Bush officially began his "War on Drugs" on September 5, 1989, just two years after supplying street gangs in the United States with millions of dollars in crack cocaine. He outlined the Federal Government's strategy for eliminating drug use when he gave the first prime time address of his presidency. His budget asked for $7.9 billion from Congress, a $2.2 billion increase from the previous budget. Of that, 70% would go to law enforcement, which included $1.6 billion for jails. However, only 30% went to prevention, education, and treatment.

Bush chose to wage his war by primarily focusing on demand in the United States, which meant arresting the drug user (not the trafficker) rather than focusing on prevention, education and treatment, or interdiction (trying to reduce the supply of drugs). Since the federal government has very limited police power, Bush decided to wage this war through by coercing the states. States that did not comply with the Bush plan would be penalized with a reduction in funding from the federal government.  

A bill was passed in December, 1990 that coerced the states into suspending the driver's licenses and revoking government permits and benefits including college loans of those who were convicted of drug crimes. If the states did not enact the legislation mandated by this federal bill, there would be a significant reduction of federal aid to their highways, beginning in 1993. This is America? No. It is Papa George Bush’s view of America – not unlike a dictatorship.  By coercing the states into doing the brunt of the fighting, without providing them with adequate funds, the federal government was forcing them to spend more money out of their own budgets to fight Bush's “War on Drugs” – a “war” he had created himself by supplying the drugs!

Bush used forfeiture, or confiscation of property that "the government believed to be drug related". This law was used to confiscate cars, currency and land. The seized property is then auctioned off to raise money for both the state and federal governments. Forfeiture doesn't even require a trial, let alone a conviction. It's Good Old Russia right here in America and nobody is saying anything!  

Forfeiture laws operate under assumed guilt. In 1989, the United States government took in over $1 billion due to forfeiture. Jails soon became overcrowded. Drug arrests rose almost 69%. By 1992 there were more people in federal jails for drug charges than there were for all crimes in 1980, causing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist to complain that there were too many arrests. Despite the $1.6 billion that had gone to build new federal prisons, there was a logjam due to Bush's focus on the drug user; twice as many people were arrested for possession than for selling. This overcrowding meant that sentences had to be shortened, usually of violent offenders since drug offenders received mandatory sentences.

The drug war was a dismal failure in its dealings with the poor and it was planned that way. Bush glutted the streets of America with drugs. Then he started his "War on Drugs", not on the traffickers, but on the users, the same users that for whom he had provided the drugs. He made sure people were put in jail with mandatory sentencing, deprived them of personal property through forfeiture, and labeled them a "drug user" by society. Thanks to Bush many corporations and businesses in American rob our citizens of their basic right to privacy by requiring drug testing before employment. Worst of all, he made the States pay for it. It is the way they divide and conquer the American people.

No effort was made to rehabilitate or treat those convicted of drug related crimes. If Bush actually wanted to reduce demand, he would have placed more emphasis on treatment. Bush ignored treatment, education and research. Congress felt that his initial budget for treatment was so inadequate that it added $1.1 billion for treatment, prevention, and education. By 1992, the amount for treatment alone had grown to $1.9 billion. Not enough was known about drug abuse and addiction to treat it. This is the father of the man who claims to be a  “compassionate Conservative”, an oxymoron is there ever was one.

Papa Bush's War on Drugs was a racist attack on the poor who by 1992 used more cocaine, heroin, and crack than when the War on Drugs began. One million people still smoked crack by the end of the Bush administration. The crime rate actually increased during the war on drugs. After a year of fighting drugs in Washington, D.C., his drug czar admitted failure. Drug use did not decline, and the homicide rate remained steady.  

The fact is that addiction to tobacco, alcohol, drugs of any kind is a health problem, not a police problem or a government problem. Keeping someone in a prison costs at least $25,000 to $50,000 annually; inpatient treatment for addiction costs only about $12,000. Bush said there are 4 million drug addicts in America. If we placed all of them into inpatient services it would cost $48 billion annually. Put them in jail and spend $100 billion. Since not all addicts require inpatient treatment it would probably cost less than $10 billion, which could be spent on job training and education. Incarceration is neither cost-efficient nor cost-effective.

As a result, organizations such as the Society for Return to Honor have been formed to assist those in transition from prison back into society.  Where would we be now if we had had an administration committed to the improvement of society and the protection of all of its citizens?  

There is now PROOF that the THC in marijuana kills cancer cells.  An entire town in Nova Scotia proved it.  It's time to decriminalize drugs completely and set up a system of taxation, treatment and distribution to benefit everyone.  If hemp were legalized today, our economic problems would end tomorrow.  Here is the video that proves this contention:  HEMP OIL WITH THC CURES CANCER.

Let's end the War on Drugs and begin the war on governments that withhold medicine from its people.













Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

9/11 Questions - The Pentagon

Give Us a Break!

The attack on the Pentagon is the biggest fantasy of all. This picture really tells us all we need to know.  Like most Americans, I was stunned and deeply affected by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It brought back memories of being a young child and experiencing the air raids and blackouts during WW2, and not recognizing my uncle after he returned from spending 30 months as a POW at Stalag 17.

In the days that followed 9/11, I was thrilled to see Americans coming together, as was the rest of the world and I fully supported President Bush. Then, he blew the opportunity of a lifetime to develop lasting positive relationships with the countries of the world by invading Iraq without provocation, and by creating a web of deceit about weapons of mass destruction. He now has us isolated from most of the world and hated in many countries, not just Muslim countries.

Shortly after the attacks, television stations stopped showing the planes hitting the buildings “for the benefit of our children”. In the ensuing months more evidence began to surface that brought the events of 9/11 more clearly into focus. The most obvious evidence was the attack on the Pentagon. How can a 757 fit into a 16-ft. hole?

After seeing the photographs and hearing the evidence regarding the attack on the Pentagon, it was clear to me that we were not being told the truth about this. I decided to investigate further, fully cognizant of the disdain many people feel toward conspiracy theorists, especially during this time in our history. Isn’t that our duty as citizens, however? To investigate the truth. We have been told that our freedoms and democratic systems are the greatest in the world. Why, then, are citizens demonized when they question the word of our government? If there is anything we have learned, it is that the government lies to the American people on a regular basis.

As to conspiracies, does anyone really believe that JFK was killed by a lone assassin? Ridiculous. Oswald didn’t have the juice to get the military and police force to “stand down” so that the assassination could take place.

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, it should not make any difference. The truth is all we are seeking. If 9/11 was a crime committed by 19 Islamic hijackers headed by a 6’5” cave dweller who somehow outwitted the greatest military force on the earth, fine. However, what if the evidence points elsewhere? What if we find that this attack was planned years before by a small group of Nazi sympathizers who weaseled their way into positions of power in our government? Should we just close our eyes and not believe it? If we have learned anything from the events of the past 50 years, it is that anyone is capable of anything. What do the Experts say?

High-Ranking Army Officer:  "Missile Hit Pentagon"

A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.

"I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.

Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the missile theory, it is also backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert banished from the Pentagon after the military failed to follow regulations regarding the use, clean up and medical treatment regarding the use of depleted uranium.

DEPLETED URANIUM

"When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile," said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week. "And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used."

And to prove the government's jetliner theory is wrong, Moret said the quick actions of a friend near the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, provide even more suspicion.

Moret recalls on the tragic morning that once she saw the jetliner strike the twin towers and then heard about the Pentagon crash, she immediately called a close friend in Alexandria VA, Dr. Janette Sherman. Thinking radiation might be involved, she quickly asked Dr. Sherman, 77, a radiation expert and medical doctor who lived about 12 miles from the crash site, to get a Geiger counter reading.

What the pair of experts found is astonishing. What they found is not only astonishing but seven years after 9/11, what's even more incredible is that their findings have been completely ignored by most everyone, including the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media, all who appear more interested in rubber stamping the official 9/11 story then getting at the real truth.

"Dr. Sherman was downwind from the Pentagon on 9/11 and her Geiger counter readings show an extremely high reading, a reading of more than eight to ten times higher than normal," said Moret, also an expert in the cause and effects of depleted uranium.

"Dr. Sherman, who is well-respected radiation expert herself, then went about contacting the proper authorities in order to try and alert emergency responders of the radiation risk at the Pentagon crash site. And we have also kept photos of the Geiger counter readings in order to verify what Dr. Sherman found 12 miles away."

After notifying the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI were alerted and according to Moret, radiation experts later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site possibly from the presence from depleted uranium or other unknown causes.

But what disturbed Moret most has been the Bush administration's lack of concern and its failure to mount a thorough investigation into what really caused the high radiation levels, saying perhaps the findings might reveal something contrary to the official story that a jetliner rammed through 12 Pentagon walls of solid concrete. "Even if there was depleted uranium used, do you think the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would really care? These are bottom feeders that 20 or 30 years ago wouldn't have been even allowed to set foot in such high positions of power," said Moret.

READ COMPLETE ARTICLE by Greg Szymanski

You can click this link for a complete analysis of Flight 77 and the Pentagon.

9/11 Questions: What Happened to Flight 93?

No Plane, No Bodies

The 'official' story of UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that was supposedly brought down in a field in Shanksville, PA by a small group of passenger 'heroes', is far-fetched at best. We have been told that this aircraft was allowed to fly around the skies of the United States for 1 hour and 49 minutes AFTER a series of events that included the crashing of two airplanes into the two most high profile buildings in the country, and a third into the nation's military headquarters. If this official story is true, it means our multi-trillion dollar, state-of-the-art, sophisticated military apparatus was unable to locate, engage, and defend this country against an enemy Air Force composed of one - one single, lumbering, unmaneuverable, unarmed, United Airlines jumbo jet that wandered unseen through our heavily restricted airspace for almost two hours after the beginning of the worst domestic attack in the country's history. Imagine an enemy Air Force composed of highly trained, lethally armed, multiple squadrons of professional fighter jets attacking from strategically coordinated multiple directions.

Either our entire military industrial society is a mockery of a farce in which every federal politician and military officer should be brought to trial and held accountable for collusion, incompetence, and high treason, or the official story is untrue. Clearly the former is not possible, so what did happen to Flight 93? As with the rest of the 'official' narrative of 9/11, the government's story is directly contradicted by available evidence and eyewitness reports. As a result, a number of side theories have emerged on an array of different web sites and through a number of published papers. (Google 'Flight 93' for examples.) Some of these theories are compelling. Some are outlandish. But none are more absurd than the one the government has told - the one repeated ad nauseam without any critical analysis in the mainstream press over the past five years.

All available evidence and eyewitness reports point to either a missile or a bomb as cause for Flight 93's demise. So why is the government, again, fabricating a nonsensical narrative that so blatantly contradicts available facts and evidence? Why is the public, yet again, so willing and eager to believe such nonsense? Why are family members and members of the press who were finally allowed to listen to the tape of the cockpit voice recorder NOT allowed to listen to its last three minutes? Why were these same press and family members legally barred from taking notes or receiving a copy of the tape recording? Why has that tape not been made public for the rest of us to hear and scrutinize? Why do we just sit here and take these decrees and declarations from the 'authorities' when it is they who work for and stand accountable to us? We as a nation believe in and stake claim to a free, open, democratic, orderly, and accountable society. In what way are we demanding, exercising, and animating these rights?

What happened to Flight 93? Here is what was broadcast by a Cleveland, Ohio television station, WCPO, at 11:43 A.M.:

Reported by 9News Staff:

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

If you visit the WCPO website, this is what you will find:

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard 
Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by:
Liz Foreman: 
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM
"This story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect". Give me a break. Were the mayor and the CEO of American Airlines also factually mistaken?

Did United Flight 93 land at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on September 11, 2001? We will probably never know. But one thing we do know. No bodies were found at the crash site in Shanksville, Pennsyvania, and some parts were found miles away.



Plane Crash No Blood No Bodies Found! - video powered by Metacafe

FINAL NOTE:  Flight93 and Flight 175 ARE STILL FLYING, only under different flight numbers. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are the SAME serial numbers of the 591UA and 612UA. Though N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer serial number CANNOT be transferred. According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA. According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.


So there you have it. We may never know the truth.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

9/11 Questions - What About bin Laden?

This Man Appears to be Getting Younger

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said. "I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that." Since Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States, Bush has repeatedly threatened to strike out against terrorism and any nation that supports or harbors its disciples.

Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi-born exile, lived in Afghanistan for several years. U.S. officials blame him for earlier strikes on U.S. targets, including last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent.

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places." Immediately after the attacks that demolished the World Trade Center's landmark twin towers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, officials of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said they doubted bin Laden could have been involved in carrying out the actions. The Taliban -- the fundamentalist Islamic militia that seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 -- denied his ties to terrorism and said they have taken away all his means of communication with the outside world.

Now we have a problem. Osama bin Laden and George Bush are telling different stories? Whom do we believe? bin Laden was on the United States' Most Wanted List after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and certainly should have been the target of Bush's efforts to kill or capture him, but Bush's actions raise significant questions. This video shows him lying about seeing the first plane hit the tower (or was he lying?); stumbling badly when confronted with the question as to whether or not he knew in advance of the attacks; and attacking those who offer conspiracy theories.



Immediately after the attacks Bush said he wanted bin Laden "DEAD OR ALIVE". Here he is just SIX MONTHS after 9/11. In response to a reporters question, President Bush tells the world that he is "truly not that concerned" with catching the man who murdered 3,000 Americans just six months and two days earlier because "we've marginalized him."

Please note that he ALMOST says "I don't know where he is, nor do I... (really care)." but catches himself in mid-sentence. "He hides in caves while sending young people off to die."

It's truly amazing that a man that supposedly had bombed the World Trade Center not ONCE, but TWICE doesn't concern Mr. Macho, George Bush. Amazing! Why?

In our opinion, Bush was not concerned about bin Laden, 1) because he knew bin Laden was not the mastermind of 9/11; and, 2) because he knew that bin Laden had been near death just several weeks before. How did Bush know this?

A conservative French newspaper, La Figaro, reported that the CIA station chief in Dubai had met with Osama Bin Laden just weeks before the 9-11 attacks while Osama was being treated at a U.S. Army hospital in Dubai for kidney failure. Yet, even though Osama was on the CIA most wanted list, the CIA station chief did not only NOT arrest him, but met with him, then went back to the U.S. for high level meetings in Washington. This newspaper is well established and respected throughout Europe. It is not a tabloid.

These facts have never been addressed by our government. Why did the CIA meet with bin Laden just weeks before the attack and not arrest him? And, while we are discussing bin Laden, what about the connections that many have intimated between the Bush family and the bin Laden family and are they important?

Osama bin Laden's older brother Salem, once head of the wealthy Saudi family clan, was a former business associate of U.S. President George W. Bush. Salem bin Laden, one of 57 children their father Mohammed sired with his 12 wives, and Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Texas. He died in a plane crash in 1988, but not before the Arbusto Energy Oil Company, founded in 1978, had become hugely successful.

The bin Laden brothers inherited a fortune from their construction magnate father. He left millions to each of his many, many children after dying in an air crash in 1968. Salem put a large part of his money into business ventures, including Arbusto Energy. At the time, Bush was not long out of Harvard Business School. As he built his business empire, Salem Bin Laden had an intriguing relationship with the president-to-be. In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a close friend of Bush who “served” with him in the Air National Guard, as his representative in Houston, Texas. It was in that year that Bath invested $70,000 in Bush's company, Arbusto. It was never revealed whether he was investing his own money or Salem's. The same year, Bath bought Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of the Saudi Arabian multi-millionaire.

Salem was the head of the bin Laden family as the oldest of all the brothers and sisters, and a man with a powerful presence. The FBI in Boston had long been aware of bin Laden's extended family and began monitoring their activities after the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.

So, to this point we have demonstrated that our government was incorrect in identifying the 19 hijackers and has done nothing to date to admit that at least some of those men had nothing to do with the attacks. We have also learned, probably for the first time, that Osama bin Laden adamantly denied any involvement in the attacks, and that he met with a CIA operatives at an American hospital in Dubai just weeks before the attacks. We have also demonstrated that the Bush and bin Laden families have had a long history of business dealings in oil. This is disturbing, but does not prove anything. Falsifying evidence to place the blame on bin Laden DOES prove something.

Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11?

The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11 attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks and calling them un-Islamic.)  Is the famous "confession video" genuine? Despite Bush's insistence that the tape is authentic, America's top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts.



"It's bogus," says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's Religious Studies program. Lawrence, author of "Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden", offered his historic debunking of the administration's lie in an interview with Kevin Barrett ("Dynamic Duo," gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour). The interview marked Lawrence's first major public statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

Why has Bush been lying for more than seven years by telling us that this preposterously bad hoax is a genuine "confession video"? Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus's Bin Laden units, said that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to deflect attention from "conspiracy theories" about 9/11.

If Professor Lawrence is right—and anyone with eyes can see that he is, simply by comparing the overweight impostor in the Fatty Bin Laden bogus confession video to other pictures of Osama Bin Laden—the Bush Administration, by repeatedly citing the tape as authentic, is clearly guilty of obstruction of justice at best, high treason and conspiracy to mass murder at worst. Since the FBI now tells us that Osama Bin Laden is "not wanted for 9/11" because there is "no hard evidence" connecting him to the 9/11 attacks, and since US intelligence personnel all know the "confession tape" is a Bush Administration hoax, it should not be difficult to nail the perpetrators of this outrageous cover-up of the crime of the century.

Where did this tape come from? Who was responsible for the administration's claim that it is authentic despite widespread knowledge in relevant intelligence agencies that it is bogus? If Bruce Lawrence is correct in asserting that US intelligence personnel know the tape is fake, we need to put them, along with Bush and Cheney, under oath and find out why our government has been lying so outrageously for more than seven years in order to obstruct justice by shielding the real perpetrators of 9/11.

The web of deceit continues . . .














Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

9/11 Questions - Who Provided Security?

Marvin Bush (the other brother)

A question that has seldom been asked and certainly not addressed by the Media is, "who was in charge of security at the World Trade Center?"  We decided to investigate and what we found is not surprising.  

George W. Bush's brother, Marvin, was on the Board of Directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a "completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.

The Dulles International contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves. Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized. As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." - source: American Reporter.

McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites." Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

Marvin P. Bush, the president's youngest brother, was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to fiscal year 2000. But the White House has not publicly disclosed Bush connections in any of its responses to 9/11, nor has it mentioned that another Bush-linked business had done security work for the facilities attacked. Marvin Bush joined Securacom when it was capitalized by the Kuwait-American Corporation, a private investment firm in D.C. that was the security company's major investor, sometimes holding a controlling interest. Marvin Bush has not responded to telephone calls and e-mails for comment.

KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec. The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period. Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.  source:  Commondreams.org

Marvin Bush was in New York on 9/11 according to his mother, Barbara.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved