The 9/11 Stand Down in 2 Minutes

George Washington’s Blog
Friday, March 28, 2008

NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes

They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 and and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.

Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:

• NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases

• Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds

• Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them

(Article continues below)

You might think that the military couldn’t find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a 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 says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

As a former senior air force colonel 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!“

Norad’s stand down on 9/11 was so blatant that Norad has been forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he? The falsity of Norad’s explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

Conspiracy theologian

David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Truth Movement and Bush-Cheney’s “stupid” imperialism

By Matthew Singer 03/27/2008

When David Ray Griffin conceived his first book regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, his interpretation of what transpired that day revolved around the concept of blowback, that the attacks were a byproduct of America’s decades of aggressive foreign policy toward the Middle East. In short, at the time, he bought the official story of 9/11. He wasn’t letting the United States government off the hook for their role in the attacks, but he wasn’t placing culpability where he would eventually place it: squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration.

While researching for that first book, Griffin came across a growing community — concentrated mostly online — of people questioning the circumstances of Sept. 11 as reported by the mainstream media. Now, the retired professor, theologian and longtime Santa Barbara resident is one the leading voices of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, citizens who believe the horror of that day was not caused by radical Islamic terrorists but was orchestrated within the walls of the White House. Derided in the press as loony conspiracy theorists (if given any attention at all), the group, Griffin says, now includes intellectuals such as himself, as well as architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers and even ex-CIA operatives.

“The change in the movement has been rather drastic, because a few years back, people would dismiss us as a bunch of crazies on the Internet. And then when I joined, it was a bunch of crazies on the Internet and an aging theologian,” Griffin says. “But now they can’t make that charge anymore because there are far more intellectuals and professionals identified with the movement that have gone on record [opposing] the official story.” In addition, he says, polls indicate the general public is beginning to view the conventional portrayal of 9/11 with an increasingly skeptical eye as well. And to what does Griffin, who will speak at the Ventura Women’s Center on March 28, attribute the shifting tide? “Simply the power of truth — the old saying, ‘the truth will out.’ Once you start getting into it and looking at the evidence, it’s overwhelmingly obvious that the official story is false.”

VCR: Are you convinced the US government orchestrated 9/11, or do you simply believe there are enough inconsistencies in the official story to warrant a new investigation?

Griffin: If you read the first sentence of my Debunking 9/11 Debunking, you’ll see that I say the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is obvious. It was only in my first book, The New Pearl Harbor, when I was using the term prima facie, saying we have prima facie evidence that it was an inside job. In that book, I was simply a stenographer, really, for the 9/11 Truth Movement. I just organized the various arguments and evidence that had been marshaled. But when the 9/11 Commission report appeared and I saw how they treated the evidence, they ignored 99 percent of it, and that 1 percent of it, where they thought they could distort the facts to make it look like it was OK, they did that. That book was called 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, and at the end of that book, I said far from allaying my suspicions that it was an inside job, it confirmed them. Ever since then, I’ve clearly been on that side.

Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this. Because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they’re related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here’s what hit the Pentagon, and others say that’s not true. I put my focus on the evidence that the official story is false, and the evidence is so abundant and overwhelming that to make the case you don’t have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It’s like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn’t do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is have a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. The critics say, you’ve got to have a theory. No, you don’t have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that’s what the debunkers love. They want to say, “That’s nonsense,” and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.

Do you feel the discussion of a possible inside job helps derail conversations regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Mid-east over the last few decades?

We shouldn’t think American imperialism began with the Bush-Cheney administration. The American empire has been growing for over a century. We’ve done unspeakable things over that period. The media made a big deal out of the fact that Jeremiah Wright said, “God damn the United States of America.” Well, William James said that about 100 years ago in relation to what we had done in the Philippines. If I ever get my book done on American imperialism, the chapter on the Bush-Cheney period will be called “The Third Revelation.” The first revelation to Americans about our imperialist drives was in that period of taking over Cuba and the Philippines and a few other countries, Puerto Rico and so on. The second revelation occurred with Vietnam. Now we’re in the third revelation, where Americans are realizing we are an empire and have done ugly things. When it comes to what was the real cause of 9/11, the fact that we say, no, it wasn’t blowback, it was a false flag operation — as long as you put it in context and say it was a false flag operation in order to continue, and in fact intensify, the same kind of imperialistic practices we have been engaging in for a long time, it doesn’t seem like it would have that harmful consequence.

