Spice Girls: Girl Power's Finest (Photo Courtesy of Google Images)

Who said it’s every little girl’s lifelong dream to get married?  Liars, that’s who.  Several women – many prominent in finesse, historically altering by design and refined through their presence –  have found solace outside the confines of marriage.  Girl Power! (I can’t ever seem to say that without being British) at its finest, the list of women to evade the altar includes everyone from nuclear physicists and women’s rights activists to haute couture fashion designers and media moguls.  They’re a group that is as eclectic as they are iconic and legendary for not only what they do, but who they choose not to do it with.

Even in “the days of Yore” when it was practically mandated for every woman to marry, several ladies chose to go against the grain.  Among the first and most remarkable is Joan of Arc, who chose sainthood and war heroism over nuptials and newlywed bliss.  She scoured battlefields, instead of dishes and made it quite obvious that God was the only man for her.  Considered the national heroine of France, Joan of Arc proved that behind every good man – or in this case, and army of men – is an even better woman, but not always vice versa.

Joan of Arc + the "Virgin Queen" Elizabeth I (Photos Courtesy of Google Images)

And she wasn’t the only historical figure to choose valor over vows.  Perhaps among the most influential and noteworthy would be Elizabeth I of England.  Better known as the Queen Elizabeth, she reigned over an entire nation without, despite many attempts to force her hand, the matrimonial backing of a man.  Elizabeth I was courted by several suitors, and while speculation on her non-nuptial lifestyle are still debated, it was quite clear she was nowhere near as concerned with marriage as the population surrounding her, which is the same sentiment shared by many other of her eminent successors. 

Fashion Icon, Coco Chanel (Photo Courtesy of Google Images)

Civil and women’s rights activist, Susan B. Anthony and the celebrated nuclear physicist, Lise Meitner were two others that poo-poo’ed the thought of marriage.  Not to mention inspiration revolutionary, Helen Keller, iconic fashion pioneer, Coco Chanel and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Jane Addams… all of which never heard the wedding bells chime.  (Probably because they were too busy making a difference – duh!)

There were also a number of critically acclaimed authors, hailed for their abilities to evoke passion and spark debate through their literary works, who chose a pen and paper as more suitable companions than a man.  Still found in every classroom, library and literary timeline around the world, Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson, Louisa May Alcott, as well as the Brontë sisters, Emily and Anne, never took the plunge.

Oprah Winfrey... as if it even needed a caption (Photo Courtesy of Google Images)

Not taking “the plunge,” however, can sometimes cause just as much of a splash as taking it would, especially this day in age.  With the media at an all time explosive high, women like political activist Condoleeza Rice and Academy Award winning actress, Diane Keaton are sometimes thrown unwanted scrutiny for their choice not to marry, but no one, honestly NO ONE, has been debated about over her choice not to marry than Oprah Winfrey.  The woman practically wrote the book on how-to-be-a-success story, and she did it all without taking vows.

After years of being the face of day time TV, Oprah has been known to shine the light on the topic of herself.  Almost laughingly, she can joke about how even after countless awards, innumerable life changing interviews and incalculable donations, there are still people who still could view her as incomplete because she never towed the line and took the vows.  It’s alright Oprah, even if you never marry, I can think of about one billion reasons you’ll never be left wanting.  Go ahead with your bad self, girl… go… a… head!

Miss R&B featuring Brandy…

There is a strange disconnect between the polite and relaxed dinner table style of the Iraq War Inquiry and the explosive evidence emerging from key players in the international diplomacy world. The chatty, informal conversations between the panel and the witnesses and the orderly breaks hardly resemble the noise of war. The disconnect, however, lies only in appearance for the substance of the evidence is potentially enough to incriminate those at the very top. Jeremy Greenstock is about to give evidence, and Tony Blair is still weeks away. Still, this week’s revelations already raise serious doubt about Blair’s motives for war, and the truth of his claims pre March 2003, that war was not inevitable.

Our Man in Washington

Christopher Meyer’s evidence yesterday may just prove to be the smoking gun which war critics believed existed; only time will tell whether that gun fires into legal action or simply smoulders away. Tony Blair must be praying hard for the latter because Meyer’s evidence portrayed him fundamentally as a man who chose to follow the Americans without objective regard for either British or Iraqi interests. Confirming what had been said by senior Whitehall bureaucrats on Day One of the Inquiry, the British foreign policy position pre 9/11 was that Iraq did not feature prominently– in itself rather curious, since Britain was administering a No-Fly Zone over parts of Iraq and therefore already involved in bombing operations with the US throughout the 1990s – and the concern with the Foreign Office lay more on the “narrowing and tightening” of an effective sanctions regime.

“We were with you at first, we will stay with you til the last”

Few have forgotten Blair’s purported words of commiseration with the Americans at the Labour Party conference in October 2001. The promise that “We were with you at first; we will stay with you til the last” begins to take on sinister connotations when viewed in the context of Meyer’s evidence about how heavily Iraq featured in American brains years before the war actually began. Whilst reminding us that the Iraq Liberation Act had been signed off in 1998 by Bill Clinton, the former Ambassador described how Bush openly admitted to him early on in his Presidency that he knew nothing about foreign policy and that he would be learning from his group of “Vulcans”, led by Condoleeza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, the man who later went on to become Deputy Defence Secretary.

Who first mentioned Iraq?

Condoleeza Rice told Meyer on the day of 9/11 itself that the Americans were investigating a link with Saddam Hussein. The seeds to this embittered war, it seems, sowed themselves whilst the rest of the world was commiserating with the American tragedy. Meyer states that “it was almost as if the people who really wanted to deal with Iraq and deal with it soon, burst out of the closet, the closet door having been blown open by the shock of 9/11. Everything changed after 9/11.”

Crucially, when did Blair decide to go to war?

Meyer believes that it was at that well-photographed meeting between Blair and Bush at the Crawford Ranch in April 2002 that the deal for the Iraq war was sealed, despite the fact that British policy at the time was one of “profound legal objection” to regime change. In his own words:-

“Now, let me be quite frank about this. Crawford was a meeting at the President’s ranch. I took no part in any of the discussions, and there was a large chunk of that time when no adviser was there, I think I don’t know whether David Manning has been before you yet, but when he comes before you, he will tell you, I think, that he went there with Jonathan Powell for a discussion of Arab/Israel and the Intifada. I think it was at that meeting that there was a kind of joint decision between Bush and Blair that Colin Powell should go to the region and get it sorted. I believe that, after that, the two men were alone in the ranch until dinner on Saturday night where all the advisers, including myself, turned up. So I’m not entirely clear to this day I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting, but, to this day, I’m not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood, at the Crawford ranch. There are clues in the speech which Tony Blair gave the next day at College Station, which is one of his best foreign policy speeches, a very fine piece of work.” He described that speech as being the first time Blair used the words “regime change” about Iraq and explicitly states that Blair deliberately, not inadvertently, tried to conflate the risk posed by Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Given that no evidence whatsoever ever has been produced to this effect, this amounts to a startling, though perhaps unsurprising, confirmation that Blair was ready to literally go with the Americans to the end, no matter what the consequences for either British or Iraqis. By March 2002, Meyer had been provided with a “chunky set of instructions” from Number 10 Downing Street on British foreign policy towards Iraq and Blair had taken the decision to support regime change, although he was discreet about mentioning that in public. Britain, he said, would talk the talk of regime change, but privately hoped that America would walk the walk of a UN Security Council Resolution permitting the use of force. It was, by then, he claims, a waste of time for Britain to continue to object to war, but Meyer was firm on Blair’s failure to ensure a good deal for Britain as a result of this unswerving support.

The emotional sides of Bush and Blair and the curious tale of Hans Blix

The Inquiry heard about the emotions running high in Bush and Blair’s resolve; that Bush “in his heart” wanted to kick Saddam out, and Blair, though not as “poodle-ish” as people have portrayed him, was a “great believer” in the evilness of Saddam. Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, in his autobiography describing events at the time, makes quite plain that the Inspections team were not permitted to complete their task by the American military timetabling. Meyer confirms that by Autumn 2002, when Blix’s team went into Iraq on the hunt for the non-existent WMD, the American military had already been given instructions to prepare for war and it was impossible for Blix’s team to properly conclude the inspections process.

In the mind of this writer, the evidence recalled another Blair quotation, albeit given in another context entirely, “There is no reverse gear”.

Meyer says that it was that pre-ordained military timetable that was the cause of the British and American scrambling for the smoking gun, which was never located. Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union address, full of messianic praise for America’s chosen people, was the ultimate call for war, from which there was no return. One of the extraordinary revelations of this episode is that the US Department for Defence was so unhappy with the CIA’s production of intelligence which undermined their links between Saddam and Al Qaeda that they created their own in-house intelligence operation to counter and rival the CIA.

In this context, and with an appalling lack of consistent or strong evidence on the existence of WMD, Meyer’s own evidence can be fairly summarised as suggesting that Blair capitulated as a result of his own personal beliefs on Saddam.

A plan for garlands, or a country of wreaths?

Meyer himself also warned both Blair and the Americans that there would need to be a properly planned post-war strategy. This, it appears, simply fell onto deaf ears. It never happened.

Rumsfeld and his team hoped that simply getting rid of Saddam would lead to a better Iraq. Garlands would be thrown at them and the world a better place. Iraq Body Count documents currently between 94,000 and 102,000 dead from post-conflict violence in Iraq. Other estimates put this figure higher. The disconnect between the justification for the war, the arguments put up by Blair in his premiership and in Parliament and the bloody and violent aftermath of war could scarcely be greater.

The Chilcott Inquiry has been careful to remind us that it is not a court of law, that no one is being tried, and that no one is guilty or innocent. At best, therefore, we can only make strong suggestions about what the evidence implies. No matter what evidence comes next, Meyer’s uniquely privileged insight into the US-UK relationship in those crucial years leading up to the war suggest that there truly was no credible thought process inside Britain for either British or Iraqi interests. It also very strongly suggests Blair lied when he said that war was not inevitable on its eve. The lack of evidence that existed within the US, and the steps created by the US Defence Department to overrule their CIA intelligence colleagues and create a base for war, also suggests strongly that there was no basis for the war. That it was illegal.

Just a word of warning for our mild British public who cannot face the reality of blood and gore on their morning Crunchy Nut Cornflakes. The video evidence, which can be replayed on the internet at your convenience, contains mild swearing. (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/091126.aspx). 

London,  November 27th 2009

My lil’ list of stuff that I’m grateful for this Thanksgiving.

• Those pink donut boxes.  Every time I see one, I salivate like a Pavlov hound.
• San Francisco streetcars, they’re…that…adorable.
• Garlic, it really has many uses, don’t you think?
• Condoleeza Rice, no wait — Hilary Clinton.
• Vaginal metaphors.  Everywhere you wanna be.
• BART.  Why so expensive dude?
• Shoes, clothes, accessories:  mainline please.
• Never thought I’d say it:  Berkeley Bowl.
• Concept 2 rowing machine:  waaay better’n sex.
• Cultural appropriation:  Exhibit A good, cheap Asian food.
• Trains in the night, nails in the bedroom.
• Pandora:  the pre-ad version
• Breastfeeding.  Thanks for the formula.  Thanks for gypping me out of a key experience. I’ll have a glass of milk now.
• Blogging:  the most fun you can have legally.

The Content herein is Copyright to the Author, All Rights Reserved.

During the week of November 10-16 I was in San Diego attending the National Conferences for the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the Women’s Council of Realtors (WCR). There was a plethora of information poured into the attendees. On Saturday night NAR’s outgoing president, Charles McMillan, and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice graced the stage. This link is a great overview of the evening. Enjoy!

http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2009111602?OpenDocument

Linda Sloss, Realtor
Keller Williams Fox Valley Realty
630-408-2956
linda.sloss@kw.com

See more at flickr.com

On November 8, 2009 there was a human rights and anti-torture rally where Condoleeza Rice was giving a speech at the Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park, MN.

News organizations like the Star Tribune were at the event, but the most of the online information, like the video below, is at Twin Cities Indy Media.

Condoleezza Rice was United States Secretary of State in the administration of President George W. Bush. In 2002 Rice met with the CIA director to personally convey the Bush administration’s approval of proposed waterboarding. In 2003 Rice met with the CIA again and was briefed on the use of waterboarding and other methods including week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of stress positions.

In 2008 United States Congress created the Intelligence Authorization Act that banned waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. President Bush vetoed the legislation, citing the waterboarding ban as the reason for the veto.

In 2009 President Barack Obama signed an executive order that requires both U.S. military and paramilitary organizations to use the Army Field Manual as the guide on getting information from prisoners. The Army Field Manual prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel.

See:
Condoleeza Rice
Waterboarding

    In a prerecorded interview conducted by NBC’s Ann Curry on the Today Show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she will never run for President again. She added that the job she is doing is a 24/7 responsibility and that she is looking forward to retirement. The response is a standard one, especially from someone who is part of the administration of the person she once opposed for the job of President

Like most statements from politicians, it can’t taken be very seriously. Things change and at any point in time over the next three to seven years I can easily imagine hearing Hillary Clinton say “I had no plan to run for President, but the circumstances and challenges that we face, force me to answer a call to duty that I am uniquely qualified for”. That statement will be as true as her claim that she does not want to be President but reality and truth have very little to do with politics. Politics is perception and the winners are the ones who create the perception that the people appreciate the most.

So for now, Hillary is sure that she will not run for President again. She is trying to create the perception of being a strong, committed team player for President Obama. But behind that slant, lies some disturbing facts.

Hillary may be trying to be a team player but she is on a team that has marginalized her. The whole reason for President Obama making her Secretary of State was for the express purpose of marginalizing her. If she intends on continuing to seem to be supportive of the President and to serve the administration, she can hardly oppose the administration. This insures that she doesn’t take potshots at the President in the U.S. Senate, where if she continued to serve, Clinton could have done much to position herself for a future presidential run.

Now, as a member of the Obama team, Hillary Clinton has to accept her marching orders from the President and simply carry them out like a good soldier. This in fact does marginalize her. But that alone was not enough. In attempts to insure limited credit for foreign policy efforts, the President has appointed a number of “special envoys” or “czar like“ foreign affair posts. The most prominent one of all being former senator, George Mitchell who serves as the special envoy for Arab-Israeli relations. But there are quite a few more like Dick Holbrooke in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Dennis Ross in Iran. On top of that President Clinton (not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), was used to procure the freedom of journalists held captive by North Korea. Much of this begs to question what is Hilllary needed for? But to add insult to injury the Obama administration has relegated Secretary of State Clinton to sharing the Secretary of State’s usual foreign policy role on the National Security Council with Vice President Biden and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers.

None of this lends any credence to the suggestion that the President has a great deal of faith in or desire for Hillary Clinton’s leadership or opinion. Why should they? Unlike past Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton has limited foreign affairs policy expertise. Yes, as a First Lady, she has kissed and praised the wife of Yassir Arafat, curtsied to Kings and Queens, and broken bread with despots, dictators and designated dignitaries but she has never been an expert in the field of foreign affairs or specialized areas in foreign affairs as many of her predecessors have had. She was hardly as qualified for the job as a John Foster Dulles or even Condoleeza Rice or Collin Powell. The truth is that Barack Obama appointed her because she was the wife of a former President, turned carpet bagging senator from New York, who almost defeated him for President. After picking Joe Biden for Vice President because of his not wanting Hillary to have any right to claim that she helped him win, making her Secretary of State satisfied those who hold the former First Lady in high regard and feminist activists disgruntled by the fact Barack Obama is man. It also eliminated her presence as a threat to the President and ultimately, marginalized her. Yes marginalized her.

So it should not come as a shock that the President would also prevent her from having attention or power as Secretary of State.

In her interview with Ann Curry, Clinton asserts that the claim she has been marginalized is ridiculous. She states that she just does not need everyone answering to her and that she simply is not so insecure that she needs credit for everything that happens.

Well that’s a good because just as there was no reason President Obama deserved winning the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no reason to give Hillary Clinton credit for anything. The President has made sure of that.  In truth, Hillary  has been relegated to delivering messages from the President. That’s it. She is strictly a figurehead for the President’s foreign policy initiatives. She has very little say in it. In the end, denials aside, the administration’s marginalization of Secretary of State Clinton is well documented and despite her cheerful, good soldier persona, resentment is their. As a former First Lady who tried to control policy when her husband was President and then subsequently became a Senator from a state she applied for a license in so that she could ultimately become President, Hillary feels, deep down, that it is she who was suppose to be President.  Having to suppress her instincts and desires is hard enough, but having to accept the fact that the responsibilities which are actually hers, have been divvied up between  more than a dozen other people who answer to the President and not her, is enough to fuel a great deal of animosity.

That is why, Clinton’s claim that she will not run for President again can’t be taken too seriously. If the opportunity arises, at anytime within the next few years, she will jump at it. She feels that she is owed the job. And more than that, she has reason to be pissed at the man who took that dream away from her and placed her into job where her hands are tied and mouth is gagged.

None of this a secret. While sleeping in the same bedroom that Hillary Clinton once slept in, President Obama is constantly reminded of his Secretary of State and closets rival for the presidency. He still sleeps with one eye open and feels her presence right behind him. He knows that Hillary is waiting for his approval numbers to dip so low that she will be able to get a cadre of Clintonistas together in 2011 who will try convince the President to not seek reelection for “the good of the party”. Such a situation will thereby allow Hillary to utter those words I that expect….. “the circumstances and challenges that we face, force me to answer a call to duty, that I am uniquely qualified for”.

Image Courtesy of NewsBusters

UPDATE: Click me

At least, according to some members of the NFL Players Union.  I know, shocking that a Union is being divisive, non-tolerant and carrying water for political agendas. It’s almost as if Unions are an arm of the Democrat political machine!  And by almost I, of course, mean they totally are.

Yeah, now THIS baloney is personal. Because it is forcing ME to talk about something Sporty oriented and that simply doesn’t suit. Not a sport’s enthusiast; I’m not a fan of getting all sweaty and out of breath if there is nothing in it for ME.  Plus, the risk of nail breakage is far too high. And I’ve yet to find a sport’s uniform that includes super cute strappy sandals.

From Say Anything Blog:

NFL Players Union Suggests Limbaugh Bid For Ownership Would Promote Discrimination, Hatred

Just so we’re clear, the union is fine with the players in the league who are criminals (both petty and not so petty), but a man who engages in a perfectly legal business enterprise and is only controversial in so far as he uses his 1st amendment rights to voice opinions others disagree with somehow isn’t fit to participate in the league?

Rush Limbaugh uses his First Amendment rights to provide his personal opinions and commentary, entertain people and often enlighten them?  How hate-filled and discriminatory! I mean, he  points out the truth regarding the liberal agenda and shines a light on the miscreants in Washington – egad! The utter gall of the man! How dare he “discriminate” against, um, oh yeah, THE PEOPLE IN POWER. Smearing them with truth and logic. The villain!

Evidently, the NFL claims their goal is to “unify” and “transcend” stuff.  Perhaps transcend vile acts like dog killing? No, no, that’s fine – we don’t want to be closed-minded and intolerant, right?  Maybe unified against sex crimes against women?  Unified against shooting people? Unified against general (and often criminal) jackassery? Nah, that’s all cool too. Instead, they will “unify” against Conservatives, the most evil of all evils on the face of the Earth.

NFL Players executive director DeMaurice Smith on Saturday made a move to solidify the union against a bid by conservative talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh as part of a group that aims to purchase the St. Louis Rams.

In an e-mail to the union’s executive committee on Saturday specifically addressing Limbaugh’s bid, Smith said, “I’ve spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.”

Well, it’s understandable once you read the evidence they have against Rush Limbaugh:

Limbaugh has expressed a number of controversial racial ideas in the past. For example, he suggested that Gen. Colin Powell supported Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy simply because he was black, and he also stated that the media wants black quarterbacks to do well and that Donovan McNabb doesn’t deserve much of the credit he has received for the Eagles’ success.

Oh, wait — The Colin Powell part is pretty much true, isn’t it? Also, totally not racist.  But voting FOR Obama simply because of the color of his skin?  Now that actually is racist. I don’t know about that McNabb dude (hello? That’s a sporty thingie) but I suspect Rush’s underlying point was likely an ugly truth as well.

You know what else is true? Vilifying a man and attempting to block his purchase or involvement in an organization based solely upon his political beliefs is *actual* discrimination and is truly hate-filled divisiveness.

It also makes no sense.

NY Daily News: “I don’t want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.”

While I’ve already told you I’m far from an expert (it’s above my pay-grade), isn’t the point of sporty things to WIN? Score more points and stuff? If someone can run the franchise well, isn’t that what matters? I’m pretty sure the football players aren’t forced to listen to talk radio nor will they have policy wonk-y seminars before each game. Guess what, football players and grossly partisan Union dudes: In the real world people sometimes work with people with whom they don’t agree politically. Yet, they manage to get their jobs done! You too can do the same.  I’ll tell you how …. listen closely …

Grow.

Up.

And I suggest that once Rush’s purchase goes through, that he put Condoleezza Rice in charge. I’ve heard tell that she loves football. And it would make quite a few liberal heads explode.  Now THAT is a sporting event I’d actually watch.

Update: Just Karl tweeted me a link to a Slate article regarding Rush’s McNabb comment. Turns out as I suspected: Not Racist. And arguably correct. And by arguably, I really mean totally, but was trying to be nice.

Donovan McNabb isn’t a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black.

By Allen BarraPosted Thursday, Oct. 2, 2003, at 6:33 PM ET

Limbaugh leaves over unfair football flapIn his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles’ Donovan McNabb was “that good of a quarterback.”

If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, “Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback.” But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons.

Elaine Brown's music is the Civil Rights era's underappreciated Molotov cocktail

PREVIEW: DOWNLOAD Elaine Brown’s  “Seize the Time” MP3

“Yet, I see they’ve taken liberties / With your souls and your lives.” Elaine Brown led the Black Panther Party from 1974 to 1977, while party leader Huey P. Newton was in Cuba on the run. These lines from the title track of her 1969 album Seize the Time effectively map out Brown’s party, life and activism.

Brown’s music is explicitly African American. In “The Panther” she describes her “hero” clearly: “His name is man / His face is black.” On her second full-length release, 1973’s Until We’re Free, she sings love ballads to dedicated revolutionaries (criminals in the American political structure) George Jackson and his brother Jonathan.

Brown’s soulful voice and the stirring musicianship throughout the record hammer her message home, and forty years later, much of it is still as relevant as anything released today. Racism is still very much a driving force in American culture and politics. If we really had overcome all of the stereotypes and prejudices present forty years ago, electing a black president would have yielded yawns, not media mayhem.

However, in 2002 she derided nearly every major African American political figure in her book The Condemnation of Little B, including Henry Louis Gates Jr, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and even Chris Rock, among others. Brown’s dedication to her cause, both in 1969 and today, shatters perceptions of how far the (according to her) “defunct” Civil Rights Movement really got and how far it has yet to go.

Whatever your opinions of her politics are, don’t deny that the horns in between the verses of “Seize the Time” enthrall as much or more than anything Kanye West has produced.

– Eric Vilas-Boas, Production Editor

Welcome back to The Rival Rundown! If you’ve always wanted to give props to your school on CC, now’s your chance! Shoot us an email explaining what’s awesome and unique about your school (or what stinks about Rival U) at rivalrundown@collegecandy.com!

This week, we take a look at the opponents in the nation’s most notorious holy war–no, not the mission in Iraq, but the rivalry between Boston College and Notre Dame, America’s premier Catholic universities.  Besides giving mad props to the Pope, these two institutions share a common interest in superior athletics, academics, and intense fan-dom. The Holy War refers to the quasi-annual football game between the schools (the only Catholic universities to play NCAA D1-A ball), and the fierce competitiveness between the two. Let the pillaging begin!

1. Mascot Matchup

BC – The Golden Eagles can be seen emblazoned on every Superfan shirt and bumper-sticker in Beantown.
Notre Dame - South Bend, Indiana is home to the famed Fighting Irish–the mascot championed in media from The West Wing (President Bartlet was an alum) to the football film classic, Rudy.

Three credits to: Notre Dame (extra points for high media recognition).

2. Holy War Stats

BC - has won 9 out of 18 games.
Notre Dame - has also won 9 games!

Three Credits to: It’s a tie!

3. Local Attractions

BC - Located in Chestnut Hill, MA, Boston College isn’t actually in Boston, but a suburb. It’s still within the Boston transit system, and is home to the Mall at Chestnut Hill (where you can find all of your favorite upscale retailers, including Kate Spade, Sephora, Barney’s and Bloomingdale’s) and of course, all of the celebrated Gothic architecture on campus!
Notre Dame – Though South Bend, Indiana is more than a stone’s throw from any major city, it is home to a variety of cultural establishments. Visit the Potawatomi Zoo and the Fischoff National Chamber Music Association for some entertainment around town.

Three credits to: BC for it’s proximity to Boston and terrific shopping options!

4. Ass-kicking Alumni

BC – Doug Flutie (NFL quarterback–remember Flutie Flakes?), Amy Poehler, John Kerry, Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Notre Dame – Joe Montana, Jerome Bettis (both football), Condoleeza Rice, Regis Philbin.

Three credits to: Notre Dame, for producing the cream of the crop in everything from sports to government to media.

5. Acceptance Rate Agony

BC – 26.2% for the class of 2012
Notre Dame – 26.7% for the class of 2012

Three credits to:  Almost too close to call, but BC by a nose!

And the diploma goes to: For only the second time in Rival Rundown history, it’s a tie! Just proves that there are never any winners in a Holy War! God is with (both of) you.

Das Fake der NEW YORK TIMES, am 12. Nov. 2008, mit Datum 4. Juli 2009, verteilte Auflage 1,2 Mio., in denen die Welt so funktioniert, daß man "YES!" sagen könnte

Apropos „Und alle so ’Yeaahh!’“: – Auch die bewährte Kommunikationsguerilla der Yes Men hat wieder zugeschlagen, wie man dem Blog spreeblick.com entnehmen kann. Die Aktion im November 2008, bei der sie 1,2 Milionen gefälschte Exemplare der New York Times unters Volk brachten, in denen u. a. die Beendigung des Irak-Kriegs bekanntgegeben wurde, scheint zur Fortsetzung geeignet. Diesmal haben die Yes Men mit zweitausend Helfern eine gefakete Ausgabe der – nicht eben umweltinteressierten – Boulevard-Zeitung New York Post (im Besitz von Rupert Murdoch) „ausgeliefert“, die drastisch die Folgen des Klimawandels für New York ausmalt.

Die Yes Men, von WTO, Chemie- und Ölkonzernen gefürchtete Kommunikationsguerilleros, die sich gern auf internationalen Symposien und Kongressen einschleichen, verfolgen eine Kampftaktik, die man überraschender Weise bereits beim skurrilen Schweizer Literaten Robert Walser findet: die – ironische – Überidentifikation. Man übernimmt den Standpunkt des Gegners und übertreibt ihn dabei aber so wahnsinnig, daß seine eigentliche Geistesverwahrlosung und Menschenfeindlichkeit hervortritt. Unvergessen z. B. die Forderung gefaketer Repräsentanten auf einem internationalen Freihandelskongress, frei handelbare „Gerechtigkeitsgutscheine“ einzuführen, mit deren Hilfe sich Staaten und Konzerne, analog zum Handel mit Emissionslizenzen von Anklagen wegen Menschenrechtsverletzungen freikaufen könnten.

Seit ein Yes Men-Abgesandter auf einem international hochkarätig besetzten Wirtschaftskongress der WTO (World Trade Organisation) ausführlich Adolf Hitlers Wirtschaftspolitik lobte und für eine modifizierte Form der Sklaverei aussprach, bei der man den Sklaven ein zuhause („zum Beispiel in Gabun…“) belässt, weil er dort billiger verpflegt werden könne und man die „Transportkosten“ spare, – und unglaublicherweise NIEMAND Einspruch einlegte oder auch nur irrititiert war, seitdem also ist man in den Zentren der Macht alarmiert. Demonstranten, die sich gegen die Globalisierungspolitik auflehnen, kann man abdrängen, einkesseln, wegsperren, auch mal niederknüppeln. Aber wie man gegen unauffälligen grauen Anzugherren mit Access-Sticker am Revers vor, die als Referenten auftreten, und Ja! Jaa! Jaaa! zu den unsinnigsten Dingen sagen? Wie unterscheidet man sie von den eigenen Leuten?

Zwei bekannte Aktivisten der Yes Men: Igor Vamos und Jacques Servin

Wenn die Welt sich zu bewegen verweigert, helfen die Yes Men freundlich ein bißchen nach, zumindest in der medialen Berichterstattung, die sie einfach selbst übernehmen. In der Millionenauflage der falschen New York Times wurde die Welt kurzerhand richtig gestellt: Die Yes Men beendeten den Irak-Krieg, ließen Georg W. Bush wegen Hochverrat anklagen und Condoleeza Rice sich für ihre Lügen-Politik entschuldigen. Aufsehen erregte auch die im britischen Fernsehen verlesene Erklärung des schuldigen Konzerns, man werde jetzt endlich die Opfer der Katastrophe von Bophal entschuldigen. Das Dementi der Dow Chemical-Giftmischer war dann natürlich peinlich… 

Man muß nachdenken: Diese Taktiken der Subversion scheinen mir vielversprechend: Ironische Affirmation, ironische Überidentifikation, Medien-Hijacking. Und alle so: „Yeaahh!“

Hillary makes a "serious" mistake

Fox News’s “Special Report” on Friday featured Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlining the Obama administration’s Iran policy, and she may as well have begun, “Stop me if you’ve heard this one before….” Her speech could have been culled from any official statement on the topic for at least three years. “Our message will be clear,” said Hillary. “We are serious, and we will soon see if the Iranians are serious. This is not about process for the sake of process…. We have no appetite for talks without action.”

Discerning whether Iran is “serious” has been the official, do-nothing euphemism of the White House for two administrations. In May 2006, Condoleezza Rice offered Iran a series of carrots-and-sticks, telling a televised press conference, “It’s time to know whether Iran is serious about negotiation or not.” At the time, it was sold under the pretense that if Tehran rebuffed the offer, it would convice wary Europeans to get on board with tough sanctions and possibly military action.

Multiple subsequent attempts to divine the gravity of the Iran issue have been offered. The results: Russia is actively assisting Iran’s nuclear program; various European nations conduct billions of dollars in trade with Iran; and Iran’s nuclear program snowballs forward. AP reported Thursday the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ”believes the Islamic republic has ’sufficient information’ to make a nuclear weapon and has ‘probably tested’ a key component.” Glyn Davis, the U.S. ambassador to the UN atomic watchdog catnappers, added Wednesday that Iran has reached “possible breakout capacity” to build a weapon rapidly. This simply amplifies Adm. Mike Mullen’s announcement in March that Iran has enough uranium for a nuclear weapon.

Hillary’s announcement was more troubling, as she affirmed that Iran had a “right” to nuclear technology under certain conditions…

Hillary added, “Our concern is not Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but its responsibility to demonstrate that its program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes.” She committed herself to the offer Obama made in his Cairo speech to allow Iran to develop nuclear energy for “civilian” purposes: as long as we cannot “prove” they are using the technology for a bomb, they may continue the charade ’til Mahdi come.

President Obama stated earlier this summer that he will give the Ayatollah and his minions some months to even begin to act on the proposal. At the time, analysts believed that was more than enough time for them to develop a weapon; now we know they underestimated. This new “serious” offer provides the mullahs time to develop the weapon, and his affirmation of their “legitimate” nuclear ambitions gives them the international political cover to proceed.

The San Francisco Examiner noted the surreal atmosphere in which this new, we-really-mean-it offer is made: “Even with the new nuclear findings, a fierce Iranian government crackdown on the opposition after elections and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest questioning of the Holocaust and lashing out at Israel on Friday, Clinton said the administration offer of engagement still stood.”

Years upon years of requests to negotiate have yielded…another request to negotiate. The Obama administration wants to know, yet again, if Iran is “serious,” and it will find that it most assuredly is serious — about developing a nuclear weapon, bombing Israel, threatening Europe, and possibly smuggling a dirty bomb through one of its terrorist affiliates into the United States.

Alle nostre orecchie può anche parere una cosa futile, ma negli Stati Uniti si sta parlando molto dei capelli della first lady Michelle Obama.

Ha a che fare con la questione razziale. L’elezione di un presidente nero non solo non ha affatto chiuso questa partita made in the Usa ma l’ha resa più evidente, più scottante e più dibattuta.

Il look della first lady – come quello di tutte e tutti a noi – ha ovviamente a che fare con una questione di identità. Ma nel suo caso l’identità si lega alla questione afro-americana e, contemporaneamente, al fatto di essere la donna nella posizione più alta d’America. Nel Paese in cui ognuno si guadagna le proprie opportunità, Michelle ha dimostrato che è possibile anche questo. E perciò è l’esempio, al massimo livello, di ogni donna di colore del Paese.

Da quando il viso di Michelle, insieme a quello di Obama, ha cominciato a fare il giro del mondo la conosciamo come una donna con i capelli dritti. Meglio: stirati. E’ dall’inizio della campagna presidenziale che Michelle non esibisce i suoi capelli naturali, i capelli di una donna di colore (al contrario del giorno della laurea, per esempio).

E così la pettinatura di una donna, argomento generalmente di interesse assai scarso, diventa una questione politica sui taboo riguardo alla bellezza femminile nera, perché stirarsi i capelli vuol dire, in un certo senso, conformarsi all’estetica bianca. Si passa a parlare di criteri di accettabilità sociale, perché è vero che i capelli ricci trasmettono un senso di insubordinazione maggiore rispetto a una testa in cui non c’è un capello fuori posto. E diviene, infine, una questione di bagaglio storico e di comunicazione culturale della comunità afro-americana.

L’argomento è rovente. In questo momento, se scrivete su Google “Michelle Obama hair” i risultati sono un milione e seicento diecimila.

Fin qui, i fatti.

La mia personale opinione – e aspetto di sapere quale sia la vostra –  è che sia assurda l’idea che le responsabilità, che pure è innegabile Michelle Obama abbia verso le donne afro-americane, debbano passare here and now per il suo look. Suo marito è presidente, certo, ma gli attacchi e le discussioni sul colore della sua pelle non accennano a diminuire. Per esempio, mentre Obama stava presentando il piano di riforma del sistema sanitario un senatore repubblicano perde le staffe e la testa e gli urla “Stai mentendo!” e ora i democratici dicono che era una critica basata sul pregiudizio razziale; oppure basti pensare alle teorie che mettono in dubbio la legittimità della sua cittadinanza americana (c’è addirittura una pagina di Wikipedia destinata a questo), o alla mobilitazione dei genitori conservatori che non volevano che i figli ascoltassero il discorso di Obama indirizzato agli studenti in occasione del primo giorno di scuola.

Certo non sarebbe d’aiuto né a lui, né a lei, né a nessun nero d’America, che la first lady si presentasse al prossimo appuntamento pubblico in stile Whoopy Godlberg.

Si tratta di tecniche di comunicazione, certo. E allora? Si tratta di una scelta anche politica che smussa per via estetica gli angoli etnici della first lady, certo. E allora?

Non ha senso provare a risolvere i problemi tutti insieme. “Ci vorrà più di un’elezione per risolvere la questione razziale”, scrive Jenee Desmond-Harris sul Time. Concordo e rilancio: la questione razziale non è un problema che si può risolvere per via governativa. Ci vuole il tempo necessario perché un sentire comune si radichi. E Michelle farà fare comunque un grande salto in avanti alla questione nel suo complesso, indipendentemente da come porta i capelli. E’ una donna nera alla Casa Bianca: mi pare, per adesso, più che sufficiente (anche Condoleeza Rice non è accidentale, se la vediamo in quest’ottica, pure lei con i capelli stiratissimi, ovviamente).

In conclusione, sono sempre più stupita da come il corpo femminile sia di una forza sintetica, comunicativa e politica senza paragoni.

P.S. Prossimo post su donne e capelli verterà sull’ineffabile casto caschetto della Carfagna, consigliato dal Presidente Parrucchiere in persona, a quanto pare.

Update: quando David Letterman, uno dei più famosi giornalisti americani, ha chiesto ad Obama se secondo lui si manifestino nei suoi confronti episodi di razzismo, Obama ha risposto: “You know, I was black before the elections”.

While visiting India, George Bush is invited to tea with the Abdul Kalam. He asks Kalam what his leadership philosophy is. He says that, it is to surround himself with intelligent people. Bush asks how he knows! if they’re intelligent. “I do so by asking them the right questions,” says the Kalam. “Allow me To demonstrate.” Bush watches as the kalam phones Manmohan Singh and says,

“Mr.Prime Minister, please answer this question: your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister.

Who is it?”

Manmohan immediately responds, “It’s me, Sir !.” “Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir,” says the Kalam. He hangs up and says, “Did you get that, Mr. Bush?” Bush nods: “Yes Mr. President. Thanks a lot. I’ll definitely be using that!” Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he’d better put the Condoleeza Rice to the test. Bush summons her to the White House and says, “Condoleeza, I wonder if you can answer a question for me.”

“Why, of course, sir. What’s on your mind?” Bush poses the question: “Uhh, your mother has a child, and your! father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?” Rice was puzzled and finally asks, “Can I think about it and get back To you?” Bush agrees, and Rice leaves. Rice immediately calls a meeting of senior senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, out nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Rice calls Colin Powell and explains the problem.

“Mr. Powell, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?”

Powell answers immediately, “It’s me, of course.” Much relieved, Rice rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, “I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It’s our Colin Powell!”

And Bush replies in disgust, “Wrong, you Jackass, its Manmohan Singh!”

Condoleezza Rice joins exclusive, formerly white-only golf club

Condo’s net worth while working for the Bushit was estimated between $1.3 million and $2.9 million making here the 20th wealthiest government executive at the time. This is good money, but it damn sure isn’t F”k You money in today’s screwed up economy. Her earnings potential going forward is significant, but somewhat constrained by the political climate. She is assured a significant income from Hoover Institute providing racial cover to the scientific racism generated by the other “fellows”.

Which raises the question of why “buy” two memberships in Golf Clubs which she isn’t going to visit more than 1 or two times a year (at best). Undoubtedly, the Golf Clubs in question are paying Condo to be their “black member”, much the same way Hoover pays she, Tommie Sowell, and Shelby Steele as racial cover.

In for a dime, in for a dollar… Indeed.

Golf Girl?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has joined two exclusive golf clubs in Alabama.

Rice is a native of Birmingham and has family there, though she does not own a home in the city. Chief of Staff Colby Cooper says the golf memberships at Greystone Golf & Country Club and Shoal Creek golf club are part of an effort to reach out to citizens of her home state.

Shoal Creek came under fire for having no black members in 1990 as it prepared to host a major tournament.

Rice has visited the Birmingham area twice in the past four months. She was in town last week researching a book about her parents and found time for golf at Shoal Creek with club president Bobby Luckie.

Rice is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution public policy research group at Stanford University.

Twenty Minutes With The President

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation’s history.

The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president.html

Charlie Sheen Requests Meeting With Obama Over 9/11 Cover-Up

Actor demands investigation be reopened after majority of 9/11 Commission members say government lied about official story

UPDATE: Charlie Sheen makes video to request a meeting with Obama to open a new 9/11 investigation:

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Actor and television star Charlie Sheen has publicly requested a meeting with President Barack Obama to urge him to reopen the official investigation into 9/11 in light of the fact that the majority of the 9/11 Commission members have now publicly gone on record to express their conviction that the government agreed to lie about the official story.

Sheen’s request takes the form of a letter to the President in the context of a fictional meeting between the two entitled “20 Minutes With The President,” published exclusively on radio talk show host Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com websites.

The letter cites evidence, backed up by a substantial online bibliography [also posted below], that proves the official story behind 9/11 is a fraud and that this conclusion was also reached by the majority of the 9/11 Commission members, a fact that mandates President Obama to reopen the investigation into the terrorist attacks.

Sheen expresses his hope that President Obama will follow through on his promises of change, accountability and government transparency by using his executive powers to re-examine 9/11, adding that he voted for Obama with the understanding that he would follow a different course to the Bush administration.

However, as Sheen highlights in his letter,the course of Obama’s first year in office clearly indicates that he will do nothing to reverse policies crafted by the Bush regime, and in fact has sought to exceed outrages of the previous administration in areas such as warrantless wiretapping, rendition, detention without trial, and wars in the Middle East – all of which arrived as a consequence of 9/11.

Sheen’s letter is a public declaration demanding the truth behind 9/11 as America approaches its eighth anniversary since the tragic events of that day. His questions are shared by a majority of victims’ family members, according to Bill Doyle, the representative of the largest 9/11 families group.

The letter focuses around the fact that no less than 60 per cent of the 9/11 commissioners have now publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

Sheen also presents a plethora of other evidence to illustrate how the official story is a fraud, including the revelations of whistle blowers like FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who recently broke a Federal gag order to expose how Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were working for the U.S. government right up until the day of 9/11.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

The issues highlighted by Sheen do not represent idle speculation or conspiracy fodder, they are documented facts that have been deliberately ignored by strawman 9/11 truth hit pieces that are now doing the rounds again as the anniversary approaches, particularly last months’ 9/11: Science and Conspiracy which was aired by the National Geographic Channel and wasted little time in portraying people who have doubts about the official 9/11 story as extremist cranks, while failing to acknowledge that the majority of the members of the 9/11 Commission have publicly expressed similar concerns.

Charlie Sheen is once again using his prominent public platform in an attempt to expand a national debate about the disturbing unanswered questions behind 9/11, having first spoken out on the issue in March 2006. After he first went public, Sheen was asked to do more and now he is doing more as he feels there is a chance to get more traction behind a new investigation with a new President in the White House.

Sheen is directly appealing to Barack Obama to read his letter and to look into the lies surrounding 9/11 for himself.

Regardless of whether or not President Obama agrees to meet with him, Sheen is confident that his letter will serve as a catalyst from which questions surrounding 9/11 and other false flag events will be brought to national attention.

This is a call to action and a declaration of war on the lies of 9/11 that have formed the foundation of the endless wars abroad and the police state at home as the Republic falls. Sheen is demanding that truth activists and those who simply care about the future of the country stand up beside him and speak truth to power.

Sheen is now urging grass roots political organizations and individuals across the country, such as the town hall protesters and We Are Change groups, to go to press conferences and other public events and demand answers about the truth behind 9/11. As much awareness as possible around the issue of false flag terrorism needs to be generated in order to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again. Sheen emphasizes in his letter that we cannot let 9/11 become ancient history, try and forget about it or just move on, because if a nation forgets its history then it is doomed to repeat it.

We cannot allow governments to continue to advance their political agendas by exploiting forged pretexts, argues Sheen, and the fact that big budget hit pieces against 9/11 truth are still being rolled out proves that the establishment is upset that the population is waking up to false flag terror.

Sheen will appear live on The Alex Jones Show on Wednesday and Friday to discuss the content of his “20 Minutes With The President” piece and how he plans to move forward with this exciting new initiative. You can listen free here or subscribe to prisonplanet.tv to watch live streaming video.

No matter what your views are on 9/11, Sheen is begging the thinking public to look at how many members of the 9/11 Commission itself have questioned the official story, along with the scores of other highly credible former and current government officials, intelligence professionals, military officials, scientists, structural engineers and architects, and legal scholars who have all publicly denounced the fraud that continues to masquerade as the official 9/11 story.

For media requests on this subject email sheen@infowars.com

PrisonPlanet.tv Members Will Be The FIRST To See Fall Of The Republic On October 21st – Don’t Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are “they”suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! – READ FULL STORY

* * * * * * * *

ONLINE BIBLIOGRAPHY for “Twenty Minutes With The President” PROVING THE OFFICIAL STORY BEHIND 9/11 IS A FRAUD AND THAT THIS CONCLUSION WAS ALSO REACHED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBERS:

In June 2006, Muckraker Report investigative reporter Ed Haas contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden’s wanted page on the FBI website.

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” he was told by FBI agent Rex Tomb.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/280806binladen.htm

Sibel Edmonds was dismissed after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001.

During a court case that arose out of her dismissal and the evidence surrounding 9/11, reporters were barred from recording any details of the case, and Edmonds herself was barred from even entering the court room. When Edmonds’ case was dismissed in May 2005, no reason was provided, and no opinion cited.

http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/May14-05-Gagged%20but%20not%20Dead.htm

During an interview on the Mike Malloy Show In July 2009, Edmonds stated, “To say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban – those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7332

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-bin-laden-worked-for-us-until-911.html

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/31/whistleblower-bin-laden-was-us-proxy-until-911/

The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. “I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”

WHO TOLD HIM THIS??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.

Watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCg8Fp8aw8

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_giuliani.html

In April 2004, USA Today reported, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the targets was the World Trade Center.

In addition, the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise for the morning of 9/11 that was based around a corporate jet crashing into the agency’s headquarters.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

On September 12th 2007, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 reported that the mysterious “white plane” spotted flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11 was in fact the Air Force’s E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit.

Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.

“CNN acknowledges that, despite its identification, the absence of the aircraft from official investigations, together with the Pentagon’s denial that it was a military plane and the insistence by the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA that they have no explanation for the incident, may continue to raise suspicions,” reported Raw Story.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_investigates_secret_911_doomsday_plane_0913.html

Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even if these planes had traveled at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have been defending the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.

Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a846carolinafighters#a846carolinafighters

Compilation of videos showing collapse of WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am. Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.

“A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania. Planes were scrambled, but ineffectively, as they did not know where to go or what targets they were to intercept. And once the shootdown order was given, it was not communicated to the pilots. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to “take out” hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50745-2004Jun17.html

(Mid 2004) The team of investigators on the 9/11 Commission that is investigating the events of the morning of September 11 comes to believe that a key part of Vice President Dick Cheney’s account is false. The team, led by John Farmer, is convinced that the decision to authorize the military to shoot down threatening aircraft on 9/11 was made by Cheney alone, not by President Bush. According to journalist and author Philip Shenon: “If Farmer’s team was right, the shootdown order was almost certainly unconstitutional, a violation of the military chain of command, which has no role for the vice president. In the absence of the president, military orders should have been issued by Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, bypassing the vice president entirely.”

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a04doubtscheney#a04doubtscheney

Scores of mainstream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/75797

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/us/traces-of-terrorism-the-warnings-fbi-knew-for-years-about-terror-pilot-training.html

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008z7U

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2121480.stm

In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.

As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/281004blackbox.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-cover-up-connection-black-boxes-found-15-hours-after-buffalo-crash.html

Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.

Eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions can be found at the following links.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/people.html

An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.

In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.

However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cellphone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.

According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter. The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane. Images before the partial collapse of the impact zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner, especially when contrasted with other images showing airplane crashes into buildings.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic10.htm

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic1.htm

What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon defensive system was not activated., are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.

http://www.truthout.org/article/white-house-refuses-release-sept-11-info

Newsweek twice reported that top Pentagon officials had got a warning of the impending attack on September 10th, and cancelled their flights for the next day. This confirms that these officials knew both the general locations of the attack and the method of using jetliners as bombs.

“On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/76065/output/print

“Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/75993/page/2

Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his “airport security” late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat. Pacifica Radio later reported that the source of the warning was Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cellphones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

“Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of “state secret.” To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.

“President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel’s top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/us/bush-to-limit-testimony-before-9-11-panel.html

A few days after the attack, several newspapers reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC.

In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/230804visafound.htm

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-16-Sun-2001/news/17011253.html

————————————————————————————————-

Highly Credible People Question 9/11

The following people question the government’s version of 9/11, or the government’s openness in providing information about the September 11 attacks.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

CONGRESS

According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11

Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation

Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt” (bio)

Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

“If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot-I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to-if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!“

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

“there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’ “

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said “Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.”

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

“I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ….

Those of us in the military took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!”

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

“This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ….

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …”

U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story”.

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers“. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).

20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .

The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attache in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.

The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said “9/11 should have and could have been prevented”

A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation(they were ignored).

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

“I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.“

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.”

The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was “very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters” (Richard F. Humenn), stated that “the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down.”

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

“The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].”

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, “WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don’t have to be a woodcutter to grasp this” (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers “were brought down by planted explosives.”

A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California – Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said “The official explanation that I’ve heard doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized”

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition(translation here)

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia

Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado

David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona

David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

LEGAL SCHOLARS

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence “Terry” Brunner) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government’s version of 9/11., and asks whether the Neocons were behind 9/11.

Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

“When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality… But one grows up. … And with the lawyer’s training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade… After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government.”

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being “disrespectful to the victims and their families”.

However, half of the victim’s families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a realinvestigation is necessary.

PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

Finally, those who attack people who question the government’s version of 9/11 as “crazy” may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 — literally thousands — to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew “like the back of my hand” and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

Perhaps “the premiere collapse expert in the country”, who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a “very, very respected expert on building collapse”, the head of the New York Fire Department’s Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously “commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide” thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).

Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says “The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.”

Former Minnesota Governor (Jesse Ventura) questions the government’s account of 9/11 and asks whether the World Trade Center was demolished

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said “If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up”. She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.

SOURCE: http://www.911summary.com/

Since 9/11, bin Laden’s al Qaeda have been probing the United States of America in an attempt to find it’s weakest point of access. While there are known terrorist cells in America, there is one that seems to be floating under the radar. This cell is called ” Liberals Against America” though not an official identifier, it does smell of logic..

“Liberals Against America”.

An oxymoron? A play on words?

Who knows?

Either way, the weakest point is the current administration.

No matter how one identifies the liberal mass, one thing is for certain, liberals have managed to do to America in just six months what al Qaeda has been trying to do for eight years. Bush kept us safe while Obama has opened the floodgates to both domestic and foreign terrorists and manipulation.

Attack America and watch her crumble into mediocrity.

The United States is imploding and under the watchful eye of Pelosi, bin Laden can now sit back and enjoy with envy, the demise of America from within. Little did bin Laden think that 9/11 was a preliminary to what is unfolding as his greatest triumph, for it was he, bin Laden, who became an american hero unbeknown to the future of America at the hands of America’s own new found and so-called government. Bin Laden watches the collapse of our economy and national security with a bag of popcorn. It’s a thriller!!!

Could this be what bin Laden was waiting for?

Yepp!! And there is more to come!!

Pelosi comes from a state that admires socialist nature. A state that enables “wrong” as the “right”. A state that fights tooth and nail against the Constitution. A state that chooses to be a self proclaimed leader in American prosperity and venture. A state that distorts the Bill of Rights by allowing courts to create law that sub standardizes American values and history. A state that prohibits responsibility but lectures on irresponsibility.

Nancy Pelosi, home of record, California..

As an American Soldier, it shames me to have to challenge my own Patriotic values knowing that my enemy has more courage than politicians like Pelosi. Don’t get me wrong, my enemy is my enemy but to have a domestic enemy that emulates my foreign enemy? This is not a Kodak moment.

Pelosi hasn’t taken up sides, bin Laden has.

Bin Laden doesn’t hide behind false and scrupulous agenda, Pelosi does.

Pelosi undermines her own country, bin Laden doesn’t.

Bin Laden challenges his enemy, Pelosi creates enemies.

Pelosi encourages manipulation, bin Laden is straight forward.

If the Federalist Papers are any indication, Pelosi has failed miserably as an American but more importantly, has won the hearts of those who appreciate Socialist principals and ideology. Pelosi’s strong arm of the White House is indicative of dictatorship fundamentals and theocracy.

If at any time the Pelosi people came to their senses, Pelosi would have to invest in her own space shuttle because that would be the only place she and her family would be welcome, “by nobody”. Who would want her on earth? Even our enemies don’t like to be stabbed in the back nor would they stab us in the back as they approach face first and with the element of surprise.

Pelosi and her husband have made millions through their politics, have hired illegal aliens and criminals to work for them or service them, and all the while hiding these facts knowing their family demise would come at the hands of their covert activity. These facts alone represent the discredit they give the Constitution of the United States in full disdainment.

Pelosi uses the term “un-American” as if it were wise and proper. She could use some “re-education” in history because those who she has called un-American are using their RIGHTS as Real and True Americans to voice their disdain and contempt of her government’s rule of distorted law and theory. Based upon American history, Pelosi’s comments and political practice have made her a true candidate of Treason Against The United States of America.

Here’s an idea, why don’t we say for logic sake that Pelosi and her boss are “complacent” while Real and True American’s remain un-American. Would that be un-American to identify Pelosi as complacent or is that just anti government rhetoric created by the un-American, liberal belligerence that encourages one voice without reprisal? In other words, “you are what we say you are” as per liberal doctrine.

If you want to start tossing words and terms around let’s do it. Let’s do it and have meaningful content.

Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi have manhandled America.

Make no mistake about it!! Forcefully injecting un-American policy and agenda into the lives and businesses of Real and True American’s is political suicide. Hurry up already!!!

Now comes the prevailing curiosity.

Clinton and Biden are very rarely in public view nowadays. Why??

Is Biden talking out of his league so much that he is kept under wraps? Is Clinton really the Secretary of State or is she just “there”?

Pelosi and Gibbs seem to be the only big mouths out there. While obvious, we know that one perpetrates a fraud and the other is just plain stupid. Which is which?

Pelosi facts:

She opposed the troop surge in Iraq. Not only did the troop surge work, but it enabled better security for the people of Iraq. Pelosi said “Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of a democratic government”. Pelosi was up and down on this issue always being sure to remain on the greener pasture. Oh the bells are tolling!!

Pelosi among other liberals supported the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act or HR 2956 which was a timetable designed to redeploy American Forces out of Iraq. If it is any indication of what a timetable really does, the current IED and guerrilla attacks prove that al  Qaeda and anti Iraq forces were just waiting in the spider holes for American forces to retreat as broadcast by American media and politicians.

She said “3,600 lives have been lost to a flawed strategy”. American Soldiers DO NOT die because of a flawed strategy, they die as American Soldiers fighting for a country, her people and a way of life that is now being questioned and challenged here in the USA.

She said “after spending $329 million every day in Iraq, on a war that is not making our country safer, we have an obligation to change course”. She makes no mention of the $19 million the American taxpayer spends daily on illegal immigration which challenges American sovereignty and values. Contrary to public ignorance and opinion, America was safer at least until she and her boss took over.

She called “the 5 years in Iraq a failed policy”. So the American soldier failed, right? If policy fails, that means the missions and operations in Iraq were useless and without significance. We fought and died for nothing!! The Iraqi people tell a different story.

March 29, 2007, Pelosi told President Bush to “relax with threats of vetoing the House and senate versions of the Iraq war supplemental bill”. Kind of like how Pelosi and Obama ridicule American’s for voicing opposition to their policies and “threatening” to pass healthcare reform whether we like it or not and without Republican support. Wow!! Talk about double standard in the eye of a Socialist storm.

“We are in office now, I’m in charge”!!

Pelosi was constant in her endeavors to force an American military timetable of retreat. Again, the current situation in Baghdad indicates the Pelosi flaw. Enemies of both Iraq and the United States were just waiting for American forces to withdraw and now look at what is happening today.

In 2004, the political action committee (PAC) controlled by Pelosi, was fined $21,000 “for improperly accepting donations over federal limits”. The fine was imposed because Pelosi used multiple PAC’s to exceed donation limits to other members.

February 2003, Pelosi took a $1 million earmark for an advisor’s think tank but really, it was for a campaign donor. This money was illegally obtained and received without the proper documentation required for grants. Pelosi defended this illegal activity by saying “it was received on merit”.

Pelosi endorsed Jack Murtha (D-PA) for majority leader. Murtha is known for his anti military and and anti-American vocabulary. Pelosi wanted Murtha so he could be a major player in the “cleanest Congress ever”. Pelosi said that, not me!!

And “cow manure” is the best known paste to brush your teeth!!

Pelosi wanted American troops out of Iraq. She called the war flawed and senseless and without cause or justification. Yet, while most intellectual Americans knew Saddam Hussein and his sons had to go and knowing al Qaeda WAS and still is in Iraq, Pelosi was to deny President Bush the authority to go after Iran even as Democrats themselves were saying Iran was “more of a threat to the United States than Iraq”. Talk about flawed, failed and double standard policy.

Pelosi ignored the white House when she made a “goodwill” trip to Syria in March 2007. At taxpayers expense and NOT paying any attention to White House protocol or leadership including the Office of the President of the Unite States, Pelosi took 6 others with her including Tom Lantos, Henry Waxman, Louise Slaughter, Nick Rahall, David Hobson – the only Republican and Keith Ellison. Syria has been identified as a state sponser of terrorism. So they went there Why??

Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice whose job it was to make these trips, was obviously left out of the loop. Rice was immaculate in her foreign policy routine always taking the time to punctuate intent and reason on behalf of the United States. So for Pelosi to temporarily assign herself the title of Secretary of State was in itself an act of contempt.

To this day, Syria has not changed one single letter of it’s known support for Hamas, Iranian backed Hezbollah or other guerrilla groups who fight against the sovereignty of Israel and who call for Israel’s total destruction. So if this was a “worthwhile” trip or excursion, what came of it?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing!!

Pelosi was in her glory as she flew around in Military aircraft in a manner of extravagance while claiming she ‘did not ask for it”. Military retirees have to wait days sometimes weeks to get a “Hop” or flight. Who is Pelosi?

Pelosi is a staunch supporter of illegal immigration. In May of 2007, she denied the immigration bill because there was a point system for guest workers that was anti family. Anti family? She claimed that family unification was fundemental to American immigration without regard to the disruption of Real and True American who suffer at the hands of illegals in many more ways than just one..

November 2006, Pelosi promised  “the most honest, the most open and most ethical Congress in history”. I think it’s called “ethics reform”. What happened? Now there’s a comment for the history books. Any lie detector experts want to try this one?

Remember her $1 million dollar earmark Pelosi scrounged up for the campaign donor back in February of 2003. You think she might have felt a bit guilty? Of course, out of sight out of mind, right? She said “there must be transparency, I’d just as soon do away with all earmarks, but that probably isn’t realistic”. Of course not, the hundreds of billions of taxdollars earmarked in the “Bailout of 2009″ would have shredded that idea.

Wait a minute, it did!!!

Pelosi generated the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006.This Act was submitted to six committees, Judiciary, Rules, Government Reform, Standards and Conduct, Armed Services and Administration. It failed in all six!!

As if!!

One of the measures in this Act would require reports that contain information pertaining to efforts to “Stimulate Grassroots Support”. Grassroots is a word currently used to undermine and tap as un-American the people who use their Rights to protest the activities of the government only if you are anti liberal and don’t take part in tea parties or townhall meetings. Actually they are not grassroots, they are “mobs” and “un American” and “astroturf”. Astroturf, who came up with that one? Had to be a writer for hollywood.

Grassroots!! A liberal condemnation of  Conservative America or a liberal policy of banishing anything other than liberal socialism.

Another measure in this Act would require conference committees to open to the public and require conference reports to be publicly available on the internet at least 24 hours prior to vote. And the healthcare reform bill is where?

Transparency, such a coded word.

Impeachment is another of those “coded” words.

In the early months 2006, Pelosi commented to the Washington Post her intentions of bringing impeachment proceedings against President Bush through planned investigations. She said “although impeachment would not be the goal, you never know where it leads”.

She again stated to the Post that she was not interested in pursuing impeachment and had “taken it off the table”. However she did say “that Republicans would “just love” the “waste of time” and she added “just making them lame ducks is good enough for me”.

That “lame ducks”, is that anything like “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”? You do remember Obama’s preacher making that statement, don’t ya?

In July of 2008, Pelosi commented that President Bush is “a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the war, on the economy, on energy, you name the subject” and that congress had been “sweeping up after his mess over and over and over again”.

Geez, is there anything the Democrats had screwed up? The war, the economy, energy, and any other subject you can think of? How about illegal aliens, the War on Terror, family and Patriotic values?

Hey Nanc, who is failing now?

My, my, my, how the lyrics to this song and dance are changing!!

And how about that “transparency’ Pelosi boasts about, Huh?

Pelosi sat on the board of a group calling itself The Population Institute, a non profit promoting universal access to family planning, education and other services. A group Obama supported by reversing the ban on funds for international groups that counsel and facilitate abortion outside the United States. He dumped the “gag law” on behalf of this group. Now, the American taxpayer funds overseas abortions and Pelosi smiles on her way to the bottom drawers of Obama’s desk. Talk about earmarks and foreign at that.

Does universal healthcare ring a bell now??? Keyword, universal…

Wow Nancy, what an accomplishment!! Transparency really works, in the dark!!

So this is the deceiptful and pathetic administration you want to call the government of the United States?

Nancy Pelosi has altered every truth and has manipulated every issue; she has single handedly degraded every American with name calling and inuendo. She calls misguided legislation “good for America” and lies and cheats her way into the American family.

As Obama prods Pelosi!!

It is time to put her up for auction at the next Middle Eastern summit.

That won’t work, she has no “value”….

Which means the liberal, socialist American will have to put up with her a bit longer and I suppose it will be to the Conservative American’s benefit!!!!!

Oh well!!!!

Joke yang ini kutemukan ketika membuka kembali email lawas di yahoo mail ku. Mau diterjemahkan ke bahasa Indonesia, sepertinya ngga bisa ‘pas’ lucunya karena ini masalah ‘bunyi yang sama tapi arti berbeda’. So, mari kita nikmati aja percakapan lucu presiden George Bush dan sekertarisnya Condoleeza Rice, dalam bahasa asli!

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What’s happening?

George: The main man in China !

George: All right! With cream and two sugars.

You don’t understand, see, you don’t understand
See, I’m like a murderer, see, I’m like a murderer
And I could rip you limb from limb
And I could rip you limb from limb
Great big thing crawlin’ all over me
Great big thing crawlin’ all over me
Great big thing crawlin’ all over me…

Michelle Malkin is A Mental Illness

There, I said it-

You know it’s true, so, why Beat Around the George W. Bush any longer?

Seriously, Fuck Her if she can’t take a Joke, which we Know She John McCunt, er…Can’t.

She’s Nuts.

Bonkers.

MoonBatShit Crazy.

Every time I hear her  Self-Ingratiating Voice I envision Anvils, and Pianos falling from the sky.

Smart Bombs tracking a Dummy Target.

Maybe I am, and Maybe I am.

America, do you Hear It?

Do You?

Didn’t Think So, but if it’s any Consolation-…

No One is Listening

ENOUGH.

sometimes Nothing Makes Sense.

And how.

Man, oh, Man does it Evah!!

America is Teetering…Tweetering?

And in Wingnuttia, the Drool CoAGulAtes.

The Right Wing is DEAD.

Committed Suicide back in High School.

Senior Year, if I’m remembering correctly.

All that remains, is…

A Final Bitter Scream.

I don’t have to Say/Write anything I don’t Want.

Lately, I don’t Want-

Much.

As there’s not Much Worth Having these Days.

I’ll stick with what Works, and you…

No, I insist.

Michelle Bachman (What’s with these “Michelle” Dames?) says the Census tried to Steal her Favortie Gingerbread Man, and She’s-

Fucking “A” Pissed Off About It!!

Of course she overreacted.

She knows he Never Loved Her, anyway.

They (We) NeVEr Do.

Ah, but Michelle fell off, and she Cannot Get Back UP.

Not this Time-

Mother Fucker.

28 Pages!

28 Goddamn PAGES!!

You Deal with That.

You Look them In the Eyes and TEll them-

HE AIN’T COMIN’ BACK, You LITTLE ungrateful BASTARDS!!

An ex of mine recently asked her sister-

Is he SeeIng a Pee Sigh Chai Uh Trist?

Well, Of course Fucking Not.

What would be the Point?

He just seems SO much More Sane than He did when we Dated.

He’s a Genius, Don’tcha Know?

Maybe he finally Figured Something Important out, Something Worthwhile.

Maybe, At long Last, it Makes Sense.

But, you said-

Nothing. Makes. Sense.

It does, which fits My Original Hypothesis-

P   E   R   F   E   C   t   L Y.

Michelle Malkin is a Mental Illness.

She Really Is.

And She’s Spreading, Literally,

And-

Pornographically.

Her Nails are clawing Your Bach, Man.

She likes it ROugh.

Wants to Hear You-

Scream the Words.

Wants you To Flail in Agony.

Ecstasy.

Apathy.

She melts into you, and once Inside.

She burns like Drano.

Eats You Alive From teh Intertubes.

Leaves nothing But Sludge.

And.

A Permanently Disfigured Sense of Self.

Life. Altering. Injuries.

You fit into me
like a hook into an eye
a fish hook
an open eye

I always see it MY WAy.

EYes WiDE OPEN.

Baby.

The Right Wing is Dead.

Some Lonely Highway.

Back in ‘81, ‘82.

Condoleeza Rice is/was Proud a Balkc man Got Electimuhcated to the White House.

Do WE still have to Call It taht?

She forgets, at times, her comings and goings.

Think she might be  One-HaLf Chameleon the way she

Almost Blends

into Her Background.

Who Knew?

No, I’m seriously ass King.

Who Knew?

She wanted to marry Glenn Close, but instead, They Gave Her-

Glenn Beck.

Fucking Faggots, anyway.

Ain’t it bad enough already?

Maybe she Can Consult for Others Trying to Pass in more Ways than

ONE.

This post is Rapidly Degenerating.

And

Soon

It will be nothing But a

Skull Fucking

Mess.

But I’m not going to apologize to You.

and Why should I?

wait…don’t answer.

I got sarah on the line, and she sounds

Serious. This.

Time.

She sayd-

Speakin’ uh Half Breeds, an’ Half Served Terms.

I don’t see Russia no More. I seas past’em, You Betcha.

All tha ways Round tha Whirled.

All tha way t’ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

An iff’n at don’t qualerfy me as Preznit.

I suppos’n we stop havin’ erecTions ever four yars, Don’tcha Know.

Winkety Wink Wink.

Michelle Malkin is a Mental Illness
And.

There is no Reliable Treatment.

Not even a cream or Solution to at least Alleviate the Burning Itch.

Nope.

Ann Coulter Swears she hasn’t lost her

Lust

Er.

Eh, umm.

But I’m not So Sure.

Like most Americans

I prefer Hate Speech to be delivered from the Buck Toothed Mouth of a Faux Asian.

Comes across as more Authentic.

I mean, let’s be Serious.

How believable is a 6′, white, blonde haired, blue eyed woman?

What, is she supposed to look like a Nazi?

Oooooooo, I”m so Scared.

Nah, paint her Geisha White, and Wrap Her in Silk.

I always say.

I do.

Well, not really, but that’s what I say I say.

Okay.

I hardly ever say that if you really want the Truth.

In fact, most of the time I’m talking about other shit that isn’t even remotely related to Any of This Nonsense.

I prefer Nonsense of a more Nonsensical nature.

With Far More Sex, and Waaaaaaaaay Less Violence.

Doesn’t that sound

Delightful?

Sure. It. Does.

Pussy is as Pussy Does.

ANd i prefer that the Pussy Does Me.

Know what I mean?

Herman Hesse said there’s no Place for People like Us (He and I).

I hope he’s Wrong,

But

I’m beginning to

Wa/onder.

Whoever wants music instead of noise, joy instead of pleasure, soul instead of gold, creative work instead of business, passion instead of foolery, finds no home in this trivial world…

Goddamn know it alls!@!#

Mother FUck’em!

Sean Hannity wants to know how much longer we’re Going To Suffer at the Hands of the Elite.

And I have to Agree.

He seems to be a Nice Fellow.

Especially Patriotic, which I Especially Dig.

How much ya’ wanna bet he has an American Flag Shower Curtain?

Probably Jerks Off every morning Wailing-

God Bless America from Sea to Shining Sea!!

That’s how I’d do it if I Loved America.

But of Course-

I don’t.

I have issues with Intimacy.

I’ll be the first to admit.

But if I didn’t?

Every Fucking Morning like Clock Work Orange Ya’ Glad I Didn’t Say Banana?

He’s so young, and tender…

Michelle Malkin is a Mental Illness.

And how do I know this?

Says so right here.

Read it for yourself-

Fox News: Fair and Balanced

See?

I’m not asking you to believe every Thing you read.

Just whatever I write (Unless, I mail a 2 x 3 index card with someone else’s thumbprint, and a note, which reads, “Stop. Paying. Attention. Stop.”)

I’m Trustworthy, Honest, and I love Puppies.

Garsh, but who doesn’t?

Michelle Malkin

Barack HUSSEIN Obama loves Puppies, too.

But he Hates wHite People.

Why wouldn’t he Though?

After all, he’s the Anti-Christ, which is just another way of saying-

I HAte WHITE PEOPLE!

All we can do Is pray for his Defeat.

Actually, you pray for that.

I’m praying for a new Set of China, and for the Redskins to win the Superbowl.

Did you see how Nicely it Worked oUt in the End?

Sure you did.

YOu’re Patriots.