How does 9/11 factor into this year’s election? Do you think no matter who is elected this pattern of imperialism will continue?

I’m hoping regardless of what happens, we get 9/11 revealed, because my argument has been that unless we do, it’s likely we’ll continue our imperialistic ways, it will just be a change in degree at most. Generally, the distinction has been between more intelligent and more stupid imperialism; the Bush-Cheney imperialism is about as stupid as it can get, because it’s so obvious and it makes everyone angry, whereas you had a kinder, gentler imperialism during the Clinton years, and you had very few people complaining about America as an empire.

But we were, and we did several really bad things during that period. I’ve argued that there needs to be a two-fold revelation: Americans need to realize 9/11 was an inside job, and realize it was carried out for imperialist reasons. And if they see that, then there might be a revulsion against imperialism and people saying we really don’t want to be an imperialist nation.

What’s the likelihood of the Bush administration being called to justice in our lifetime?

I think it’s unlikely, but it could happen, and it’s so important that it does happen that it’s very important we keeping working to make it happen. It’s possible [Dennis] Kucinich would have hearings; he said he would. My publisher is sending my most recent book, The 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, to a large number of members of Congress. So we’re doing what we can.

David Ray Griffin speaks March 28 at the Ventura Women’s Center (3451 Foothill Rd., Ventura) at 7 p.m. For more information, contact Dawn Hodson at 644-3268 or write  americangal2700@sbcglobal.net.

Say Hillary, What About The Religious “Family” You Have Chosen To Be Part Of?

Say Hillary, What About The Religious “Family” You Have Chosen To Be Part Of? by Steve Brant Page 1 of 1 page(s) http://www.opednews.com

“You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” said Hillary Clinton, to reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Tuesday the 25th.

This is an interesting choice of words, since – while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing – Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide…

“…an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a “family” that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of “biblical capitalism,” military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family’s current leader, declares, “We work with power where we can, build new power where we can’t.”

This quote is taken from the book on The Family by the same name which will be published in May… a book which claims to

“…dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not “What do fundamentalists want?” but “What have they already done?”

A long article was written about Hillary Clinton’s participation in this organization last September in Mother Jones, and The Family, itself, was the subject of an extensive article in Harper’s in March of 2003. And on March 21st, The Nation published an article on Hillary and The Family by Barbara Ehrenreich that was published on The Huffington Post and CBS News’ web site.

The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the “meek.” They believe that, in mass societies, it’s only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God’s “dominion” on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it’s all about power – cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or “cells.”

…wrote Ms.Ehrenreich. Is it possible that Hillary’s participation in this fundamentalist group – which apparently preaches the “gospel of military might” – would help explain her vote in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq? Is it possible her pro-NAFTA stance during her husband’s administration comes from its embrace of “the no-holds-barred economics of globalization”? Is it possible that the sense some get that Hillary feels entitled to be president comes in part from this group’s belief that “it’s only the elites who matter”?

I encourage any reporter covering Hillary’s campaign to ask her about all this.

At a time when so many people are wondering what sort of effect the Rev. Wright’s sermons may have had on Barack Obama, I think it’s only fair to ask what sort of effect The Family’s fundamentalist mission has had – and continues to have – on Hillary Clinton. We know that George Bush engages in truly fundamentalist thinking. There is no person or new information capable of challenging his belief that what he already knows is right. Is Hillary Clinton like this in some way? I am not sure.

But the opinion I have formed from this is that – while Hillary Clinton may be considered a Liberal by many – on the inside she is a deeply Conservative person… possibly as close to being a Republican today as she was when she was a young woman supporting Senator Goldwater. This helps explain, to me, why she and John McCain are such good friends. They are both drawn to the use of military power and free market capitalism… and to taking money from lobbyists. The other opinion I have formed is that those who say there are no policy differences between Hillary and Barack haven’t taken into account how their religious differences might impact the policies they would actually seek to implement as president.

Finally, getting back to Hillary addressing the subject of the Rev. Wright’s sermons, I was taken by the carefully crafted language she used during her press conference on Tuesday afternoon, where she said, “Given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor.”. At the risk of going off-topic, I would like to offer you all a chance to hear what I have now “heard and seen” of one of Rev. Wright’s controversial sermons. When you watch the video below – and Hillary, if you see this, I hope you will watch it too – you will learn that at least in this instance what the Rev. Wright said (“America’s chickens have come home to roost.”) was taken completely out of context. Rev. Wright was quoting someone else when he said those words, and he said much of value during the 10 minutes I found on YouTube.

I urge you to give the cause of truth the 10 minutes it will take you to watch this too.

Did the Government Entrap the 9/11 Hijackers?

Britain’s GCHQ spy agency has confirmed the fact that Chinese People’s Liberation Army agents posing as monks staged violent riots in Tibet in order to justify a brutal crackdown, but that the demonstrations have now escalated beyond Beijing’s control.
			New evidence suggests second shooter killed RFK
			CIA Operation in Tibet
			Did the Government Entrap the 9/11 Hijackers?
			Bush tells Hu shipment of warhead fuse to Taiwan a ‘mistake’
			Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA

cover-up to protect the government

The American Society of Civil Engineers – an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 – has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes.
			US Treasury chief says Social Security ‘unsustainable’
			‘Miss Bimbo’ Website Horrifies Parents With Plastic Surgery Tips for 9-Year-Olds
			Illogical Conclusions from Supposed Experts on Arctic Ice
			Israel sees dwindling chance of US strike on Iran, despite nuclear ’smoking gun’
			Supreme Court says US states can ignore ICJ rulings

The New Orwellian Term for God Damned Liar: ‘Mis-spoke’

By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said she “misspoke” last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a “misstatement” and a “minor blip.”

The Obama campaign suggested the statement was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

According to an Associated Press story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on the trip. And one of her companions, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

When asked Monday about the New York senator’s remarks about the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton’s written account of it in her book, “Living History,” in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

“Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find,” Clinton wrote.

“That is what she wrote in her book,” Wolfson said. “That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke.”

Asked about the issue during a meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News‘ editorial board on Monday, Clinton said she “misspoke.”

“I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,” she said.

A spokesman for rival Barack Obama’s campaign questioned whether Clinton misspoke, saying her comments came in what appeared to be prepared remarks for the Iraq speech. His campaign’s statement included a link to the speech on Clinton’s campaign Web site with her account of running to the cars. Clinton’s campaign said what is on the Web site is not the prepared text, but a transcript of her remarks, including comments before the speech in which she talked about the trip to Bosnia.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton’s Bosnia story “joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking.”

The Obama campaign statement also links to a CBS News video of the Bosnia trip posted on YouTube, which shows Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, walking across the tarmac from a large cargo plane, smiling and waving, and stopping to shake hands with Bosnia’s acting president and greet an 8-year-old girl.

“This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push ’cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate,” Wolfson said Monday.

Clinton’s written account contradicts her comments last Monday about the welcoming ceremony.

Just after the speech, Clinton reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it during a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base.

“Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests,” Clinton said. “And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. … There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened.”

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who accompanied Clinton to Bosnia, said he was not surprised “that there could be confusion” when someone who has taken a number of trips tries to recall details of a particular trip 12 years earlier.

“The important thing is that she was there. Our soldiers saw she was there and heard her and knew that our country cared about them and what they were doing,” West told the AP during a telephone interview.

Bush is said to be advising top Democrats for the upcoming 2008 elections

National Home > Politics

Article Examiner 
There is a more recent article version.

174 days ago		Book excerpt: Faith provides comfort on tough policy decisions, says Bush
175 days ago		Pork projects, scandals doomed GOP’s majority in Congress, say White House officials
176 days ago		White House misjudged how presidential campaign would radicalize Dems against Iraq war
177 days ago		» Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats, says new book «
178 days ago		President predicts GOP will keep control of White House after ‘tough race’ in 2008

Bush quietly advising Hillary Clinton, top Democrats, says new book

Printer Friendly | Email | Add to My News | Post comments     Font Size: a a A A | Rank: # 243 of 9,809

Filed under: Washington, D.C. , Bill Sammon , The Evangelical President – Excerpts and Reactions

(Examiner file photo)
President Bush is said to be advising top Democrats for the upcoming 2008 elections, says Bill Sammon, the Chief White House Correspondent for The Examiner.

Sep 24, 2007 7:33 PM (177 days ago) by Bill Sammon, The Examiner

Washington, D.C. (Map, News) – President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.

In an interview for the new book “The Evangelical President,” White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has “been urging candidates: ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.’ ”

Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”

“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

GA_googleFillSlot(“Article-300×250-A”);

To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.

“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

To that end, Bush is institutionalizing controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president.

“Look, I’d like to make as many hard decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my successor is,” Bush said. “And then that person is going to have to come and look at the same data I’ve been looking at, and come to their own conclusion.”

As an example, Bush cited his detainee program, which allows him to keep enemy combatants imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay while they await adjudication. Bush is unmoved by endless criticism of the program because he says his successor will need it.

“I specifically talked about it so that a candidate and/or president wouldn’t have to deal with the issue,” he said. “The next person has got the opportunity to analyze the utility of the program and make his or her decision about whether or not it is necessary to protect the homeland. I suspect they’ll find that it is necessary. But my only point to you is that it was important for me to lay it out there, so that the politics wouldn’t enter into whether or not the program ought to survive beyond my period.”

The Examiner asked Bush why Democratic candidates such as Clinton and Barack Obama, who routinely lambaste his handling of Iraq, should take his advice.

“First of all, I expect them to criticize me. That’s one way you get elected in the Democratic primary, is to criticize the president,” Bush replied. “I don’t expect them to necessarily take advice from me. I would expect their insiders to at least get a perspective about how we see things.”

He added: “We have an obligation to make sure that whoever is interested, they get our point of view, because you want somebody running for president to at least understand all perspectives, apart from the politics.”

Besides, Bush suggested that Clinton and Obama just might benefit from his advice.

“If I were a candidate running for president in a complex world that we’re in, I would be asking my national security team to touch base with the White House just to at least listen about plans, thoughts,” he said.

So far, Bush has been encouraged by the fact that Democratic candidates are preserving enough wiggle room in their anti-war rhetoric to enable them to keep at least some troops in Iraq.

“If you listen carefully, there are Democrats that say, ‘Well, there needs to be some kind of presence,’” Bush said.

A senior White House official said the administration did not put much stock in pledges by Democratic presidential candidates to swiftly end the Iraq war if elected.

“Well, first of all, if you’re a presidential candidate,” the official said, “you’re able to [finesse] the public posturing that you may be required to do, or that you fall into doing.

“The other thing is, they are being advised by smart people,” the official said. “We’ve got colleagues here on the staff who have good communications with some of the thinkers on that side.

“And there is a recognition by most of them that there has to be a long-term presence by the United States if we hope to avoid America being brought back into the region in a very precarious way, at a point where all-out resources are required.”

One topic discussed by the White House and Democratic presidential campaigns is whether such a long-term presence should be inside Iraq, as Clinton prefers, or just outside, as Democratic candidate John Edwards has suggested.

Asked by The Examiner whether the Democrats were reluctant to have private contacts with the administration, the White House official replied: “No, I think they sort of welcome conversation.”

Besides, he said, Democrats understand the negative consequences of moving too quickly to reverse Bush’s Iraq policy. The official noted that in the wake of Vietnam, anti-war Democrats “suffered for 20-some-odd years because they were identified as the party, when it came to national security, of being weak.”

“If I were a Democrat, I would not want to be in a place where I was forcing us to withdraw in ’08,” he said. “It’s an election year and any bad consequences would immediately be on their head.

“One of two things will happen if a Democrat gets elected president,” he said. “They will either have to withdraw U.S. troops in order to remain true to the rhetoric — in which case, any consequences in the aftermath fall on their heads. Or they have to break their word, in which case they encourage fratricide on the left of their party. Now that’s a thorny issue to work through.”

Vice President Dick Cheney was philosophical about the possibility of a Democratic president fundamentally reversing the policies that he and Bush have worked so hard to implement in Iraq.

“It’s the nature of the business, in a sense,” he shrugged during an interview in his West Wing office. “I mean, you get two terms. We were fortunate to get two terms. And I think we’ll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be.”

bsammon@dcexaminer.com

Greenspan: Economy worst since WWII

Highly decorated former New York City detective Bo Dietl admits that his first instinct on 9/11 was that the twin towers were downed with explosives, as he conceded that he shared many questions about the official story with 9/11 truth activists he had formerly debunked on national television.
			Greenspan: Economy worst since WWII
			Bernanke Saves Bear Stearns While Americans Live In Tents
			The Fed’s Desperation Move
			Cheney’s Surprise Trip to Iraq All About the Oil Fields
			Dollar dives to near 13-year low vs. yen

How Enron worked a President

Subject: How Enron worked a President

 

     

How Enron Worked the President

Are You Ready?

How Enron Worked the President!

(This is an interesting bit of information that you don’t hear much about.)

1. Enron’s chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.

2. Enron gave $420,000 to the president’s party over three years.

3. It donated $100,000 to the president’s inauguration festivities.

4. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.

5. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

6. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

Scandalous!!

(Look below ….. )

BUT…the president under whom all this happened WASN’T George W. Bush.

SURPRISE!

It was President Bill Clinton!

No surprise! And do you think Hillary didn’t know?

Pass this on so the whole Country will know. The Media Won’t!

ARE WE REALLY READY FOR MRS. CLINTON?

Ron Paul warns of Worldwide Economic Collapse

A landmark court case that would destroy the so-called “consensus” behind man-made global warming could be in the works after Weather Channel founder John Coleman expressed his intention to sue Al Gore for fraud. Dollar Rebounds From Record Versus Euro on Intervention Concern Ron Paul warns of Worldwide Economic Collapse Ron Paul: Budget Crimes Iran: US shield aimed at Russia Bill Clinton Tells ‘Paranoid Hecklers’ that Bilderberg Didn’t Influence NAFTA Deal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Endgame 1.5: Watch It Online Now! Dollar’s Clout Sinks Worldwide Dollar under pressure as US outlook darkens Yuan Advances to Highest Since End of Dollar Peg; Bonds Gain Bank of Israel steps in to stop dollar slump Despite the Federal Reserve’s efforts Wall Street fears a big US bank is in trouble Fears mount over US economy Iraqi Mother Vows Revenge on US: How She Lost Her Husband and Her Sons US wants to give nuclear technology to third world Schoolboy found hanged in his bedroom after Ritalin prescription was increased Long Speech, Short Speech Corporate Media Snowjobs Dollar Crisis Pentagon Attempts To Memory Hole New Report That Dismisses Al Qaeda-Saddam link VIDEO: Jim Rogers Calls For Abolishing The Federal Reseve Iraq, Afghanistan veterans to reveal war atrocities and ’some pretty fucked-up shit’ Senate Bill Proposes to Screen and Medicate Mothers Teachers call for ban on army recruitment leaflets in schools because they are ‘pro-war propaganda’

The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Click here to subscribe! High Tide: The Ron Paul Revolution Continues U.S. Troops Kill Iraqi Girl On Roadside Shops on fire amid Tibet protests Mom Cleared of Absurd Child Abuses Charges Hundreds seeking housing money overwhelm Boca Authority Spitzer taken down by Mossad? USA to deploy another radar system in Turkey in addition to Poland and Czech Republic Right now, feds might be looking into your finances Taxman gets power to turn up unannounced to homes and demand to see records Powerful Banks Behind Push To Introduce Carbon Trading Markets Russian strategic bombers continue patrol flights – Air Force Chris Rock On Drugs (WARNING – PROFANITY) Israel threatens Lebanon with war Feb. foreclosures up 60 percent over year before Time For The ECB To Start Buying Dollars Man arrested over Heathrow alert NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe