Thursday, July 02, 2009

H. L. Mencken Covers the 'Monkey Trial'

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

American education has deteriorated inversely with the rise of right wing politics! An example is 'Texas' and every child that Bush left behind. Texas beats out Mississippi for DEAD LAST in high school graduations at the same time that it LEADS the nation in executions due to the state's extremely high crime rate! This, I believe, is due to the neglect given a fact-based, a science-based liberal education. This is, I am convinced, the result of the influence of fanatics and 'religionists' upon education.

"Gulag” was the name for the penal labor camps that existed in the Soviet Union; the term was popularized by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 book, The Gulag Archipelago.

Some political commentators have compared the Texas prison system (and the facilities of the Texas Youth Commission) to the Soviet gulag system, calling it a “Texas Gulag” and calling Texas a “Gulag State.” The term “Texas Gulag” became popular about 2000, when Texas Governor George W. Bush was running for president of the United States. A February 2008 report by the Pew Center on the large number of prison inmates in the United States caused some political commentators to again use the “Texas Gulag” nickname (or epithet).

I see a pattern. Declining education is a recipe for guaranteed unemployment, poverty, and crime. It also represents a guaranteed, risk free income to the evil corporations who run the state's corporate gulag often with no-bid contracts! As long as the quality of public education declines, two groups will benefit: the corporate owned prisons and expensive private schools affordable only to the very, very rich and/or privileged. The GOP runs states like Bush ran the war of aggression against Iraq. State prisons are just another money making opportunity, as Iraq was for the likes of Dick Cheney's Halliburton and professional thugs like Blackwater.

My assertions are backed up by a recent Pew study of trends that had been embraced by Bush's Texas, primarily the rapid outsourcing of prison construction and management throughout the US. As in Texas, crime rates over the period under study increased. Guilt or innocence is of no concern to corporate robber barons. It is an Orwellian nightmare of waste, graft, and fascism in which no one is held to account.

As the GOP "Enronized" the great state of Texas, an assembly line criminal justice system, in cahoots with a medieval, privatized prison system, proved to be an oxymoron. It was "criminal" but hardly "justice". Despite the GOPs "worst" efforts, crime in Texas, always a topic of much discussion and study, has gotten worse. Texas is big on capital punishment, but even the industrialized application of the death penalty cannot kill off the criminals as fast as they procreate and multiply. The GOP may be seeking a "final solution".

Social Darwinism, creationism and 'intelligent design' are the result of this neglect of truth for ideology; they follow inexorably from the disdain shown 'education' by the elitists of the Republican party and the fanatics of that party's religious wing! Social Darwinism, for example, does not follow from "Darwinism" and, worse, it attributes to Darwin positions he never took. Interestingly, the term "survival of the fittest" has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter seems to attribute that phrase to rail road men:
Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.

—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.
Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who clearly inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons and, bluntly, few of them evince the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare:
[Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.

Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire Capitalism
An equally fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "douche" leaving us to wonder just who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who gets to make those life and death decisions? It is difficult not to conclude that New Orleans after Katrina is but the disastrous consequence of this kind of "blame the victim" thinking.

It is not surprising, then, that Spencer's influence continues, not in the field of biology, but in economics, specifically those theories most often associated with the right wing: the American apologists, William Graham Sumner and Simon Nelson Patten.

No doubt, Spencer’s ideas received a major boost after Darwin's theories were published, but unfortunately the issues have been muddled ever since. Simply, the application of "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism".

More recently, the work of John Nash, recently the subject of the motion picture, A Beautiful Mind, argued persuasively that not only games but societies and economies benefit more from cooperation and community than from competition. Spencer, and Social Darwinists after him, took another view. And that is unfortunate.

Spencer believed that because society was evolving, government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life ignoring that government is but a function of society and responsible to it. Influenced by Spencer, many describe American capitalism in terms of the “rational man” making rational decisions in a free market. In practice, however, economic decisions may or may not be rational and the free market exists only hypothetically. Moreover, "rational self-interest" is said to work collectively behind Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

That's all good theory and conservatives have worked mightily to force reality into the mold. That’s bad science; models must describe reality —not the other way round. Nash proved that cooperation is often more successful than competition, leading to the inevitable conclusion that societies which rationalize discrimination, income disparity, and social injustice on such a fallacious basis as Social Darwinism, are apt not be so successful themselves.

In A Beautiful Mind, Nash, portrayed by Russell Crowe, is in a favorite watering hole with two colleagues, later termed "negotiants" in his theories. The three young males were distracted by three unattended and comely females and among the three, a blonde, was seen to be the most desirable. Nash immediately saw a mathematical certainty of failure should all three males "hit on" the most attractive female. Equally certain, mathematically, was rejection by the remaining unattended females who would then be insulted, having become "second and third choices." Some fifty years later, Nash still polishes and refines the mathematics behind the only chance that three "geeks" might have with three comely young women--cooperation rather than competition:
...it is more desirable to be accepted than to accept (!), so with there being reduced pressure to avoid the penalty of the {0,0,0} payoff when there is failure at the first step then the players naturally adapt at equilibrium by becoming "less accepting" and "more demanding." (The demand parameters...rise as the acceptance rate quantities decrease, but this turns out to be at a logarithmic rate).

...the players can be viewed as in a sort of "continuous auction" process where...the players are able to "bid"...and get into the process of cooperation. And this continuous version of the voting process seems probably to be good for generalization to any number of players.

--John Nash from a published email
The word "theory" is either misunderstood by the right wing or the term is perverted for the propaganda value. There is nothing wrong with "theory" per se, though the word is consistently used by the right wing in a pejorative sense except, significantly, when it is applied to Spencer and, more recently, Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer. Accurately, the negative connotations implied are simply not to be found among those who use the word "theory" academically or in science. This linguistic abuse smacks of propaganda by a mentality for whom 'truth' is nothing more than whatever it is they can 'con' you into espousing.

It must be noted that Einstein was, likewise, a "theorist"; so, too, was Newton. Einstein has been confirmed no more times than Darwin; Newton is close enough for mundane applications or "government work". Significantly, neither "theory" has been challenged in court —though both theories may very well be replaced one day by a "theory of everything". One suspects, therefore, that there is a political agenda behind the campaign of attacks on Darwinism even as the same constituency supports Intelligent Design.

Theories are often never of a final form —nor should they be! Unlike ideology, real science is always self-correcting as new facts emerge from research. Darwin's theories were not only confirmed by Mendel, they accommodated Mendel which, in turn, tended to confirm Darwin. The science of genetics and the discovery of "mutations" confirm Darwin beyond any reasonable doubt.

Future discoveries will modify our view of Darwin, but that does not discount it. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is, in no way, discounted. Moreover, no one has ever sued because Einstein is at odds with a particular dogma. It is certain, however, that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design" —a logical fallacy on its face and quite beyond any confirmation of any kind! Theories explain "facts" but facts often confirm good theories as "fact”, just as facts have tended to confirm both Darwin and Einstein.

"Facts" tend to be narrowly phrased; theories, however, embrace a wide but finite set of related facts. Darwin and the sciences that followed him are entirely consistent with new discoveries in the field of genetics. [See: Science and Human Values, Jacob Bronowski]

Intelligent design, however, is of a religious nature and people have a right to believe it. But, it explains nothing and raises other issues which are obviously beyond scientific explanation. For example: who designed the designer? An unanswerable question which assumes a designer, Intelligent Design is a circulus en probando fallacy. People are free to believe fallacies, but they must not be free to impose them upon other people —especially at tax payer expense!

A fact, for example, is the equation describing the acceleration of falling objects; examples of theory are both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian view of "gravitation" —seen differently by both. The entire science of genetics confirms Darwin who, interestingly, did not have the benefit of Mendel's research when he wrote Origin of the Species and the The Descent of Man. It was Mendel's research that described the mechanism by which Darwin’s “traits” are passed on to succeeding generations. Accurate predictions are, in themselves, evidence in support of theories. [See: Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley]

Evolution is often considered to be so true as to be trivial: what survives survives. Critics of Darwin will often cite the tautology though it does not support them; it supports Darwin. Species which survive pass on their genes as well as random mutations. This is quite beyond debate. Every farmer who has bred for specific characteristics knows the truth of it. And every cowboy will tell you that if you kill a slow roach, you improve the breed. Evolution! Adaptation! Natural Selection! Some of the more subtle critics of "Darwin" say that "survival of the fittest" is a circular argument: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. There are problems with that. Though it is attributed to Darwin himself, the term 'fittest' is a value judgment.

The term 'natural selection', rather, describes the process while avoiding the subjective value judgment that, I am told, Darwin himself might have missed. I am willing to cut Darwin some slack on this point. His research was exhaustive and his conclusions are valid. His work, after all, did precede the work of the logical positivists, primarily A. J. Ayer, who would have insisted upon a revision of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' consistent with a 'verifibility criterion of meaning' that is found in his Language, Truth and Logic. Certainly, Darwin's 'theory' meets Ayer's test of meaning itself. It is verified daily in observations ranging from 'fruit flies' to snow rabbits.

The proponents of "intelligent design" have erected several huge straw men. Evolution, for example, has nothing to do with "coming down from the trees". [See: Richard Leakey's "The Origin of Humankind" ; also: Answers to Creationist Nonsense!]

It could be said, however, that no one has yet produced a new specie by selection. But they have indeed done just that! Consider wheat! Wheat does not grow in the wild. Related to ancient grasses, wheat is clearly the result of an ancient application of "artificial selection." Had wheat evolved naturally, it would be found growing wild like prairie grass. But it isn't and it didn't.

Social Darwinism is one of many ideas that have harmed mankind by providing a rationalization for the perpetual and quite deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society and, insidiously, it does so with a baseless theory that is not only fallaciously associated with Darwin, it is a 'theory' for which there is no evidence.

In simpler terms, the philosophical basis for the American right wing is this:
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."

—Scrooge
Following is H.L. Mencken's report of the infamous "Scope's 'Monkey Trial'" in Dayton, Tennessee in which were pitted the infamous 'Attorney for the Damned', Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, whose advocacy of the 'free coinage of silver' is all but forgotten, overshadowed by his disastrous advocacy of 'religious myth' bordering on bigotry.
The Scopes Trial: A Reporter's Account, July 9

On the eve of the great contest Dayton is full of sickening surges and tremors of doubt. Five or six weeks ago, when the infidel Scopes was first laid by the heels, there was no uncertainty in all this smiling valley. The town boomers leaped to the assault as one man. Here was an unexampled, almost a miraculous chance to get Dayton upon the front pages, to make it talked about, to put it upon the map. But how now?

Today, with the curtain barely rung up and the worst buffooneries to come, it is obvious to even town boomers that getting upon the map, like patriotism, is not enough. The getting there must be managed discreetly, adroitly, with careful regard to psychological niceties. The boomers of Dayton, alas, had no skill at such things, and the experts they called in were all quacks. The result now turns the communal liver to water. Two months ago the town was obscure and happy. Today it is a universal joke.

I have been attending the permanent town meeting that goes on in Robinson's drug store, trying to find out what the town optimists have saved from the wreck. All I can find is a sort of mystical confidence that God will somehow come to the rescue to reward His old and faithful partisans as they deserve--that good will flow eventually out of what now seems to be heavily evil. More specifically, it is believed that settlers will be attracted to the town as to some refuge from the atheism of the great urban Sodoms and Gomorrah.

But will these refugees bring any money with them? Will they buy lots and build houses? Will they light the fires of the cold and silent blast furnace down the railroad tracks? On these points, I regret to report, optimism has to call in theology to aid it. Prayer can accomplish a lot.

It can cure diabetes, find lost pocketbooks and retain husbands from beating their wives. But is prayer made any more officious by giving a circus first? Coming to this thought, Dayton begins to sweat.

The town, I confess, greatly surprised me. I expected to find a squalid Southern village, with darkies snoozing on the horse blocks, pigs rooting under the houses and the inhabitants full of hookworm and malaria. What I found was a country town of charm and even beauty....

July 10 the first day

The town boomers have banqueted Darrow as well as Bryan, but there is no mistaking which of the two has the crowd, which means the venire of tried and true men. Bryan has been oozing around the country since his first day here, addressing this organization and that, presenting the indubitable Word of God in his caressing, ingratiating way, and so making unanimity doubly unanimous. From the defense yesterday came hints that he was making hay before the sun had legally begun to shine--even that it was a sort of contempt of court. But no Daytonian believes anything of the sort. What Bryan says doesn't seem to these congenial Baptists and Methodists to be argument; it seems to be a mere graceful statement to the obvious....

July 11

The selection of a jury to try Scopes, which went on all yesterday afternoon in the atmosphere of a blast furnace, showed to what extreme lengths the salvation of the local primates has been pushed. It was obvious after a few rounds that the jury would be unanimously hot for Genesis. The most that Mr. Darrow could hope for was to sneak in a few bold enough to declare publicly that they would have to hear the evidence against Scopes before condemning him. The slightest sign of anything further brought forth a peremptory challenge from the State. Once a man was challenged without examination for simply admitting that he did not belong formally to any church. Another time a panel man who confessed that he was prejudiced
against evolution got a hearty round of applause from the crowd....

In brief this is a strictly Christian community, and such is its notion of fairness, justice and due process of law. Try to picture a town made up wholly of Dr. Crabbes and Dr. Kellys, and you will have a reasonably accurate image of it. Its people are simply unable to imagine a man who rejects the literal authority of the Bible. The most they can conjure up, straining until they are red in the face, is a man who is in error about the meaning of this or that text. Thus one accused of heresy among them is like one accused of boiling his grandmother to make soap in Maryland...

July 13 the second day

It would be hard to imagine a more moral town than Dayton. If it has any bootleggers, no visitor has heard of them. Ten minutes after I arrived a leading citizen offered me a drink made up half of white mule and half of coca cola, but he seems to have been simply indulging himself in a naughty gesture. No fancy woman has been seen in the town since the end of the McKinley administration. There is no gambling. There is no place to dance. The relatively wicked, when they would indulge themselves, go to Robinson's drug store and debate theology....

July 14 the third day

The net effect of Clarence Darrow's great speech yesterday seems to be preciously the same as if he had bawled it up a rainspout in the interior of Afghanistan. That is, locally, upon the process against the infidel Scopes, upon the so-called minds of these fundamentalists of upland Tennessee. You have but a dim notice of it who have only read it. It was not designed for reading, but for hearing. The clangtint of it was as important as the logic. It rose like a wind and ended like a flourish of bugles. The very judge on the bench, toward the end of it, began to look uneasy. But the morons in the audience, when it was over, simply hissed it.

During the whole time of its delivery the old mountebank, Bryan, sat tight-lipped and unmoved. There is, of course, no reason why it should have shaken him. He has these hillbillies locked up in his pen and he knows it. His brand is on them. He is at home among them. Since his earliest days, indeed, his chief strength has been among the folk of remote hills and forlorn and lonely farms. Now with his political aspirations all gone to pot, he turns to them for religious consolations. They understand his peculiar imbecilities. His nonsense is their ideal of sense. When he deluges them with his theologic bilge they rejoice like pilgrims disporting in the river Jordan....

July 15 the fourth day

A preacher of any sect that admit the literal authenticity of Genesis is free to gather a crowd at any time and talk all he wants. More, he may engage in a disputation with any expert. I have heard at least a hundred such discussions, and some of them have been very acrimonious. But the instant a speaker utters a word against divine revelation he begin to disturb the peace and is liable to immediate arrest and confinement in the calaboose beside the railroad tracks...

July 16 the fifth day

In view of the fact that everyone here looks for the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty, it might be expected that the prosecution would show a considerable amiability and allow the defense a rather free play. Instead, it is contesting every point very vigorously and taking every advantage of its greatly superior familiarity with local procedure. There is, in fact, a considerable heat in the trial. Bryan and the local lawyers for the State sit glaring at the defense all day and even the Attorney-General, A. T. Stewart, who is supposed to have secret doubts about fundamentalism, has shown such pugnacity that it has already brought him to forced apologies.

The high point of yesterday's proceedings was reached with the appearance of Dr. Maynard M. Metcalf of the John Hopkins. The doctor is a somewhat chubby man of bland mien, and during the first part of his testimony, with the jury present, the prosecution apparently viewed his with great equanimity. But the instant he was asked a question bearing directly upon the case at bar there was a flurry in the Bryan pen and Stewart was on his feet with protests. Another question followed, with more and hotter protests. The judge then excluded the jury and the show began.

What ensued was, on the surface, a harmless enough dialogue between Dr. Metcalf and Darrow, but underneath there was tense drama. At the first question Bryan came out from behind the State's table and planted himself directly in front of Dr. Metcalf, and not ten feet away. The two McKenzies followed, with young Sue Hicks at their heels.

Then began one of the clearest, most succinct and withal most eloquent presentations of the case for the evolutionists that I have ever heard. The doctor was never at a loss for a word, and his ideas flowed freely and smoothly. Darrow steered him magnificently. A word or two and he was howling down the wind. Another and he hauled up to discharge a broadside. There was no cocksureness in him. Instead he was rather cautious and deprecatory and sometimes he halted and confessed his ignorance. But what he got over before he finished was a superb counterblast to the fundamentalist buncombe.

The jury, at least, in theory heard nothing of it, but it went whooping into the radio and it went banging into the face of Bryan....

This old buzzard, having failed to raise the mob against its rulers, now prepares to raise it against its teachers. He can never be the peasants' President, but there is still a chance to be the peasants' Pope. He leads a new crusade, his bald head glistening, his face streaming with sweat, his chest heaving beneath his rumpled alpaca coat. One somehow pities him, despite his so palpable imbecilities. It is a tragedy, indeed, to begin life as a hero and to end it as a buffoon. But let no one, laughing at him, underestimate the magic that lies in his black, malignant eye, his frayed but still eloquent voice. He can shake and inflame these poor ignoramuses as no other man among us can shake and inflame them, and he is desperately eager to order the charge.

In Tennessee he is drilling his army. The big battles, he believes, will be fought elsewhere.

July 17 the sixth day

Malone was in good voice. It was a great day for Ireland. And for the defense. For Malone not only out-yelled Bryan, he also plainly out-generaled and out-argued him. His speech, indeed, was one of the best presentations of the case against the fundamentalist rubbish that I have ever heard.

It was simple in structure, it was clear in reasoning, and at its high points it was overwhelmingly eloquent. It was not long, but it covered the whole ground and it let off many a gaudy skyrocket, and so it conquered even the fundamentalist. At its end they gave it a tremendous cheer--a cheer at least four times as hearty as that given to Bryan. For these rustics delight in speechifying, and know when it is good. The devil's logic cannot fetch them, but they are not above taking a voluptuous pleasure in his lascivious phrases.

July 18

All that remains of the great cause of the State of Tennessee against the infidel Scopes is the formal business of bumping off the defendant. There may be some legal jousting on Monday and some gaudy oratory on Tuesday, but the main battle is over, with Genesis completely triumphant. Judge Raulston finished the benign business yesterday morning by leaping with soft judicial hosannas into the arms of the prosecution. The sole commentary of the sardonic Darrow consisted of bringing down a metaphorical custard pie upon the occiput of the learned jurist.

"I hope," said the latter nervously, "that counsel intends no reflection upon this court."

Darrow hunched his shoulders and looked out of the window dreamily.

"Your honor," he said, "is, of course, entitled to hope."...

The Scopes trial, from the start, has been carried on in a manner exactly fitted to the anti- evolution law and the simian imbecility under it. TThere hasn't been the slightest pretense to decorum. The rustic judge, a candidate for re-election, has postured the yokels like a clown in a ten-cent side show, and almost every word he has uttered has been an undisguised appeal to their prejudices and superstitions. The chief prosecuting attorney, beginning like a competent lawyer and a man of self-respect, ended like a convert at a Billy Sunday revival. It fell to him, finally, to make a clear and astounding statement of theory of justice prevailing under fundamentalism. What he said, in brief, was that a man accused of infidelity had no rights whatever under Tennessee law...

Darrow has lost this case. It was lost long before he came to Dayton. But it seems to me that he has nevertheless performed a great public service by fighting it to a finish and in a perfectly serious way. Let no one mistake it for comedy, farcical though it may be in all its details. It serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience.

Tennessee, challenging him too timorously and too late, now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill of Rights made a mock of by its sworn officers of the law. There are other States that had better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates.


Edward R. Murrow: Darrow, Darwin and Dayton


Trailer: A Beautiful Mind

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Add to Technorati Favorites

Download DivX

Spread the word

AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

American Airlines itself is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911. These flights are critical to the the government's crumbling cover up! Without those flights, Bush and his murderous co-conspirators will have to revise the big lie. They will have to concoct yet another cover story from the ground up! A cover up is on the brink of collapse when those guilty of capital crimes and high treason either turn on one another or are forced to revise the lie!If neither flight was in the air as American Airlines itself has so stated, then numerous 'official versions' of the 'official conspiracy theory' are all a pack of malicious lies. That includes almost every statement made by Bush. It is, in my opinion, probable cause to indict Bush and his co-conspirators for the crimes of mass murder and high treason.

WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. The original entry was as follows:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry is as follows and includes the bolded text below:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

--Wikipedia

To make the point: the source for these change is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The 'story' is not Wiki. The story is not about Wiki. The story is about how AA 'corrected' a wiki entry. The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself.
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)--911 Blogger, UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database [The records were obtained by Adrian Monaghan]
Anyone trying to prove that Flights 77 and 11 were not flying on 911 would have to verify that proposition through authoritative sources that could confirm it. The question is raised: how do we know who made the changes to Wiki? Everyone logged on to the internet does so from an IP address. In this case, the IP is that of American Airlines. It's traceable.

My own WHOIS lookup as well as a Google search of the IP address proves conclusively that it was --indeed --American Airlines itself that made the change. It is American Airlines --by way of Wiki --that has said that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 were in the air that day.

Therefore, the Bush theory of 911 is a deliberate lie. My look up returned the following:

WHOIS - 144.9.8.21

Location: United States [City: Ft. Worth, Texas]

OrgName: American Airlines Incorporated
OrgID: AMERIC-112
Address: P.O.Box 619616
Address: MD 5308
City: DFW Airport
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75261
Country: US

NetRange: 144.9.0.0 - 144.9.255.255
CIDR: 144.9.0.0/16
NetName: AANET
NetHandle: NET-144-9-0-0-1
Parent: NET-144-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-P1.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P2.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P3.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P4.SABRE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1990-10-31
Updated: 2002-06-27

RTechHandle: OG60-ARIN
RTechName: Gelbrich, Orf
RTechPhone: +1-817-931-3145
RTechEmail: ************@aa.com

OrgTechHandle: ZW72-ARIN
OrgTechName: WARIS, ZISHAN
OrgTechPhone: +1-817-967-1242
OrgTechEmail: ************@aa.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-29 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Elsewhere, confirmation that Flight 93 could not have crashed in PA.
Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

These are not the first major holes to be discovered. The many lies (many referenced in previous EC articles; see links below) are probable cause to begin a Federal Grand Jury investigation of George W. Bush's role in 911. Bush should be compelled by subpoena and Federal Marshals to testify under oath before an independent Federal Grand Jury. The AA revelations demand it!

Bush lies have the effect of covering up the truth, protecting the guilty and obstructing justice. The lies are an insult to the families of 911 victims, victims who are dishonored by the continuing cover-up! Bush's lies aggravate the crimes of mass murder, terrorism and high treason for which the penalty must surely be death. 911 did not happen as we have been told.

Bushco's 'official conspiracies theory' of 911 is full of holes. Flights 11 and 77 are essential ingredients in the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. That AA claims that neither 11 nor 77 were in the air that day sinks Bush's theory. More importantly, however, it should get him an 'invitation' to appear before a Federal Grand Jury to answers charges that he betrayed his nation and waged war upon the people. Clearly --the official theory is a lie, an intentional cover-up. Cover-ups imply guilt! Otherwise --what is there to cover up? The official 'lie' goes like this:
At 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its transponder signal, and veered northward and departed dramatically from the westward heading of its planned route. The controllers concluded that the plane had probably been hijacked. 4 5 At 8:24, the following transmission was reportedly received from Flight 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay .. we are returning to the airport...Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please we are going back to the airport .. don't try to make any stupid moves. 6 Neither of the pilots pressed the distress call button. At 8:28 controllers reportedly watched the plane make a 100-degree turn toward the south. 7 Presumably, Flight 11 continued south along the Hudson River until it reached the World Trade Center, though documentation of this is sparse given the lack of public information.According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble. 8 --Flight 11, The First Jet Commandeered on September 11th, 911 Research
Elsewhere, 911 Research stats: "there is no evidence for the assertions by some people... that the North Tower was hit by something other than Flight 11". But, if 11 were not in the air as claimed by AA itself, it could not have struck the towers.

The house of cards collapses.

Assertions that Flight 11 struck the North Tower that are --therefore -- utterly baseless, if not a deliberate and criminal lie!

If neither Flight 11 or 77 was in the air that day, then nothing in the 'official statements' with regard to the Twin Towers or the Pentagon is true.

If flights 11 or 77 did not fly on 911, officialdom must come up with another explanation to explain the towers' falls.

If flights 11 or 77 did not crash into either the tower or the Pentagon, then the official theory must be discarded. While it is not good news for Bush, it is consistent with the fact that no wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon.Moreover, photos of an engine rotor appear to depict an engine used in the Global Hawk, a payload carrying missile that was, according to Britain's International Television News, flown from the US to Australia completely by remote control. "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

ITN quoted Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right t from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

The Global Hawk is a much better candidate for what Rumsfeld called '...the missile that struck this building' than a 757. Here's what you need to know about the Pentagon.
  • Only minutes after the strike, [see pic above] there is no sign of an airliner at all!!
  • No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered.
  • Only ONE engine rotor (seen in photos) was recovered! This rotor is about one third the diameter of a 757 rotor.
  • A 757 has two rotors, each of which are nearly three times the size of the SINGLE rotor located at the Pentagon
  • Engine rotors are made of a Steel/Titanium alloy to withstand high temps inside jet engines.
  • Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon
The time has come to consign Bush's official conspiracy theory to the dust bin of history. The theory is not even a good cover story, surviving for as long as it did only because millions of good Americans wanted to believe it. Millions of otherwise good Americans did not wish to believe the very, very worst about an administration that had claimed to represent and defend our interests. Millions of Americans chose to believe that the government was still responsible to us, that the government was still the defender of Democracy as we are always taught in school.

Below: a US Global Hawk painted to look like an AA airliner. There is really no way to prove that this is NOT the very Global Hawk that would later leave behind its engine rotor on the Pentagon lawn.
Recognizing lies for what they are is a part of the process of growing up! America, it is time to grow up! It is time to confront this heinous pack of lies! It is time to insist that the Obama administration begin a REAL investigation. It is time to insist that a Federal Grand Jury investigate every count of high treason, mass murder and domestic terrorism that was perpetrated upon the people of the US by the Bush administration, collaborators in the Pentagon, K-Street, the Congress and the leadership of the Republican party, Marvin Bush's 'Securacom', Larry Silverstein, General Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and, of course, George W. Bush who was, at the time, the 'Commander-in-Chief' and ultimately responsible for the orders given the US military to 'stand down'.
By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City. It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with hijacked aircraft?

There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"

It would also appear that CNN reported the alleged 'crash' into the Pentagon BEFORE the alleged event could possibly have occurred. The following information may be verified by videos now widely available on the internet, videos of the original news coverage.

Check out the digital clock lower right corner CNN News banner on 911.



The Global Hawk

  • The video asks: "Was 911 a Conspiracy?" That is NOT the question. Even Bushco claims that it was a conspiracy, a conspiracy of 19 Arab Hijackers who could not possibly have pulled it off. It is, frankly, a stupid scenario! Without the shock and awe campaign, no one would have believed it. The questions, rather, are which conspiracy and who were the conspirators? It was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes who said that when you have eliminated the impossible what remains however improbable MUST be the truth!

    ADDENDUM:

    There has been a spate of fallacious comments of the form: "...uh...what happened the passengers, dude?". A few points:
    1. the 'question' is, in fact, an implied statement and ASSUMES there were flights! In a court, it would be said that the statement 'assumes facts NOT in evidence'!
    2. absence of evidence is not evidence in support of anything, let alone Bush's idiotic, fallacious and pernicious lie! ! The 'absence of bodies' is not evidence of a crash of any sort; only the presence of bodies traceable to the alleged flights are evidence supporting Bush's unsupportable thoery.
    There is --in fact --NO forensic evidence of any sort that supports the Bushco official theory of 911. There is no evidence whatsoever that there were --at any time --any Arabs of any sort (terrorist or otherwise) on board Flight 77, a flight for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
    The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam's butt (weren't these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Saddam had done the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.foia-10003.jpgNo Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together.--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D., Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
    Worth repeating and in summary: the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks.

    Unaccounted for passengers is among the biggest holes in Bush's cover story. If Bush cannot explain the absence of airliner wreckage or the alleged 'missing passengers', then his official theory must be discounted as utter bunkum, a pack of malicious lies. Unlike wine, crap does not improve with age.

    Anyone believing that there were such flights AND that there were passengers should insist that a Federal Prosecutor put Bush on the witness stand in front of a federal grand jury and put to him the question: 'what was the fate of the passengers on flights 77 and 11?'

    It would be very interesting to learn how he might manage to escape his experience without indictments for 1) MASS MURDER; 2) PERJURY; 3) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Concerning possible charges of 'high treason' against Bush: was it not Bush who declared that we were at war? Was it not Bush and his shills who insist that the US attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was in response to an 'attack' upon the US? Have not Bush partisans insisted, from the 'gitgo' that the US attack, invasion and occupatin of Iraq was part and parcel of the US 'war on terrorism'. That being the case, Bush's complity in the events of events of 911 are most certainly acts of betrayal against a sovereign in a time of war and, therefore, high treason.

    At that point, his most effective defense will be bribery --tried and true for the rich and the guilty.

    Among a growing number of links back to this article is this excellent expose of the Flight 77 fraud:
    According to the official story, AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers. It flew west for about 45 minutes, making a curious detour to the north, west and south, before turning around and flying for another 45 minutes back to Washington. Why hijackers would allow a jet which they planned to crash into a target in Washington to fly for 45 minutes away from its target is not explained. Why did they not commandeer the plane ten minutes after takeoff when the plane was only ten minutes flying time from its intended target? The official story ignores this question, as it does all other questions.

    As reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), as AA 77 approached the Pentagon it executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory so low that it clipped the power lines across the street then (so the story goes) it smashed into an outer wall of the Pentagon.

    We were told (and, of course, expected to believe without question) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)

    In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website (by Thierry Meyssan) appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites: Hunt the Boeing! These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site taken about two hours after the impact, with the fire still burning. Can you see any remains of approximately 100 tons of metal (including engines, wings, and tail section) which makes up a Boeing 757? ...

    --Pentagon Official Story Hoax
    Following is a reader's playlist. I recommend it.

    September Clues
    Or --How to Fake a Terrorist Attack with an off-the-shelf video editing suite, a sound effects library, some audio samples and an utter lack of conscience or humanity!
    911: Inside Job!
    Why I Moderate Comments
    • American education has deteriorated inversely with the rise of right wing politics! [An example is the 'Texas' that Bush left behind. It beats out Mississippi for DEAD LAST in high school graduations at the same that that it LEADS the nation in executions due to the state's extremely high crime rate!]
    • I don't take kindly to threats and will trace IPs if I should take a threat seriously! Threats, it must be pointed out, are not protected 'free speech' and can be prosecuted.
    • I tire of bad grammar and fashionable but idiotic attempts to be cute.
    Additional resources:

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe



    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word

  • Tuesday, June 16, 2009

    American politics: the choice between 'most bad' and 'not really very good'

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    A true democracy is the exercise of free choice among real alternatives. A recent US regime change means little to those daring to demand the truth about 911. That's because real power no longer rests with the office of 'President'. Real power resides with the axis of MIC/K-Street/CIA-NSA. This cabal has good motives for continuing to cover up 911 and suppressing the truth. This cabal is among those who benefited most from 911.

    What was true of Rome is true of the US. Emperors could rarely be called 'good' --just 'less bad'. By that scale, Bush, like Caligula, is 'most bad', Obama 'much less bad' but not yet really 'good'. A spoon full of sugar does little to sweeten a thousand acres of sheep sour or smelly manure.

    Unfortunately, the system by which our leaders are selected exploits this paradigm, the result of the raw power accrued to extremely wealthy and armed interventionists, the merchants of war and plunder. I had hoped the American people deserved a better choice than 'less bad Obama' vs 'most bad Bush'. We can expect surface changes but precious few fundamental reforms.

    Nothing said by Bush about 911 is true. Everything said about 911 by the US government, most prominently the Bush administration, is but a part of the 'big lie'! The US required a real revolution but got the 'less bad' Obama. That's how the system works. The result is that the people are never adequately or honestly represented by government. It also follows that until 911 is fully investigated and those truly guilty brought to justice, no US government can claim to be legitimate.

    The Obama administration will not bring George W. Bush to justice for the crimes of high treason and mass murder called '911'. The office of President is powerless against the entrenched and combined powers of the 'intelligence community', K-Street and the Military/Industrial Complex. The government, the nation no longer belong to the people. Our 'sovereignty', guaranteed us in the US Constitution, is mocked.

    That nothing said by the Bush administration about the crimes called 911 is true is good reason to suspect Bushco of high treason and mass murder. That Bushco benefited from 911 is cause to suspect that 911 was an act of mass murder and high treason perpetrated upon the people by its own government! Bush, his administration and enablers had method, motive and opportunity to pull off the crime of the century.

    A real revolution would make holding those responsible a high priority. A real revolution would bring them to justice. Tragically, Americans have neither the stomach for nor the means by which a revolution of any sort may be waged. The lesson is this: if you wish to commit mass murder for profit you must first seize control of the government.

    1) Official Flight Data from the NTSB proves conclusively that Flight 77 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. Flight 77 was at an altitude of 273 feet within less than two seconds of 'impact'. Source: NTSB, Pilots for 911 Truth, FOIA request, official computer data from NTSB.
    The US State Department has a website to debunk conspiracy theories – not just about 9/11 but a whole range of stories circulating on the internet. But we found that simple requests, such as asking to see the plane wreckage of flight United 93 at Shanksville, or flight American Airlines 77 at the Pentagon, were refused after months of delay by the authorities. Yet if we had been able to film the wreckage from flight AA77 we would have had extremely strong evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

    --BBC
    The explanation is simple. The US government has NO evidence in support of the official story. If it had, it would release it and put this issue to rest once and for all.

    2) No airliner crashed at the alleged site in PA. Flight 93, we are led to believe, managed to bury itself upon impact, a convenient lie designed to cover the fact that no airliner wreckage was ever visible at the alleged 'crash' site. This myth can be put to rest with a simple excavation. My challenge to officialdom is this: if you believe or wish me to believe that a 757 lies buried under the soil in PA, then go dig it up and prove it to me!

    Otherwise --shut the fuck up and resign your pubic office! Show me the wreckage! Until that is done, I say that there was and is no wreckage because there was no crash. Magic tricks are easy to pull off when no one is looking and you have trillion dollar deficits with which to finance the lies and misdirection.

    3) Purdue University 'modeled' a soft-bodied, aluminum airliner slicing through steel girders at WTC's Twin Towers. Nonsense! If aluminum could slice through steel, Switzerland would make army knives out of aluminum.

    But --they don't!

    I carry a Swiss Army Knife. The blades are made of hardened steel. Purdue University has made a Faustian bargain. By putting its name on this piece of crap, by practicing 'truth by animation', Purdue relinquishes any credibility it might have claimed as an 'institution of higher learning'. These days anyone can animate anything. You can do major motion picture quality work with a free download called 'Blender'. All it takes are a few working brain cells and some patience. Walt Disney animated a mouse but that does not make Mickey real. Purdue animated a bald faced lie. It does not make it true!

    4) As David Ray Griffin and numerous experts and scholars have pointed out: steel has never melted at Kerosene fire temperatures. And, until the laws of physics are repealed, it never will. The towers of WTC collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition. There is no other explanation consistent with the science of physics. [See: David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor (PDF)]

    5) Only a controlled demolition looks like a controlled demolition The collapse of WTC7 looks just like a controlled demolition because it was one. WTC 7 collapsed though no airliner struck it. Consider the implications: if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, Silverstein and/or Bushco planted explosives prior to the attacks of 911. While all other official 'theories' merely raise more problems than they explain, the common sense conclusion is entirely consistent with Occam's Razor.

    Larry Silverstein said that WTC 7 was pulled!

    Later it was claimed by 'damage control' that Larry's use of the term 'pull it' really meant 'pull them' as in pull the firefighters out! Fire fighters are a 'them' --not an 'it'. Everyone else refers to 'firefighters' as 'firefighters', the 'unit' as a 'unit', they are not called 'it'! In fact, 'pull' --as Silverstein used the term in context --is commonly used by demolition experts to describe the professional demolition of buildings. One who is tasked with bringing about the controlled demolition of a building is said to 'pull it'. That's just the way it is, efforts to re-write history and common usage notwithstanding.

    Just recently, a forty story steel frame building in Beijing was literally engulfed, totally involved in an horrific fire. Guess what! It did not collapse! And neither would WTC 7 which, of course, had help.

    6) Clearly --anyone who commits a crime is most motivated to a) cover it up; b) lie about it about to protect the guilty. Who lied about 911? The most notable 911 liars are Bush himself and key members of his administration. Bush lied several times about having seen the crashes when, in fact, he could not possibly have seen them on TV at the time that he said he saw them. Perhaps the CIA had a arranged a non-network, 'closed circuit' set-up for him that he dare not reveal. Bush could not have seen the events 'live from New York' as he claimed unless someone in his administration knew precisely what was going to happen and when. Clearly --Bush and his 'players' were not ready for prime time. They fucked up and flopped!

    Whoever that was, he/she/it might have gone to great lengths to arrange 'closed circuit' telemetry of the event for Bush's benefit. Certainly, there was no legitimate live coverage of the crash nor could there have been. Bush lied, revealing his complicity in the capital crimes of mass murder and high treason!

    7) There were no Arab names on the official list of those autopsied from the Pentagon. The source for this is Dr. Olmsted, who filed an FOIA request. He had made the point that 'passenger lists' are just names someone types up on a piece of paper. It is not evidence. A coroner's report, however, is admissible in court. It's evidence. And, in this case, the coroner's report disproves Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. There's nary a 'hijacker' nor an Arab name on the list.

    8) The BBC interviewed several 'said' hijackers though they were said by Bush partisans to have died in the attacks. Dead men don't give interviews. Another fatal flaw in the official conspiracy theory.

    9) Phone calls by Barbara Olson et al were most certainly faked. Her husband, Ted Olson, told two mutually exclusive stories. Even so, the best explanation, consistent with Occam's razor, is that the alleged phone calls did not occur.
    In this video the distinguished research scholar and author, David Ray Griffin, reports to a conference at the European Parliament on an FBI court document revealing that Ted Olson did not receive any telephone calls from his wife, Barbara Olsen, on flight 77 on sept 11, 2001 as falsely reported CNN reporter Tim O'Brien in the hours following the attacks. Obrien's report provided an eye witness account of hijackers allegedly armed with box cutters. CNN has not yet commented.

    The Barbara Olson cell phone story is included in David Ray Griffin's new book: 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
    .

    --Video of David Ray Griffen, 911 Contradictions
    Only the guilty tell deliberate lies about crimes, especially those lies having the effect of obstructing justice as Ted Olson's bald faced lie did. 911 was a crime of mass murder, possibly high treason. Ted's deliberate lie about this crime makes Ted liable for prosecution in Federal Courts as an accessory to the crimes of mass murder and high treason. At the very least it could be evidence that Olson was an accessory after the fact.

    10) WTC steel was ordered destroyed, hauled away and sold! The willfull destruction of evidence is a crime; in this case, complicity and obstruction of justice. [See: Achitect and Engineers for 911 Truth]

    11) Marvin Bush handled security for the WTC before and during 911. It would appear that he succeeded in doing the job for which he was planted. You can rest assured that he was rewarded when, in fact, he should have been arrested, charged and prosecuted for his complicity in the crimes of mass murder, high treason and domestic terrorism. Marvin Bush represents 'opportunity' among abundant method and motive.

    12) Bush signed Executive Order 13292 which classifies 'a broad range of documents' and keeps them beyond the reach of citizens for 25 years. The EO also gave 'classification' powers to bunker Dick Cheney, VP at the time.

    13) Though al Qaeda was blamed for 911, it is a matter of record that al Qaeda, the creation of the CIA, was founded at a mujahideen camp in Afghanistan in 1988, during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union.
    It did, however, lay the groundwork for the expansion of power of the most extremist groups of the mujahideen and their allies from the Arab world, including the organization al-Qaeda, which was founded at a mujahideen camp in Afghanistan in 1988. The Soviet withdrawal and the end of the Afghan-Soviet war led not to peace but to new rounds of conflict. See also Islamic Fundamentalism.
    Following the events of 911, Syria denied the very existence of al Qaeda. I am more inclined to believe Syria than anyone inside the US government. Certainly, the Bush administration gave us only propaganda and exploitation but no evidence. Al Qaeda became the label the admin attached to acts that the administration arbitrarily chalked up to 'terrorism'. 'Terrorism' itself is Orwellian. It is simply whatever those in power say that it is, or more accurately, whatever those in power believe they can most easily exploit. Dissent itself may be considered 'terrorism', especially any truth that might have the effect of discrediting or subverting the illegitimate exercise of power.

    14) Though al Qaeda was blamed for 911, the US government insisted upon waging war on nations that most certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. What, for example, did the Taleban government have to do with 911? The Taleban, it should be recalled, had visited UNOCAL officials in Sugar Land, TX, Tom DeLay's home district. The war in Afghanistan was about the 'failed pipeline' deal --not the 'terrorist' pretext that the media swallowed, regurgitated and then puked up for us. This sounds more like a drug (oil) deal gone bad! In fact, the US had threatened the Taleban with carpet bombing months before 911.

    It's time to investigate this crime, round up the guilty, try them, sentence them and execute them.
    Simon Polakowski said that if he believed the government's story on Sept. 11, 2001, he might as well believe the Earth is flat.

    Polakowski produces an hour-long show with his friend Bob Martin called "9/11 Myth vs. Reality."

    The show airs at 8 p.m. Mondays on public access channel 27.

    He said that on Sept. 11, he was listening to the newscasts and thought to himself, "This is such bullshit."

    He started the show more than one year ago to reach people who had similar doubts.

    "From what I've been researching, there are millions of people who do not believe the official story and explanation," Polakowski said. "There are shows like this all across (the country). We get a lot of our material off of YouTube and off the Internet, and I am very thankful for all the people who are doing this research totally out-of-pocket."

    The story of 19 hijackers led by "a man in a cave" is something Polakowski and Martin have a hard time believing.

    "It was the most far-fetched story I have ever heard in my life," Polakowski said. "The most powerful nation on the face of the Earth, the most advanced military with over 30 intelligence agencies with over $40 billion in the annual budget to protect the nation, and they all failed?"

    Martin was working as a doctor and living in New York on Sept. 11 and said he went to Ground Zero to help.

    "One thing that bothered me was that we all noticed that the skies were quite empty, and there were no planes flying because there was a stop order," Martin said. "But they were really quiet. There were no military aircrafts over New York City for quite sometime, and somebody yelled out, 'Where the hell are the jets?' That question gnawed at me for the following year."

    Martin said that as the day went on, there were more questions and concerns that popped up in his head.

    "Another thing that gnawed at me was when I went down to Ground Zero, - it occurred to me that there was almost nothing left of these structures," Martin said. "I'm looking at girders that weigh anywhere from 4 to 300 tons. They were embedded in other skyscrapers like giant arrows. We're talking about distances upwards of 400 feet. Because this was allegedly a gravity-driven collapse, I found it very hard to reckon with what I saw."

    Polakowski said 9/11 was a shock-and-awe maneuver that caught Americans completely off guard.

    "Franklin Delano Roosevelt said there are no accidents in politics," Martin said. "It was the ultimate political act. People were suffering from PTSD in New York City, and that is what war does. It unbalances the human psyche, and when there is something of shock, they are much easier to manipulate."

    Martin said the TV show explores possibilities of how and why 9/11 happened. Martin said many parts of the government's story do not hold up to scrutiny.

    "The event 9/11 is a seminal event of the century that triggered this global War on Terror," Martin said. "It goes logically from what we're positive of - that the War on Terror is perhaps a hoax and is contrived. And that has its origins in intelligence agencies and major corporations in the Western world."

    Martin said he uses the basic question of motive and benefit to come to his conclusion.

    "When detectives come upon a murder scene, the first thing they ask themselves is, 'Who benefits from this?'" Martin said. "'Is it a crime of passion? Is there something that was put together and planned out?' This is the main question that should be asked about 9/11, is, 'Who benefits? Did the Arabs benefit?' No. So, who benefited from this?"

    --9/11: A government story full of holes
    The 'rats' desert the sinking ship. Even former Bushies dispute the lies still told us about 911.
    A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

    "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

    Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

    "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

    "More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

    However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

    From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

    Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

    Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:
    • Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..
    • When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
    • The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.
    • FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
    • Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
    • Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
    • The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
    • WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
    • WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
    • In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
    • It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. [or even weakening sufficiently to collapse]

    Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

    Greg Szymanski – Artic Beacon June 12, 2005, Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
    It's too early to say that Obama will remembered as Marcus Aurelius --less bad, intelligent, thoughtful --or that Bush will be remembered as Caligula is remembered --a total waste of human DNA. A new paradigm is desperately needed, a paradigm that includes not merely the entire spectrum of political dissent but also the dimming hope that political morality might be electable and in some manner triumphant.


    911: Inside Job!

    Previous articles in The Existentialist CowboyBush's cover up of 911 and related skullduggery by the war criminal in the Oval Office:

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe



    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word

    Saturday, June 13, 2009

    A Feast of Unrepentant Wingnuts

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    Egalitarian societies are more productive than societies in which a mere one percent owns more than some 90 percent of the rest of the population. Since 1980, US productivity declined with the dollar in a race to the bottom. The results may be seen quantified at the CIA's 'World Fact Book' where the US is at the bottom of a list of nations with the world's largest negative current account balance. It is not coincidental that America became the world's largest net debtor nation as it joined the ranks of the most inequitable.
    American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane. The scope of their triumph is breathtaking. Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda. Notions that would have been laughed at a generation ago--that cutting taxes for the very rich is the best response to any and every economic circumstance or that it is perfectly appropriate to turn the most rapacious and self-interested elements of the business lobby into essentially an arm of the federal government--are now so pervasive, they barely attract any notice.

    The result has been a slow motion disaster. Income inequality has approached levels normally associated with Third World oligarchies, not healthy Western democracies. The federal government has grown so encrusted with business lobbyists that it can no longer meet the great public challenges of our time. Not even many conservative voters or intellectuals find the result congenial. Government is no smaller--it is simply more debt-ridden and more beholden to wealthy elites.

    --Feast of the Wingnuts: How economic crackpots devoured American politics
    The US won the race to the bottom begun with the ascension of Ronald Reagan to the White House.
    In 1981, the top federal income-tax rate was 70 percent. Today it is 35 percent. Looked at in another way, the retention rate — the rate of income that individuals keep after taxes — went from 30 percent to 65 percent, an increase of well-over 100 percent since 1981.

    Rohmann goes on to identify what he calls a “corollary hypothesis,” the so called trickle-down theory, where greater spending and investing power unleashed by tax cuts for those at the top of the economic ladder eventually “trickles down” in the form of increased employment, benefiting all of society. The term “trickle down” is a derogatory term invented by detractors of supply-side ideas. An appropriate description of the effects of supply-side policies was captured by John F. Kennedy in reference to the importance of economic growth in driving up the well-being of all Americans. Said JFK, “a rising tide raises all boats.”

    --Tom Nugent, Laffer Lines
    The US will remain on bottom or eventually collapse entirely unless and until it repudiates the failed and incompetent policies that got us there!

    Egalitarian societies are more productive. Higher employment makes possible increased spending and supports economic expansion from the bottom up --not from the top down!
    US wages have stagnated for the past three decades, while the
    work force has also faced an erosion of job security, health care, and pension plans. This increasing economic insecurity has coincided with rapid globalization. Is there a causal relationship between the two? This policy brief probes domestic and international economic changes over the past half century to argue that the main causes of eroding US living standards have been “made in the USA,” as the postwar consensus in favor of egalitarian economic policy has broken down.

    The domestic consensus that supported a relatively egalitarian US economy and good living standards for a broad middle class had seriously eroded before the current phase of globalization began. Globalization revealed and exacerbated, rather than created, the basic problems with the US system.

    ...

    Currently, over 30 million workers—one-fifth of the US work force—earn less than the $9.80 per hour that would be required for a sole wage earner to lift a family of four out of poverty. The minimum wage should also be indexed to inflation and increases in worker productivity. This productivity link would help to distribute the gains from productivity more broadly across the economy and correct the disproportionate capture of gains by investors and corporate executives. This would be good for both low-income households and domestic demand. If the minimum wage grew with average productivity gains, it would also steer capital toward more productive firms that succeeded by increasing the productivity of minimum-wage workers rather than toward firms relying on sweatshop wages. This would increase the overall efficiency of the economy.

    --US Living Standards in an Era of Globalization, Sandra Polaski, Senior Associate and Director, Trade, Equity, and Development Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Of course, I deny that anyone can lift themselves, let alone a family, out of poverty on some nine bucks per hour. Nevertheless, Polaski makes her point succinctly and effectively.

    The Rise of Reaganism; the Fall of America

    Since Ronald Reagan, GOP tax cuts have benefited only the upper classes, an increasingly tiny percentage of the population, now just one percent of the entire population. The promise that these 'tax cuts' would trickle down or result in increased investment and thus jobs was not merely false but disingenuous. The right wing [GOP] leadership knew better but proceeded in any case. It was apparently a quick and painless way to pay off the base for its continuing support.

    The term 'supply side economics' is just an advertising slogan focus group tested for its effectiveness. The theory itself is said to have been cooked up by Arthur Laffer and drawn on a napkin.
    Starting in 1972, Wanniski came to believe that Laffer had developed a blinding new insight that turned established economic wisdom on its head. Wanniski and Laffer believed it was possible to simultaneously expand the economy and tamp down inflation by cutting taxes, especially the high tax rates faced by upper-income earners. Respectable economists-- not least among them conservative ones--considered this laughable. Wanniski, though, was ever more certain of its truth. He promoted this radical new doctrine through his perch on The Wall Street Journal editorial page and in a major article for The Public Interest, a journal published by the neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol. Yet Wanniski's new doctrine, later to be called supply-side economics, had failed to win much of a following beyond a tiny circle of adherents.

    That fateful night, Wanniski and Laffer were laboring with little success to explain the new theory to Cheney. Laffer pulled out a cocktail napkin and drew a parabola-shaped curve on it. The premise of the curve was simple. If the government sets a tax rate of zero, it will receive no revenue. And, if the government sets a tax rate of 100 percent, the government will also receive zero tax revenue, since nobody will have any reason to earn any income. Between these two points--zero taxes and zero revenue, 100 percent taxes and zero revenue--Laffer's curve drew an arc. The arc suggested that at higher levels of taxation, reducing the tax rate would produce more revenue for the government.

    ...

    At that moment, there were a few points that Cheney might have made in response. First, he could have noted that the Laffer Curve was not, strictly speaking, correct. Yes, a zero tax rate would obviously produce zero revenue, but the assumption that a 100-percent tax rate would also produce zero revenue was, just as obviously, false. Surely Cheney was familiar with communist states such as the Soviet Union, with its 100 percent tax rate. The Soviet revenue scheme may not have represented the cutting edge in economic efficiency, but it nonetheless managed to collect enough revenue to maintain an enormous military, enslave Eastern Europe, fund ambitious projects such as Sputnik, and so on. Second, Cheney could have pointed out that, even if the Laffer Curve was correct in theory, there was no evidence that the US income tax was on the downward slope of the curve--that is, that rates were then high enough that tax cuts would produce higher revenue.

    --Feast of the Wingnuts
    Thus was removed from the economy revenues/monies that might have driven expansion, growth, or the creation of new jobs had any class but the increasingly tiny elite benefited. The utter failure of 'trickle down/supply side economics' has proven that for the US industrialist, a tax cut is just a windfall --not an incentive. Such windfalls are simply transferred offshore to numbered accounts or other dodges. If 'demand' had justified additional investment in equipment or labor, the industrialist would have already made the decision and taken the 'investment tax credit' up front. There is no need to wait for tax cuts. Therefore, GOP tax cuts misstate the issue, compound the problem and are at the root cause of the decline and fall of American productivity, living standards and 'would-be' empire.
    Glyn identifies five internal constraints on an egalitarian economic policy: (1) sluggish private capital accumulation, (2) conflicting claims, (3)government deficits, (4) financial markets, and (5) taxation and the costs of expansion. Each of these items sounds familiar. It is as if nothing fundamental regarding the economy's structure has changed since the early 1970s. In varying degrees, each of these constraints was present then, and the implication is that the only barrier against returning to the relatively more egalitarian economic outcomes of that period is changed political climate.

    --The Unbalanced Economy: Business Domination as the Real Constraint on Egalitarian Policies, Thomas I. Palley, Assistant Director of Public Policy, AFL-CIO
    Wal-Mart rose as American purchasing power and the dollar fell. Not coincidental. The CIA's 'World Fact Book' puts the US as the bottom of a list with the world's largest negative current account balance. Of equal importance is the overlooked fact that Wal-Mart is patronized by the American working class which is impoverished of late. Again --not coincidental.

    In better times, the American working class, especially highly skilled auto workers or steel workers, might have patronized a better version of Wal-Mart where moneys spent remained in the community and enriched it. But Wal-Mart is not a characteristic of 'better times' It is a symptom of America's broken promise and economic demise.

    The rise of the GOP, however, seems to have confirmed David Ricardo 's theory of wages in which it was said that wages represented 'labor's natural price —the income which is necessary for the worker to exist'. Not surprisingly, capitalists agreed with Ricardo but only because he seems to support the idea of 'subsistence' wages, keeping workers poor, impoverished, hungry. Things have only gotten worse. Today's capitalist thinks the prototypical conservative Ricardo 'pink' for daring to ascribe to labor any value at all. Even so, it is difficult for even robber barons to ignore the verifiable fact: wealthier workers spend more on a better life. Paying subsistence wages 'contracts' the economy --a recipe for depression. Capitalists are blind and stupid if they insist upon keeping workers poor. Economies are driven by purchases. Poorer people purchase less. Economies contract. Depression results. Basic economics. GOP stupid. GOP blind and dumb.

    The Wal-Mart Leech Exposed!

    The rise of Wal-Mart is the inverse of the loss of domestic purchasing power. It is a race to the bottom and we've won it! It is said that demand is created when the people have discretionary spending. More accurately, discretionary spending may facilitate or 'satisfy' demand but must not be confused with demand itself.

    If one has 'everything' no additional amounts of money will encourage spending; 'tax breaks' for those already among the top one percent will simply wind up offshore. The net effect on the domestic economy is one of 'contraction' i.e, recession/depression. People have diminished capacity for 'discretionary spending' when jobs are exported and the value of the dollar declines as a result. Again --economies contract. Depression results. Basic economics. GOP stupid. GOP blind and dumb.

    During WWII, Adolph Hitler derided the US manufacture of refrigerators and other appliances. On another occasion, he and Albert Speer BLEW PAST a US made auto on the new autobahn. In a German Mercedes, Hitler and Speer left the US car in the dust amid great laughter and ridicule. [ src: Inside the Third Reich] The significance of that is that prior to the outbreak of WWII, US auto manufacturers were selling cars in Europe if they were not of Mercedes quality. Some went too far. Henry Ford, for example, helped finance Adolph Hitler who proudly displayed a portrait of Ford in his new Chancellery. I can tell you from experience, you will see precious few US made cars on any major thoroughfare or street in Europe.

    As we have established, the most egalitarian societies are most productive. Conversely --those societies, like the US, in which just one percent owns more than 90 percent combined are least productive. Even conservatives in America will tell you: 'if you want a prosperous economy, you must create wealth', a true statement that does not go far enough. It is labor that creates wealth or, if you prefer, value. This is the 'labor theory of value' espoused by almost every major economist from David Ricardo to Paul Krugman, from Karl Marx to John Maynard Keynes. Wealth is created by work alone! If you wish to create wealth with money, you must first put money to work with productive, domestic investment --not offshore dodges.

    Wealth is not created by transferring the products of labor upward to the increasingly tiny clique of moneyed elites --just one percent or less of the entire population. Wealth is not created by exporting jobs or by undermining local merchants with Faustian bargains and/or Wal-Mart. Wealth is not created by shipping it offshore to benefit only those who have never worked. Wealth is not created by 'screwing' the working, productive classes, robbing them of jobs, educations, and futures.

    Under GOP mismanagement, dishonesty and incompetence, the US has done everything that DOES NOT create wealth while unfairly burdening those who do! Wealth is not created with tax cuts for those already rich. That strategy inevitably results in 'economic contraction'. As Reagan said: here we go again --economies contract. Depression results. Basic economics. GOP stupid. GOP blind and dumb.

    Insanity!

    Ideologues work backward from conclusions in a frantic search for premises to prove them. Sane, rational, pragmatic or scientific folk will begin with facts rather than conclusions. Wealth is created when wealthy folk are taxed fairly and when working consumers have purchasing power to buy things with the moneys they earn. The GOP system is a race to the bottom. As the rich get richer and the poor, poorer only Wal-Mart prospers by brokering the transfer of US wealth to China. To drive the point home: economies contract. Depression results. Basic economics. GOP stupid. GOP blind and dumb.

    It has been aid that when conservatives cut taxes, they cut them for everyone. That has never been true. Ronald Reagan's 'tax cut' resulted in my paying higher taxes, a much higher percentage of my income. That was true primarily because 'breaks' are called 'loopholes' if an individual avails themselves of them, but 'tax incentives' if it is the big corporation that benefits. In any case, across the board tax cuts are meaningless as long as the range from poor to very, very, very rich is plotted on increasingly steeper curves. [See: the L-Curve]

    As a percentage of income, everything is cheaper for the rich!

    Because billionaires spend infinitesimally less as a percentage of income just staying alive as do those who work, the benefits of a tax cut accrue only to the wealthy. Only a progressive tax addresses this injustice. As a percentage of their income, the prices rich folk pay is much, much, much less than you pay for just about everything. A restaurant meal, for example, is a negligible expense for the wealthy, a precious and expensive luxury for those in the middle class.

    As they grow richer, elites bid up the prices of properties and/or goods, a process that puts necessities beyond the reach of the poor, and makes them a luxury for the middle class. In the late fifties and early sixties, thirty thousand dollars would put you in a very fine, two story home in an excellent neighborhood. A comparable home today will cost you millions. If this increase were merely inflationary, your income would have kept pace and kept you in the market. That it did not has created super enclaves affordable only to the super rich.

    As recently as 1967 a distinguished economist observed that there were increasingly fewer status symbols available to millionaires that were not also available to someone earning $20,000 per year. A rising tide, it would appear, does not raise all boats.

    Moreover, the ruling elite of just one percent of the population has access to tax dodges and offshore accounts that those who work for a living may never have even heard of.
    The first bailout gave these companies over 700 billion in bailouts and the main culprit of the insurance derivative fraud AIG that primarily caused the disaster received 150 billion dollars of taxpayers money.

    More than 83 corporations have offshore subsidiaries where their funds are protected in tax havens in the Caymen islands such as: The Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and even Pepsi and General Motors who received 13.4 billion have hundreds of millions of dollars in tax havens offshore. All those corporations receive protection from paying the US government their taxes and the loss to the US is into the 100 billion dollars of lost tax revenue.

    Senator Carl Levin a democrat from Michigan and Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota requested the report to be released and are pushing for new laws prohibiting these bailout scam corporations from being tax dodgers while asking for bailouts from the taxpayer.

    --Bailout Corporation Tax Havens in Caymen Islands

    It is no coincidence that the US was most productive when it was most egalitarian and that was the era that began with the end of WWII and ended with the inauguration of Reagan.
    The automobile industry successfully converted back to producing cars, and new industries such as aviation and electronics grew by leaps and bounds. A housing boom, stimulated in part by easily affordable mortgages for returning members of the military, added to the expansion. The nation's gross national product rose from about $200,000 million in 1940 to $300,000 million in 1950 and to more than $500,000 million in 1960. At the same time, the jump in postwar births, known as the "baby boom," increased the number of consumers. More and more Americans joined the middle class.

    --The Post War Economy: 1945-1960
    Democracy is always the first victim of militarism. Today, Germany, which is said to have lost WWII, is the world’s largest exporter of manufactured goods, ahead of China for whom the US is just a place to dump product while polluting its own environment. To make the point even more dramatically, German wages and benefits today are higher than those in the US even as it maintains a much higher and better 'safety net'.
    Back in February–when even the mainstream media was convinced the capitalist economy was in full-blown meltdown mode–Newsweek magazine ran an article titled “Why there won’t be a revolution.” Newsweek wanted to reassure the rich–and convince working people–that the masses weren’t getting ready to dust off their pitchforks and head to the town square.

    “Americans might get angry sometimes,” they wrote, “but we don’t hate the rich. We prefer to laugh at them.”

    Newsweek couldn’t be more wrong. The 10 percent of Americans who rely on food stamps, the 25 percent of Ohioans who are waiting in lines at food banks, the 500,000 people who lost their jobs last month and the millions more who can’t find work–these people aren’t laughing.

    And plenty of Americans–rightly–hate the rich. While our homes go into foreclosure, while our credit card rates go up, while our jobs disappear and college tuition shoots up, the well-heeled “masters of the universe” on Wall Street are still making out like bandits, but now with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, courtesy of the Obama administration.

    A lot more people would be even angrier if the mainstream media reported the truth about the rich and powerful in America–who they are and how they “made it” to the top. Consider the 10 richest people in the country as of last September, according to the annual Forbes magazine list.

    --Adam Turl, How the Other 0.00000003 Percent Lives
    The US economy--in obvious decline since 1982 --is 'fragmented, inefficient. Health care has become a luxury that the working classes cannot afford. US investment in research and development is dropping precipitously as a share of GDP. The result: US product quality continues to deteriorate and markets for US goods will continue to decline because of it.

    "War is a racket!"

    Concurrently, democracy itself is threatened. 'Presumed external' enemies have been exploited to justify subsidies given the Military/Industrial Complex. A crack down on dissent has threatened to undo the US Constitution, called a 'goddamned piece of paper' by the incompetent liar who had recently sworn to uphold it. As America's future dims, there is no 'mea culpa'. There is no remorse. There is no lesson learned. We are not a feast fit for the gods; we are, rather, burgers and fries for unrepentant wingnuts.

    Gen. Smedley Butler was precise and correct when he said: "War is a racket!" It's not about external threats, it's about CONTRACTS. As long as industrialists make money facilitating the mass murder of human beings, there will be NO peace! EVER!


    Trickle Down Theory Debunked

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe



    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word

    Thursday, May 28, 2009

    Mr. Obama, Bring Down the War Criminals!

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    Among several sticky tar babies Bush left Obama the worst are: Guantanamo, torture, capital war crimes! The clock is ticking for Obama. The time for 'good faith' is running out! Unless Obama moves to close Guantanamo now and end the practice of torture while bringing war crimes charges against Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al., he risks being so charged himself!
    Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people's lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can't control, what Orwell called "thoughtcrime" -contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

    Locking up people who haven't done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to "preventive detention" is an outrage.

    --Ted Rall, Resign Now

    One hundred days have come and gone! There is still no strongly worded condemnation of the practice of torture! There is still no support for the bringing of war crimes charges against Bushco! The 'closing of Guantanamo' is merely confused --not resolved!

    As the New York Times noted: "... the unresolved eight year nightmare will continue raining down drip by drip, disrupting Obama's high ambitions". If torture had not been wrong, illegal, immoral, then why did Bush spend so much of his time denying it, lying about it, conning the American people and the world?

    Bush lied about US policies of torture and other war crimes because Bush knew it was wrong and deliberately set about to 'fool' the people! He failed because he was and remains a lousy liar, a cretin, an ignorant ass wipe who did not win the White House fairly. His morally bankrupt party stole the White House in what Republicans themselves boasted was a coup d'tat! Bush and his party are likewise 'credited' with Reaganesque and outrageous deficits which coupled with astronomical transfers of wealth upward to the elite have brought the nation to the very edge of financial collapse! We expected more and we deserve more from the Democrats! We held them to a higher standard! Will Obama prove us wrong to have done so?

    Obama reversed himself with a declaration that no more photos of torture will be released! Is this not an admission that there are --indeed --more photos that SHOULD be released? Is this not an admission that the practices of torture, some of which should have resulted in capital crimes charges against Bush himself, are still underway? If Bush's orders resulting in death make Bush culpable for the death penalty, then where is the clause that absolves Obama of the same crime?
    (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

    --US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441
    This federal law is still on the books! It is still ignored by the office of President of the United States, the office that is empowered by the US Constitution with the authority to enforce and uphold the laws of the United States. Does this basic concept no longer mean anything to the people and, most importantly, to those who are sworn to uphold the law? I want ...no! I demand to know when the laws of the United States came to mean absolutely nothing.

    I find it significant that both public immorality and disregard for the 'rule of law' have increased with the rise of the religious right, radical fundamentalism and 'religiosity' in general. I find significant that support for war crimes, state sponsored murder, death squads, torture and other Nazi-like atrocities was extremely strong among the religious right, devotees of Pat Robertson and similar ilk. As I have stated, the 'religious right' is not just wrong but dead wrong and immoral. Pat Robertson, it may be recalled, advocated 'death squads' and the murders of foreign leaders with whom he disagreed! This is just evil --pure and simple!
    Ever since he was released from Guantanamo in February after six years of due-process-less detention and brutal torture, Binyam Mohamed has been attempting to obtain justice for what was done to him. But his torturers have been continuously protected, and Mohamed's quest for a day in court repeatedly thwarted, by one individual: Barack Obama. Today, there is new and graphic evidence of just how far the Obama administration is going to prevent evidence of the Bush administration's torture program from becoming public.

    In February, Obama's DOJ demanded dismissal of Mohamed's lawsuit against the company which helped "render" him to be tortured on the ground that national security would be harmed if the lawsuit continued. Then, after a British High Court ruled that there was credible evidence that Mohamed was subjected to brutal torture and was entitled to obtain evidence in the possession of the British government which detailed the CIA's treatment of Mohamed, and after a formal police inquiry began into allegations that British agents collaborated in his torture, the British government cited threats from the U.S. government that it would no longer engage in intelligence-sharing with Britain -- i.e., it would no longer pass on information about terrorist threats aimed at British citizens -- if the British court disclosed the facts of Mohamed's torture.

    --Glenn Greenwald, Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed
    I demand that those government officials in both administrations be arrested, charged and tried for the capital crimes that are specifically and unambiguously the subject of the above cited federal law --US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441!

    If the laws do not apply to elected officials, then they do not apply to us!

    Government may not have it one way! Those governments that presume to be above the law are, in fact, outlaw governments. They are illegitimate.

    Despite the Obama order that no more photos be released, there are still more photos to be seen! Certainly --the photos are evidence that US Codes were and continue to be violated with impunity. Orders that the photos be suppressed are obstructions of justice and are, in themselves, prosecutable! I will support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this order! Clearly, however, any move to impeach Obama is transparently hypocritical if the same charges are not brought against the gang of heinous war criminals who dared call themselves the 'Bush administration'!

    The photos will be released --eventually! And the order to suppress them will look foolish if not criminal! Some of them have already been leaked.

    I am not interested in stupid rationalizations that we hoped had bit the dust along with the failed Bush administration, primarily the cop out that Al Qaeda will be angered! Fuck Al Qaeda! I doubt that they are half as angered as am I! Secondly, I doubt that Al Qaeda exists as anything other than the CIA 'shill' organization that they were in their inception, the CIA 'shill' organization that they most certainly continue to be.

    Obama refuses to hold responsible and accountable the very people who authorized and utilized a heinous and un-American program of torture, perhaps murder! It is imperative that the US prove to the world that it take these issues seriously! The entire world takes them seriously and will forever dismiss the US, a waning 'superpower' in any case if it should not!

    The US has no moral choice but to:
    • expose and 'own up' to heinous practices of torture and state-sponsored murder!
    • bring specific charges against individuals who have issued specific orders in specific cases;
    • bring charges against the architects of these policies in both the Bush and the Obama administrations!
    I am sick to death of talk, spin and propaganda! I want action! The world demands action! The world demands an immediate end to this bullshit!

    Mr. Obama, TEAR DOWN THESE ILLEGAL PRISONS!

    MR. OBAMA, BRING TORTURERS AND MURDERERS TO TRIAL!

    MR. OBAMA, STOP THE WAR CRIMES, STOP THE MURDERS, STOP THE TORTURE! NOW!

    A list of broken promises continues to grow! These crimes are but a continuation of Bush administration policies.

    Mr. Obama --you were NOT elected to be Bush-lite!

    You were elected to UNDO Bush's many failures!

    You were elected to RIGHT the many wrongs that had been done by Bush!

    You were elected to UPHOLD the rule of law!

    You put your hand on a black book and swore to protect and defend the Constitution! That act meant nothing to Bush. We had hoped it meant more to you!

    Mr. Obama, the commission of war crimes abroad is NOT authorized to any branch of the US government by the US Constitution! Either you will uphold the Constitution or you will not! If you will not, it is the moral responsibility of the US citizenry to remove you and replace you with someone who will.


    Obama, Bush, War Crimes

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe



    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word

    Tuesday, May 26, 2009

    Obama's Honeymoon is Over

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    Barack Obama has had his 100 days! The honeymoon is over! The gloves are off! Mr. Obama, tear down those illegal prisons!
    Two thousand pictures of Americans performing acts of savage torture on prisoners will not be released to the general public if Mr. Obama gets his way. Military commissions will continue to try prisoners outside the scope of American law, and will be free to use brazen hearsay as "hard" evidence against defendants. Mr. Obama continues to cleave to the most abhorrent aspects of Bush-era secrecy policies, and has moved to block a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, who was outed by Bush administration officials in order to silence her Iraq whistle blower husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

    --William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
    It was not merely the stolen elections in Florida and later Ohio that made Bush illegitimate; it was his declaration in both word and deeds: "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" Under the cover given him by 'war' (however illegal), Bush claimed to be above the law, beyond responsibility to the people, in effect, a dictator!
    The sooner that the United States dissociates itself from the crimes of the Bush administration, the sooner will it regain its role as leader of the world's democracies. Indicting the Bush administration now for its promotion of torture as US policy is the first, and most important, step in that direction.

    Unfortunately, there is no way to impeach George Bush retroactively for leading us into the illegal and disastrous Iraq war. Nevertheless, Barack Obama should realize that victory over terrorism depends critically on the United States emphatically denouncing its ties to Bush's failed policies of unilateralism, militarism and torture.

    --Sweep Bush policies into dustbin, John F. Bellantoni, Sarasota
    No, we cannot impeach Bush now! We blew an opportunity to make the statement that OUTLAW PRESIDENTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! Instead, we bent over and allowed a war criminal to get away with murder.

    Here's the bad news for Obama: if Bush is guilty of war crimes for his attack and subsequent war crimes in Iraq, so, too, is Obama for continuing them. I have yet to see active, good faith efforts by Obama to end the illegal, military occupations in the Middle East.

    That fact most certainly makes Obama prosecutable for continuing violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996 passed by both houses of Congress without dissent. The act covers every crime that may be charged to Bush as of this moment and as of the moment Bush exited the 'cover' given him by his occupation of the Oval Office.

    The act deals specifically with his deliberate "killing, torture or inhumane treatment" of 'detainees' at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and the gulag archipelago of 'detention centers' throughout Eastern Europe. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in the death of a detainee carry the death penalty and there is no statute of limitations.
    (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

    --TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes

    Ironically, it was the GOP congress which passed the War Crimes Act in 1996 without a dissenting vote. It was said that they wished to 'rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein'.

    But this was the era of 'wag the dog'. The GOP had hoped make Clinton prosecutable in the Hague. Significantly, when it was feared that it would be Bush who would wind up in the dock, the GOP did a transparent about face, a cowardly and disingenuous move that we have come to expect from the GOP. Tom DeLay sponsored legislation authorizing the US military to invade the Hague should Bush find his sorry ass in the dock! DeLay was reacting to legislation that defined a "war crime" as any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions.

    I want to know: what is the frickin' point of passing legislation if it is routinely ignored by 'Presidents' be they Clinton, Bush, Obama?

    What is the point?


    Either we will insist upon the rule of law --or our governments hereinafter will be illegitimate. People of the US, I put it to you: you are NOT represented by a legitimate government. Nor have you been for some time now!

    It did not help his case that Bush was (and, presumably remains) an idiot, a waste of human DNA, a cancer on mankind, a slimy liar of no talent and less wit or intelligence.

    Obama seemed to be everything that Bush was not: literate, intelligent, perhaps even moral! But Obama has been given his 100 days and more! By now it is clear: Obama has no intention of righting the fatal harms inflicted by Bush upon the 'rule of law' or that 'goddamned piece of paper', the US Constitution. Obama has no intention of ending the illegal occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq!

    These so-called 'Military Commission' are kangaroo courts and have no legitimacy whatsoever. Verdicts handed down by them are invalid, bogus, unlawful, and because the US occupations are illegal, the verdicts themselves may violate treaties and international laws. Surely the arbitrary assumption of powers not granted by a 'sovereign' is illegal! Any death resulting is murder! Any illegal US tribunal ordering 'death' is, itself, a murderer!

    The presence of US troops anywhere in the world not supported by a declaration of war is illegal, a war crime. If death results to any person in those US occupied territories, the penalty is death! Clearly --the Obama administration has, heretofore, shown no interest in restoring legitimacy or the rule of law.

    It appears, however, that the rule of law no longer applies to Presidents or, for that matter, the 'elected' idiots in Congress who write them. Clearly --everything enacted by Congress with regard to war, prisoners of war, or war crimes has failed to impress those occupying the Oval Office! Is this the reason the US has NOT won a war since War II?. Does this have something to do with the fact that the US --now a third world economy with the world's largest negative current account balance --has not paid for any war since World War II? Come to think of it, I am not quite sure we paid for WWII!

    It is ludicrous to expect other nations to respect our sovereignty if we do not respect theirs.

    The US remains a rogue and criminal nation, an oil thief, a pathetic, idiotic bully boy whose presence abroad still threatens its own economic underpinnings. What is the origin of this idiotic idea that because we covet another nation's oil or other resources, we may dictate to them with threats of bombs and/or invasion?

    The US has nukes! But cannot use them! What would result if there should be another Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

    The people of the US have been treasonously betrayed by both parties, by the Congress and in the unkindest cut of all, by the courts --the same judiciary that was intended to be the remedy of last resort. Thanks to the pin head Antonin Scalia and like minded, slit-tongued, slit-eyed reptilians, the courts are compromised and corrupt --sell-outs to the various elite interests that long ago 'invested' their money in the Congress and the White House. The best politicians money could buy??

    How absurd the US has become! While the MIC murders for the sake of death, America, like a moronic, drooling, lumbering leviathan on steroids, wages war for the sake of war, bleats bullshit that it might hear its own pathetic, whining voice amid a wailing chorus awaiting Armegeddon!

    Wake up, Mr. Obama! You are what you do! Have you become Bush?

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe



    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word

    Sunday, May 24, 2009

    When you die in America, it will be because you are NOT RICH!

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    Of the many ways in which a ruling elite of just one percent of the US population wages war upon the American people, the denial of health care to everyone but the very, very rich is the most evil. This is a direct result of the GOP/right wing domination of America since the rise of Ronald Reagan.

    Today, just one percent of the population is in a position to deny everyone but the very, very rich a right to even basic health care. Denied this right, millions will die that might have lived productive and meaningful lives. This is not merely a matter of personal loss; it is that of the nation.

    Since the GOP ascension to power began with the rise of Ronald Reagan in the early 80s, American wealth has been re-distributed upward. Gini indices evinced a dramatic shift upward even as Ronald Reagan still ruled. Those indices, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Commerce-BEA prove that only the uppper quintile benefited from Reagan's widely touted tax cuts'.

    Although this trend reversed under Clinton, the GOP wasted no time in undoing the good that had been done. Under Bush Jr, the GOP transfer of wealth to the ruling aristocracy, the ruling elite was resumed at even faster rates.

    Today --just one percent or less of the US population earns more and owns more than 90 percent of the rest of us combined. As a result, 90 percent of us are priced out of the markets for better homes, cars and other consumables, but most importantly crucial essentials like health care. The effects of these policies are transparent. These effects are achieved so predictably, so methodically, so consistently that I am entirely justified in charging that it is all done deliberately.

    In today's America, the chances are increasing that when you die it will be because you are NOT RICH!

    That is but ONE result of the right wing/GOP THEFT of America's wealth! Question is: what are you going to do about it?

    We are repeatedly told that the US is the best and most advanced nation on earth! In response: I say: BULLSHIT! That might have been true before the four horsemen of the GOP road roughshod through what had been the hope of the world!

    Following are a letter from my friend and progressive crusader, Doug Drenkow and a recent column by Paul Krugman:
    Progressive friends,

    Thanks for this article, which -- in classic Krugman style -- lays it on the line. It was remarkable to me that in the months running up to the election the people on the Right I spoke with had one thing consistently on their mind (another example of the lockstep political messaging from the Right): They didn't speak with passion about the election -- it was apparently obvious even to them that Bush was too much of an albatross around any GOP nominee's neck -- but they did against health care reform, which they even more than I knew was going to be the big issue (It is the Number One issue in labor/management disagreements; and has been noted elsewhere, as by the president, rising health care costs are driving much of the increase in costs of entitlement programs, read Medicare and Medicaid, which are not as cataclysmic and the Right insists, in their continuing effort to dismantle those and other social programs, but which do demand addressing).

    What is most remarkable to me, though, is not the lockstep messaging but the opposition to something that affects everyone, across the political spectrum: the failure of our existing health "care" system to deliver adequate care to millions, including those going bankrupt from medical expenses (Most personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, and in most of those cases the person going bankrupt had health insurance when he or she first got sick: Get sick, lose job, go broke -- everyone I've talked to acknowledges that as a very real, very big problem).

    In a sense, we are in a political battle like the military battle we're in against Al Qaeda: Unlike in the Cold War, when our adversary was controlled, as we were, by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), when we're up against those opposing the repair of our health care system or we're fighting suicide bombers we're dealing with those who are basically willing to take themselves down just as long as they take us down with them.

    Just as we cannot allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to get their hands on the growing Pakistani nuclear arsenal -- I doubt they would really be dissuaded from using such powerful weapons by our threats to send them to all those virgins "awaiting them" in Paradise (Damn their blasphemous twisting of Islam's basically humane teachings) -- we cannot allow the Right, funded by the deep pockets of Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Etc., to continue propping up a system literally taking and otherwise destroying tens of millions of our lives (Not even Al Qaeda can do that).

    As we approach Independence Day, we are reminded that America was founded in dedication to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and there is no more fundamental right than the right to life (and I'm not getting into the particulars of the abortion issue now but rather the general principle vital to all of us who live and breathe) and there is no issue more important than allocating the resources we do have, as the richest nation on Earth and in history, to provide as good a care as we can to all those in need, financed as equitably as possible -- I'm sure we can come up with a system not only as good as that working in every other industrial nation, as we've heard ad nauseum, but even better, in terms of quality, accessibility, and affordability of care and, again, equity in financing (Yes, I'm talking progressive taxation, not the regressive "value added" sales-type tax as used so much in Europe to finance health care).

    The Obama Administration is about to begin its very public push for health care reform -- beginning on the sixth of June (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hckickoff) -- and ultimately, as always, the real power in this country lies not with big business or big government but with the public at large. That was the spirit that put our historic president in office (and I believe he will be historic not only because of his ancestry but also because of his leadership of the nation, with our backing, into much better years ahead). If we demand real reforms, then woe be unto those who oppose us. Change will, however, probably be at least somewhat incremental, if history is any guide; but change can be inevitable -- if and only if we the people demand it.Change health care for the better? Yes we can!

    --Doug Drenkow
    And this from Paul Krugman:
    That didn't take long. Less than two weeks have passed since much of the medical-industrial complex made a big show of working with President Obama on health care reform -- and the double-crossing is already well under way. Indeed, it's now clear that even as they met with the president, pretending to be cooperative, insurers were gearing up to play the same destructive role they did the last time health reform was on the agenda.

    So here's the question: Will Mr. Obama gloss over the reality of what's happening, and try to preserve the appearance of cooperation? Or will he honor his own pledge, made back during the campaign, to go on the offensive against special interests if they stand in the way of reform?

    The story so far: on May 11 the White House called a news conference to announce that major players in health care, including the American Hospital Association and the lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans, had come together to support a national effort to control health care costs.

    The fact sheet on the meeting, one has to say, was classic Obama in its message of post-partisanship and, um, hope. "For too long, politics and point-scoring have prevented our country from tackling this growing crisis," it said, adding, "The American people are eager to put the old Washington ways behind them."

    But just three days later the hospital association insisted that it had not, in fact, promised what the president said it had promised -- that it had made no commitment to the administration's goal of reducing the rate at which health care costs are rising by 1.5 percentage points a year. And the head of the insurance lobby said that the idea was merely to "ramp up" savings, whatever that means.

    Meanwhile, the insurance industry is busily lobbying Congress to block one crucial element of health care reform, the public option -- that is, offering Americans the right to buy insurance directly from the government as well as from private insurance companies. And at least some insurers are gearing up for a major smear campaign.

    On Monday, just a week after the White House photo-op, The Washington Post reported that Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina was preparing to run a series of ads attacking the public option. The planning for this ad campaign must have begun quite some time ago.

    The Post has the storyboards for the ads, and they read just like the infamous Harry and Louise ads that helped kill health care reform in 1993. Troubled Americans are shown being denied their choice of doctor, or forced to wait months for appointments, by faceless government bureaucrats. It's a scary image that might make some sense if private health insurance -- which these days comes primarily via HMOs -- offered all of us free choice of doctors, with no wait for medical procedures. But my health plan isn't like that. Is yours?

    "We can do a lot better than a government-run health care system," says a voice-over in one of the ads. To which the obvious response is, if that's true, why don't you? Why deny Americans the chance to reject government insurance if it's really that bad?

    For none of the reform proposals currently on the table would force people into a government-run insurance plan. At most they would offer Americans the choice of buying into such a plan.

    And the goal of the insurers is to deny Americans that choice.

    They fear that many people would prefer a government plan to dealing with private insurance companies that, in the real world as opposed to the world of their ads, are more bureaucratic than any government agency, routinely deny clients their choice of doctor, and often refuse to pay for care.

    Which brings us back to Mr. Obama.

    Back during the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama argued that the Clintons had failed in their 1993 attempt to reform health care because they had been insufficiently inclusive. He promised instead to gather all the stakeholders, including the insurance companies, around a "big table." And that May 11 event was, of course, intended precisely to show this big-table strategy in action.

    But what if interest groups showed up at the big table, then blocked reform? Back then, Mr. Obama assured voters that he would get tough: "If those insurance companies and drug companies start trying to run ads with Harry and Louise, I'll run my own ads as president. I'll get on television and say 'Harry and Louise are lying.' "

    The question now is whether he really meant it.

    The medical-industrial complex has called the president's bluff. It polished its image by showing up at the big table and promising cooperation, then promptly went back to doing all it can to block real change. The insurers and the drug companies are, in effect, betting that Mr. Obama will be afraid to call them out on their duplicity.

    It's up to Mr. Obama to prove them wrong.

    --PAUL KRUGMAN, Blue Double Cross,

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe



    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word

    Saturday, May 23, 2009

    Last Chance to Indict Bush and Cheney for the Mass Murders of 911?

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    There is probable cause to indict and charge top officials, George W. Bush himself, for the crimes we call '911'. Just as Rome sacked Dacia for its gold, Bush, Cheney and a gang of NEOCON crooks around him conspired to attack and invade Iraq for its oil! As Hitler needed a Reichstag Fire, Bushco needed a pretext --a 'catalyzing event' that the Project for the New American Century would compare to Pearl Harbor. [See Rebuilding America's Defenses] Bush conspired with 'rich men' --his base --in order to perpetrate the capital crimes of aggressive war, mass murder and high treason!

    In the second week of Bush's illegal occupancy of the White House, Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' met to carve up the oil fields of Iraq. The stated objective was to "develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, state and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future." Fancy words for 'oil theft' on a scale not imagined since Rome and, later, the Third Reich.
    Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department papers that included a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled "Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

    The papers also included a detailed map of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates and a list of oil and gas development projects in those two countries.

    The papers were dated early March 2001, about two months before the Cheney energy task force completed and announced its report on the administration's energy needs and future energy agenda.

    Judicial Watch obtained the papers as part of a lawsuit by it and the Sierra Club to open to the public information used by the task force in developing President Bush's energy plan.

    Tom Fitton, the group's president, said he had no way to guess what interest the task force had in the information, but "it shows why it is important that we learn what was going on in the task force."

    Opponents of the war are going to point to the documents as evidence that oil was on the minds of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq," said Fitton. "Supporters will say they were only evaluating oil reserves in the Mideast, and the likelihood of future oil production."

    The task force report was released in May 2001. In it, a chapter titled "Strengthening Global Alliances" calls the Middle East "central to world oil security" and urges support for initiatives by the region's oil producers to open their energy sectors to foreign investment. The chapter does not mention Iraq, which has the world's second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

    -- H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, Cheney Task Force Eyed on Iraq Oil
    The 'oil fields' of Iraq were 'carved up' long before Bush would have the 'pretext' needed to attack, invade, and divide the spoils of war. I propose that Bush be allowed to refute that charge at a trial in which he is charged with numerous crimes including mass murder, high treason, aggressive war and common theft! The 'official conspiracy theory of 911' does not help his case. Nothing Bush has said about 911 is true and he has actively sought to block every effort to learn the truth. None of the so-called 19 'Arabs' could compentently pilot aircraft of any type. None of them could have pulled off the crime of 911. Some of them --said to have been killed on 911 --survived to grant interviews with the BBC.

    911 was an inside job, Bush's 'Reichstag Fire'. The Nazis had gone back to the well.

    There is historical precedent for Dick Cheney's meeting with Bush's financial support. A good description of that precedent is found in the work of St. Thomas More who wrote of what he called a 'conspiracy of rich men', a conspiracy which presaged Hitler's infamous meeting in which he 'closed' a deal with I.G. Farben, Thyssen, Krupp et al. Hitler would wage wars from which his sponsors would benefit but only if they would 'pony up', if they would finance and support his rise to dictatorship.
    For the first time—in the last relatively free election Germany was to have—the Nazi Party now could employ all the vast resources of the government to win votes. Goebbels was jubilant. "Now it will be easy," he wrote in his diary on February 3, "to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal.

    We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. [note: this is clearly a reference to a 'planned' Reichstag Fire, Hitler's' 911!]

    And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money."(2)

    The big businessmen, pleased with the new government that was going to put the organized workers in their place and leave management to run its business as it wished, were asked to cough up. This they agreed to do at a meeting on February 20 at Goering's Reichstag President's Palace, at which Dr. Schacht acted as host and Goering and Hitler laid down the line to a couple of dozen of Germany's leading magnates, including Krupp von Bohlen, who had become an enthusiastic Nazi overnight, Bosch and Schnitzler of I. G. Farben, and Voegler, head of the United Steel Works. The record of this secret meeting has been preserved. [the analogy is the infamous meeting of Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force'.]

    Hitler began a long speech with a sop to the industrialists. "Private enterprise," he said, "cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality ... All the worldly goods we possess we owe to the struggle of the chosen . . . We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist." He promised the businessmen that he would "eliminate" the Marxists and restore the Wehrmacht (the latter was of special interest to such industries as Krupp, United Steel and I. G. Farben, which stood to gain the most from rearmament). "Now we stand before the last election," Hitler concluded, and he promised his listeners that "regardless of the outcome, there will be no retreat." If he did not win, he would stay in power "by other means . . . with other weapons." Goering, talking more to the immediate point, stressed the necessity of "financial sacrifices" which "surely would be much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March fifth will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years."

    All this was made clear enough to the assembled industrialists and they responded with enthusiasm to the promise of the end of the infernal elections, of democracy and disarmament. Krupp, the munitions king, who, according to Thyssen, had urged Hindenburg on January 29 not to appoint Hitler, jumped up and expressed to the Chancellor the "gratitude" of the businessmen "for having given us such a clear picture." Dr. Schacht then passed the hat. "I collected three million marks," he recalled at Nuremberg.(3)

    --William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Nazification of Germany: 1933–34
    The FBI doesn't believe the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. Why should you?

    The FBI has admitted, officially, that it cannot find any 'evidence' or documentation to support popular myths that some four airliners were hijacked by terrorists and used as weapons on 911. Moreover, the FBI itself admits that "... no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents." In other words, there is no official evidence to support Bush's lies about 911. Their investigation, says the FBI, was based upon the never questioned assumption that the said flights had been hijacked.

    The Co-chairs of the 911 Commission don't believe the official theory; why should you?

    911 Commission co-chairs claim that they were misled, perhaps deliberately, by the Bush administration and Pentagon brass. Because 911 was an act of mass murder overtly covered up by the Bush administration, the many lies by Bush amount to more than mere obstructions of justice or cover ups. They amount to high treason --a mechanism by which this administration seized power unconstitutionally. Holes in Bush's theories are holes in Bush's theories. Lack of evidence in support of Bush does not refute his critics who point them out. Bush's many lies and overt efforts to obstruct justice, it is hoped, will bring about the 'controlled demolition' of this illegal and illegitimate regime.
    Instead of making a big scene and dropping a bombshell so-to-speak, the commission ‘compromised’ and deferred to the justice department so that it could pursue criminal investigations.

    Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

    Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

    9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

    As we are all well aware, criminal charges were never made and it looks like interest in pursuing ‘justice’ wasn’t a top priority for the Department of Justice.

    The panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

    “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”
    Liberals have been shouting the Bush Administration for some time now. In fact, the hatred for our administration is so strong that Republicans had to concoct rhetoric in order to deal with the anger. “BDS” short for Bush Derangement Syndrome is all that the GOP die-hards could come up with to combat the allegations of impropriety and lawlessness that best characterizes President Bush and his administration of bandits.

    --Did the Pentagon Lie To 9/11 Commission?

    You can be sure of this: someone did pull off 911. The best suspects are Bush, his NEOCON co-conspirators, the leadership of the GOP, various Pentagon brass, and other complicit murderers inside the Axis of the Military/Industrial Complex and K-Street! This gang of crooks, liars and traitors are responsible for perpetrating the treasonous, murderous crime of 911. Bush is the primary suspect for several reasons:
    • Those who lie about crimes do so to cover up guilt. Bush has never told the truth about 911.
    • Bush has not merely lied; he has actively, consistently and deliberately tried to cover up the crime of 911 with overt and identifiable instances of obstruction of justice, lies, and overt intimidation. This --I believe --is persuasive evidence of his guilt and/or complicity.
    Tim Roemer let the cat out of the bag when, like Donald Rumsfeld, he referred to a 'missile' that struck the Pentagon. In addition, there were the early news reports before 'officialdom' was able to insist that the media report ONLY the official conspiracy theory. Those early reports consisted of anchors like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings talking about 'controlled demolitions', field reporters declaring that no airliner had struck the Pentagon, and, of course, the famous BBC report that WTC7 had fallen even as it was seen still standing behind the reporter.

    Earlier, FBI Director Robert Mueller said, there is no evidence to connect the 'said' 19 'hijackers' with the events of 911. Indeed, several of the 'hijackers' were interviewed by the BBC after they were said to have died in the attacks. Moreover, there are no hijacker names on the pathologists report released in response to an FOIA request. There is, therefore, no evidence that Hanjour's remains were autopsied, no evidence that his remains were even recovered or buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

    There is no evidence that Hani Hanjour was at any time on any flight connected with 911. The Washington Post reported than Hanjour was not on board Flight 77 because he did not have a ticket. [Washington Post, 9/16/01] It's hard to imagine Hanjour --a skinny 120 lbs --overpowering the crew, forcing his way on board armed only with a box cutter, forcing the hunky pilot and co-pilot out of the cockpit and not only flying the 200 ton airliner but maneauvering it in ways that experienced pilots say is simply impossible. This is not Alice in Wonderland and we are not required to believe six impossible things before losing our lunches. [apologies to Lewis Carroll]

    There is, in fact, no case against the 'alleged' 19 Arab Hijackers whatsoever. There is no probable cause to indict them! There is no admissible evidence. There was no case! There is no reason to believe the Bush cover story with respect to 911, Iraq, the nuclear threat, the raison d'etre for the illegal presence of the US in the Middle East. There is no defense against mass murder and war crimes charges against Bush, the government of the United States, the Pentagon brass and co-conspirators throughout K-Street and the Military/Industrial complex!

    Bush had method.

    He had at his disposal the US military and the intelligence apparatus of the CIA in order to 'pull off' 911. His 'old man' --Bush Sr --had been Director of the CIA and most certainly had 'connections', perhaps a constituency loyal to him and powerful elites to whom the senior Bush may still be beholden.

    Bush had motive.

    Bush and his co-conspirators benefited from 911. The Bush/GOP 'base' of exceedingly rich elites got even richer short selling airline stocks. A neocon base benefited in numerous ways but primarily the elevation of their radical politics to policy. The oil companies that made up Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' may have benefited most of all. They had already carved up the oil fields of the Middle East.

    Bush had opportunity.

    Bushco, i.e, Bush, co-conspirators, complicit and material support, alone had the opportunity to order and 'supervise' 911 by way of co-conspirators Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. That may be evidence enough to get you injected with a lethal cocktail for much less ambitious and malevolent crimes in the fascist, gulag state of Texas, a state in which corporations are paid by the state to kill people. Hitler would have been proud!

    It's not enough that the Bush administration actively covered up evidence even as it sought to quash every investigation of 911, Bush and Condoleeza Rice would lie about the event after the fact. Specifically, both Bush and Condo stated that the crashing of airliners into buildings could not have been foreseen, were not foreseen. [Bush: No evidence that US could avoid 9/11] Bush lied! Condo lied! The administration had 'gamed' such a scenario. It was the basis for G8 summit security.

    No other person or group had this kind of opportunity. No other person or group had the capability to 'pull off' the crime of 911. Only Bushco --that is, Bush, his co-conspirators, or material support --could have planned, supervised and executed 911. The belief that Bin Laden could have co-ordinated the attacks of 911 from inside a cave in Afghanistan is ludicrous. Only two types continue to advocate it: the guilty and the stupid!

    Bush's opposition to the creation of the 911 Commission, his orders to destroy evidence at the Pentagon and at 'ground zero', his interference with the 911 Commission, his ongoing cover up are not the actions of an innocent man. Had Bush wanted the truth out, he would have supported a complete, fair, and impartial investigation. That was, of course, the last thing Bush wanted.

    Those who assert must prove. Those who have asserted that an airliner struck the Pentagon have provided no evidence whatsoever! Rather, they have sought to withhold evidence, primarily hundreds of still photos and videos that might have cleared the whole thing up! The black-hearted liars who continue to espouse an absurd theory have no proof and no evidence in their support

    Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon!

    Here's what you need to know about the Pentagon.
    • No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered.
    • Only ONE engine rotor was recovered!
    • A 757 has TWO such rotors and both are much, much larger than the single rotor that was found!
    • A 757 would have left behind some 200 tons of debris unless the GOP has managed to repeal the laws of the conservation of matter and energy!
    • Engine rotors are made of a Steel/Titanium alloy to withstand high temps INSIDE jet engines.
    • If a 757 had struck the Pentagon, BOTH such rotors would have survived; EACH rotor is about twice the size (or more) of the single rotor found
    With a wingspan of over 116 ft the Global Hawk would have had no problem clipping the four damaged poles, skimming just above the pristine lawn, crashing into a portion of the Pentagon that was --conveniently --undergoing extensive renovations at the time.

    At the very instant of the crash, Flight 77 was above it all at 273 feet.

    At any speed less than that of light, a single object may not occupy two places at the same time. Either Flight 77 struck the Pentagon or it was at an altitude of 273 feet, some 200 feet ABOVE the Pentagon, at the very instant of the crash, as official flight data indicates, or it was not! I believe the Flight Data. I do not believe the lying sack o' shit who dared occupy the White House for eight years.

    A Global Hawk has only one engine rotor and it is of the size of the ONLY rotor to have been found in the Pentagon debris. Had a 757 crashed into the Pentagon TWO rotors each about three times that size would have been found. They were not!

    One of the most damning critiques Bush's official theory comes from, Heather Thomas, author of Trophies: A Novel:
    There was no fuselage at the Pentagon. There was none that you could check out. They said it vaporized, and yet they produced bodies saying that they didn't vaporize. You can vaporize a two-ton engine?

    --Author, Trophies
    Thomas is absolutely correct. It's hard to imagine fires hot enough to vaporize the hard steel engines of a 757. It is even harder to imagine corpses left behind in fires hot enough to 'vaporize' engine rotors made of titanium/steel alloy! In fact, a titanium/steel alloy is used for airliner engines precisely because it will not melt or --worse --completely vaporize in a kerosene fire.

    Last time, I checked flight was still possible! If Bush were correct, it would not be! Jet engines of any sort would simply not work if the rotors in them melted at kerosene fire temperatures. If you can still buy a ticket at Newark and fly to Los Angeles, Bush is a liar. That I have done precisely that proves that Bush is a liar! And likewise --a large chunk of what we still call our government.

    The Bushco cover is easily disproved with a single fact. In response to an FOIA request by a professional pilots association, Flight 77 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. Flight 77 was at altitude of 273 feet within about a second or two of the so-called 'crash' into the Pentagon, perhaps at the very instant of the alleged 'crash'. That puts Flight 77 over 200 feet ABOVE the Pentagon within about half a second of the impact.

    Now --if, indeed, any aircraft of any type struck the Pentagon, it was not Flight 77. The official data also means that 'alleged' witnesses could not possibly have seen a 757 crash into the Pentagon. It was --according to the data --on a trajectory that would have made it impossible to see from the witnesses' known position.

    Neither could Flight 77 have struck the 'light poles' enroute. It was too high and on the wrong trajectory. From an altitude of 273 feet, Flight 77 had no chance of descending to within a foot of the Pentagon lawn and leveling within less than a second! The axis of Bush/Cheney/Neocon would have you believe absurdities, lies and nonsense.

    Now --a missile might have taken a route that clipped the light poles enroute to the Pentagon. In the only recognizable 'film' released, a white 'missile' (Rumsfeld's term) is seen skimming across the lawn enroute to its crash. It is easy to image this 'missile' striking the poles within a second or so of its appearance on film.

    A 757 airliner is a civilian craft, not a nuclear powered craft. It does not carry a nuclear war head or hardened nose cone. Had a cvilian 757 crashed the Pentagon there would have been no need to order decontamination procedures. No such procedures were carried out in New York, but were carried out at the Pentagon. Clearly, 'officials' knew at the time that a civilian airliner had not crashed the Pentagon.

    The only scenario that fully explains the necessity of decontamination procedures is that of a military craft crashing into the Pentagon. It is my belief that that is what happened in fact. Don't try to tell me that such procedures are just routine. They were not routine in New York and were not, in fact, carried out!

    Now --a technology called 'Global Hawk' may very well explain the seemingly inexplicable events of 911 and, at the same time, point an accusing finger. Not everyone can just pick up the phone and order a flight and/or strike by a Global Hawk. Clearly --the Commander-in-Chief could do precisely that!

    The Global Hawk is operated by remote control. The US, in fact, outfitted an aircraft with Global Hawk technology and flew it --without a pilot --from California to Australia entirely by remote control. No Arab hijackers were required! The Global Hawk, moreover, would have had no problems with the maneuver credited to Hanjour but which experienced pilots say is impossible in a 757.

    A Global Hawk has only one engine rotor and it is of the size of the ONLY rotor to have been found in the Pentagon debris. Had a 757 crashed into the Pentagon TWO rotors each about three times that size would have been found. They were not! And that's because a 757 DID NOT strike the Pentagon.

    The burden of proof is upon those who have asserted that an airliner struck the Pentagon. It is time for those who continue to make that assertion to prove it, or, at the very, very least support it with a scintilla of verifiable evidence. The black-hearted liars who continue to espouse that absurd theory have not only no proof but no evidence in their support.

    With a wingspan of 116 ft the Global Hawk would have had no problem clipping the four damaged pole, skimming just above the pristine lawn, crashing into that portion of the Pentagon undergoing extensive renovations at the time. At the very instant of the crash, Flight 77 was above it all at 273 feet. It could not have and did not strike the Pentagon! There was no recovery of 757 wreckage at the Pentagon. I challenge Bush: explain that!!

    There are no hijacker names on the pathologists' report

    Pathologist Dr. Olmsted filed an FOIA request for the official autopsy report from the Pentagon crash. Guess what! There are no hijacker names on the pathologists' report. There is, therefore, no evidence that Hanjour's remains were autopsied, no evidence that his remains were even recovered or buried in Arlington National Cemetery. More to the point, there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour was at any time on any flight connected with 911. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone but ticket passengers were ever on that flight at any time. And there are no 'hijackers' among the passengers.

    Could Flight 77 have simply leveled off? Bluntly --no! Flight 77 had only a half second to two seconds in which to dive a couple of hundred feet and then level off thus accounting for both the light pole damage and the hit into the Pentagon. [Aerodynamics Simulation Software] Such a maneuver is outside manufacturers specifications, simply, impossible in that aircraft. Moreover, had that happened the 757 would not have been seen by the eyewitnesses who could ONLY have seen it on the other trajectory. Watch the vid.


    Calum Douglas presents his investigation into the flight data recorder from Flight 77. the Indian YMCA in Fitzroy Square, London on 8th June 2007.

    It is also 'outside the performance envelope' of one Hani Hanjour who 1) trained on a simulator and, in fact, had never set foot inside a 757; 2) was said by the Washington Post to have never boarded Flight 77 in the first place. Again --to make the point: there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour was ever on Flight 77.

    In summary: the Washington Post said that Hani Hanjour did not have a ticket! Nor was his name was on the original flight manifest. Flight manifests are not official. They are simply a head count done by staff, names typed on a list. It is doubtful that a flight manifest would be admissible in court. A coroner's report, however, is considered to be evidence; it is admissible in court. It's official.

    Hani Hanjour is not listed on the coroner's report of those who were autopsied.

    For that matter, NONE of the alleged hijackers are listed. There are no hijackers names on the official coroner's report! There is no evidence that any hijacker was on board any 'said' aircraft at any time. There is no evidence to believe any assertion made by Bushco with regard to any aspect of 911.

    Even idiots of the GOP must admit that nothing can be in two places at the same time unless the laws of physics as described by both Einstein and Newton have been repealed. Either Flight 77 was at the altitude which NTSB Official Flight Data says it was OR it struck the Pentagon. But it could not have done both. I believe the Official Flight Data and the 3-D models derived from it. I DO NOT believe a word ever uttered by Bush, Cheney, Rice or Rumsfeld. Nothing said by them is credible. Nothing said by them is remotely believable.

    NTSB Flight Data: Official 'Explanation' of Flight 93 is a Criminal Fraud!

    According to official NTSB Flight Data, Flight 93 could not possibly have crashed in the field in PA. The flight data flatly contradicts Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. Guess which one is lying!

    Simply --any theory that raises more questions than it explains may be discarded. A set of related facts are explained by 'theories' which must, of necessity, explain every relevant fact. Theories inconsistent with proven facts must be discarded as false. Bush's theory explains nothing and is inconsistent with established science. The Bush theory violates Occam's Razor by raising more problems than it can possibly explain.
    The towering 14th-century philosopher William of Occam put it this way: "Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity." William was telling us we should make no more assumptions than we really need to explain anything -- the simplest explanation is best. We call that idea Occam's Razor because it helps slice away the junk in our thinking.

    --Dr. John Lienhard, University of Houston's College of Engineering, The Engines of Our Ingenuity
    Still other problems are raised by ex post facto attempts to paper over the holes.

    The first reporters on the scene at both the Pentagon and the so-called 'crash site' in PA were correct. There was NO airliner debris at either location. The narrow ditch at PA could not have accommodated a 757. The ditch was most probably created by the backhoe that was seen in the very earliest photos from the PA crash site.

    Let us find out where all that missing debris is. If there is an airliner down there, let's dig it up. We have the technology to do it: backhoes and shovels. It is LUDICROUS to suppose that Flight 93 buried itself underground leaving mere scraps topside. [See: Hoodwinked at Shanksville].

    Damien, a regular contributor to this blog, has put together an exhaustive survey of equally disturbing holes in the official theories concerning Flight 93 which we have been expected to believe crashed in PA. Following is Damien's report --a damning critique and proof that the Bush cabal cover stories about Flight 93 are simply impossible.

    Following is Damien's report:


    The evidence discrepancies from Flight 77 are echoed in the absurdities of Flight 93. This from Pilots for 911 Truth:

    1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support observations.

    2. All Altitude data on the northern approach contradicts witnesses published by the New York Times.

    3. Witness observations of approach path contradict northern approach as described by Popular Mechanics and the US Govt. Several witnesses observed the aircraft approaching from southeast over Indian Lake and from the south prior to witnessing explosion. Parts found in New Baltimore, 8 miles southeast of crater is a direct contradiction to the northern approach claimed by the US Govt.

    4. Environmental Protection Agency reports no soil contamination of jet fuel after testing 5,000-6,000 yards of earth including 3 ground wells. Smoke plume photographed by a witness does not suggest a jet fuel rich explosion.

    5. Impact angle according to Flight Data Recorder does not support an almost vertical impact as the govt story and crater suggests.

    That's right, the flight data recorder has the plane impacting upside down at 40 degrees to the horizontal. You could google all day and never find an image showing where the huge tail hit the ground! You will only ever see vertical impact photos. The only photo shows a smoke plume more consistent with a smaller ordinance explosion. There are no heavy kerosene fumes filling the sky. According to FDR data there was 17.01 tons (5,500 gals) of fuel left at time of impact. Yet the EPA found no ground contamination from jet fuel. Unbelievable!

    "We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," witness Jim Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth." - Pittsburgh Channel (09/11/01)

    The impact hole is 75' wide and the aircraft is 125' feet wide. (See also here)

    The volume of debris is too small. The only photos released by the authorities showing small debris. Multiple witnesses at the Shanksville site reported on the lack of debris. The FBI claims that it recovers 95 percent of the plane and sent it on to United Airlines. That would be about 60 tons of plane debris. I defy anyone to produce evidence that 60 tons of plane debris was taken from Shankesville or forwarded to UA. Lies!

    Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller reported that they had found "unspecified human remains and enough minuscule pieces of plane debris to fill one-third of a dumpster." That's right, 1/3 of a dumpster! This dumpster!

    The "recovered" remains, allegedly from Fl93, are anomalous and are suggestive of evidence tampering. -- A terrorist passport found in the streets of New York that "survived" the WTC attacks and a Koran and materials recovered from Mohammed Atta's car all appear to be staged evidence, as does the unmarked red bandana and terrorist driver's licence recovered at Shanksville. When 200 airline seats are totally destroyed you don't expect to find unmarked red bandanas and bibles!

    The human remains (600 lbs) does not compare with the passenger weights (4 tons). Modern, high temperature crematoria take 2 hours to burn bodies yet we are expected to believe that 4 tons of human remains disappeared ("vaporised") in an instant leaving only 150- 600lbs of tissue shreds. The temperatures were simply not high enough to dispose of that volume of human remains in such a small time frame. If the bodies burned above ground they would have left a recognizable offensive smell (burnt tissue like at a BBQ) that would have been noticed just like at other aircraft crash sites. Carbon based objects such as humans, luggage and seating require oxygen to burn. If they were burned above ground they would have produced larger amounts of smoke than was seen. Had they passed into the ground they would not have burned because there was no oxygen; they might have been shredded, but not consumed by fire. So if the seats burned above ground then 200 seat frames would be there somewhere. They're not. Instead, we have this.

    Officially, the largest piece found of Fl 93 was a seven-foot-long piece of the fuselage skin, including four windows. Given that the wings are 125' wide with a 40' high tail then that's a load of baloney right there!

    There is no verifiable evidence chain of custody on the debris, human remains or FDR.

    The FBI refused to allow either the FAA or NTSB carry out investigations required of them by law and which they had undertaken as standard procedure for ALL previous aircraft crashes occuring in the US over many decades. The FBI did NOT carry out any forensic evaluation of the crash nor permit anyone else to do so. That's a profoundly unprofessional course of action given that one caller from Fl 93 late in the flight said a bomb had possibly blown up in the plane.

    Neither the NTSB or the FAA handled the evidence, only the FBI. Isn’t that their job? -- yes it is, but they have no legal authority to prohibit, hinder or obstruct legally mandated inquiries by the FAA and the NTSB that should have taken place. They were forbidden from doing so. The FBI also had clear obligations in regard to the handling of evidence which they failed to fulfill. The usual investigative procedures in regard to flight crashes and the handling of evidence were not followed in regard to 911.

    Whatever happened at Shanksville, the official 911 account is baloney! In Aug 2006 a Russian plane, almost identical in size to Fl93, crashed in Siberia. They recovered 140 bodies and huge amounts a debris. But nothing like that at Shankesville.

    -- Damien
    Lies about the Twin Towers

    Everyone in America should know that alleged 'plane crashes' into the Twin Towers could not and did not result in their collapses. Descriptions by numerous witnesses, including that of professional firefigters describe controlled demolitions and thermite/thermate fires which burned for weeks.

    On videos, molten steel can be seen streaming down the outer walls. The relatively cool kerosene fires were already spent by this time and could not have melted steel in any case.

    The alleged 'plane crashes' into the Twin Towers could not and did not result in their collapses.

    Descriptions by numerous witnesses, including that of professional firefigters describe controlled demolitions and thermite/thermate fires which burned for weeks. Jet fuel fires are spent very quickly. Ordinary fires can be extinguished with sand by robbing the fire of oxygen, but if one covered a thermite fire with tons of sand, the fire would not stop. Certainly that was the case at WTC where the fires burned 'slowly and more moderately for weeks'. Jet fuel fires are spent very quickly. They do not continue to burn for weeks.

    On videos, molten steel can be seen streaming down the outer walls. The relatively cool kerosene fires were already spent by this time and could not have melted steel.

    Why Silverstein Should be Indicted for Murder

    There is no reason to suppose that anything supernatural happened at WTC 7; there is no reason to suppose that laws of physics discovered and described by William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, Newton, Galileo et al were repealed.

    There is reason to suspect that something highly illegal happened at WTC 7. Persistent heat patterns, observed and photographed from space are big holes in Bush's official theory which cannot explain them innocently. If 'thermal expansion' is to be implicated, the source of additional heat --a violation of fundamental physics --must be demonstrated. An ex post facto cover story, like Arlen Spector's magic bullet theory, is not it. Anyone who has ever built a fire knows that fires run down, get cooler and eventually burn out. Left alone, fires never get hotter. Likewise, steel exposed to fire will only get cooler over time. The only thing that might have saved the sorry assess of the 911 liars is an non-existent exception to the laws of entropy.

    In thermodynamics, the concept of entropy is a measure of the amount of energy no longer capable of conversion into work after a transformation process has taken place. Things run down. Hot things get cooler. If the 'cool' kerosene fires were insufficient to melt steel, then the presence of melted steel must be explained in another manner. If the fires are now said to have gotten hotter, the additional energy must be explained rationally. Neither Bush nor his legion of paid 911 liars can change the laws of physics.

    The best explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is still the simplest --Silverstein's simple statement that the building had been 'pulled' following his discussion and agreement with firefighters. Silverstein's own explanation --that the building was 'pulled' --explains everything while providing sufficient probable cause to bring mass murder charges against Silverstein.
    ['Probable Cause' is ] ...a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

    It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

    When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

    In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.

    --Probable Cause
    Silverstein is on video tape confirming that within minutes of his discussion with firefighters, in which it was agreed that the building be pulled. The building would not be pulled, however, until two major news outlets reported the collapse but before it happened in fact. The collapse of WTC 7 looks like every other controlled demolition because that is precisely what it was.

    To cover up the holes in officialdom, the NIST went back to the drawing board. They tried to explain the perfect, controlled demolition of WTC 7 with 'Thermal expansion'. Trouble is real 'thermal expansion' differs among various materials and the description of 'thermal expansion' by real physicists bear little resemblance to the fairy tale cooked up by NIST.

    The 'thermal expansion' co-efficient of steel can be looked up on the internet for free! If you are willing to pay a small yearly subscription fee, you can plug that coefficient (for steel) into an 'online' calculator that will tell you precisely how much 'expansion' can be expected per degree of heat in various scales. The coefficients are one thing. Of more interest are the exponents which, as I recall, are always negative, as in negative 6. Any positive number to the power of negative six, for example, is very, very, very small. Any coefficient to a negative power is very, very, very small.

    Desparate to paper over bias and dishonesty, the NIST just tried to baffle you with bullshit. Cuttting to the chase: the best explanation for the fall of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers is simply controlled demolition. WTC was not even struck by an airliner. It looks like a controlled demoliton because it was a controlled demolition.

    Clearly --the Bush administration itself is aware that it is in deep, deep trouble.
    ...there is one group of people that has always taken the war crimes charges seriously--the members of the Bush administration themselves. They have good reason for doing so, because they have exposed hundreds of Americans to possible prosecution for violating US law.

    As long as George Bush is president and controls the Department of Justice, there will no prosecutions for war crimes, but after Bush is gone, anything could happen and hundreds of Americans could be charged with war crimes.

    --David Wallechinsky, Is George Bush Guilty of War Crimes...and Who Cares?
    Bush's exit from the Oval Office should have made him vulnerable to process for violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996 passed by both houses of Congress without dissent. What is wrong with this country that it simply will not prosecute anyone BUT the poor and disadvantaged. Why are so-called "Presidents" considered to be above the laws that apply to everyone else?

    The act violated by Bush covers every crime that may be charged to Bush as of this moment and as of the time Bush will exit the 'cover' of the Oval Office. The act deals specifically with his deliberate "killing, torture or inhumane treatment" of 'detainees' at Abu Ghraib, GITMO and the gulag archipelago of 'detention centers' throughout Eastern Europe. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in the death of a detainee carry the death penalty and there is no statute of limitations.
    (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

    --TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes

    Bush had been planning to commit capital crimes long before 911 and, in fact, tried to make 'legal' the crimes that he had intended to commit.
    Wishing to rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein, in 1996 a Republican-dominated Congress passed the War Crimes Act without a dissenting vote. It defined a "war crime" as any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It thereby advanced a global trend of mutual reinforcement between national and international law.

    The War Crimes Act was little noticed until the disclosure of Alberto Gonzales's infamous 2002 "torture memo." Gonzales, then serving as presidential counsel, advised President Bush to declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people the United States captured in Afghanistan. That, Gonzales wrote, "substantially reduced the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

    --The Nation, Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
    Bush did not succeed in putting himself above the laws that prescribed the death penalty for the very violations of laws that he had planned. Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government [as quoted above] reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here.

    It was because Bush knew he was guilty that he tried to ram through Congress amendments to the War Crimes Act that would exonerate him EX POST FACTO. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Bush defenders will waste their time trying to convince me that ex post facto prohibition applies only to those laws making one prosecutable for acts that were legal at the time of commission. In other words, if it was legal to spit on the sidewalk at the time you did so, you are immune to prosecution under any law passed after you had so spit!

    Clearly --Bush can not commit murder now and expect to escape prosecution by making it legal after the fact of his crime of murder. Don't confuse this with amnesty, which, to my knowledge, Bush has not sought nor does he deserve. Rather, Bush has tried to rewrite both laws and history. He tried to make legal those capital crimes that he had already committed. It is absurd to excuse the crimes of mass murder and high treason with an ex post facto, unconstitutional act of congress.

    Several yeas ago, I wrote an article that pointed out that any federal grand jury could indict Bush for capital crimes and, in fact, could begin an investigation of Bush upon its own volition. Any federal judge can, upon his/her own motion, convene a federal grand jury to consider any case deemed worthy of investigation. I would suggest that any Federal Judge reading this, get off your bench and convene a jury! It is your patriotic duty to this nation and its laws!

    Former LA Prosecutor Vince Bugliosi makes another case, that because Bush deliberately lied in order to send US soldiers to their deaths in an illegal war, Bush is prosecutable for murder.
    In the first sentence, we're told:
    The book you are about to read deals with what I believe to be the most serious crime ever committed in American history - - the president of the nation, George W. Bush, knowingly and deliberately taking this country to war in Iraq under false presences, a war that condemned over 100,000 human beings, including 4,000 American soldiers, to horrific, violent deaths." (V. Bugliosi, p. 3)
    The president "knowingly and deliberately" caused the deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians and that's called murder, plain and simple. This is not a hypothetical case that could happen under special legal interpretations. When the president leaves office, he is subject to the same law as the rest of us. Bugliosi explains the ability to prosecute the case against George W. Bush by a district attorney or states attorney in any local jurisdiction where a life was lost in the Iraq war. Federal prosecutors also have that option. Bugliosi's detailed analysis of this phenomenon offers some of the best analysis in the book and the detailed end notes.

    --E. Pluribus Media, Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
    Because he has notoriety, Bugliosi has succeeded in attracting some attention to this issue. My fear is that in the post-election atmosphere of relief that Obama turned back the GOP wave the pressure to bring George W. Bush to justice will subside. That would be a grave mistake, a catastrophic precedent. If Bush is allowed to make good a get away, the signal will have been sent that US presidents are above the law and may perpetrate mass murder and war crimes at will.

    Violations of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 are NOT to be confused with violations of those international treaties which may have the effect of putting Bush in the dock at the Hague. Bush is a felon under US laws. Certainly, Bush had planned to commit acts that were known to be violations of US laws and our treaty commitments. Even before 911 provided Bush the pretext to attack and invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, Tom DeLay sponsored legislation that provided for a US military invasion of The Hague in those instances should Bush find himself in the dock for war crimes. The timing of the bill is material to the case against Bush but speaks to the fact that Bush had been planning to commit prosecutable war crimes and wished to immunize himself against prosecution for the acts that were known at the time to be violations of international laws to which the US was bound by treaty.

    There are yet other legal ghosts that will haunt Bush. He may be charged with perpetrating the crime of genocide.
    U.S. Code; Chapter 50A; Section § 1091. Genocide

    (a) Basic Offense. - Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific
    intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.

    (1) kills members of that group;

    (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;

    (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

    (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;

    (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

    (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b0.

    --US Codes; Chapter 50A, Section § 1091. Genocide
    Hat tip to: Above Top Secret

    The Congress did not have the stomach for impeachment and shirked it's duty --that of impeaching a 'President' that should have been impeached for his crimes against the Constitution. Following impeachment, he should have been indicted for his overt violations of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 --capital crimes! The denial of justice is injustice. The denial of justice for those who presume to rule is the deniable of justice and the rule of law to those who pay their taxes, foot the bill, indulge the crimes of terrorism, mass murder, and capital war crimes of those who presume to rule. The recent regime change is but marginally better! We needed a revolution but got a bandaid! Organize now to support the creation of a federal grand jury that will investigate and indict the previous administration and demand a their trials!

    Recently, Noam Chomsky opposed an independent investigation of 911. It didn't matter, he said. Interestingly, Chomsky does not contend that Bush or his administration is innocent of the crime of 911! Chomsky's position is that it just doesn't matter. My response is that if any murder matters, this one matters! If any MASS murder matters, this one matters. If the Reichstag Fire mattered, 911 matters. If human life means anything whatsoever, 911 matters!

    If any accused murderer is given the lethal needle in Texas, then how can the release of mass murderers who had occupied the White House be justified? Having been told since children that no one was above the law, are we now to believe Chomsky's bullshit? Are 'officials' above those laws that allow a 'state' to take your life should a judge or jury decide that they just don't like you? Chomsky, here's a clue: 911 matters! Grow up and live with it!

    This is not only a moral or a philosophical issue, it's a legal one. If the 911 culprits are not investigated, charged, tried and sentenced, a horrible precedent will have been set. We will have said to government: "You are no longer responsible to the electorate and the people are no longer sovereign"! It follows inexorably and logically, that if the people are no longer sovereign, then the rest of the US Constitution is invalid. The Constitutional commentaries of the venerable Joseph Story are absolutely correct that the Constitution --the Preamble specifically --established as a matter of law the sovereignty of the people themselves.
    The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them

    --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States

    It is the principle upon which everything else in the Constitution follows and is based. If the Constitution is 'invalid', then the United States government is illegitimate, the US is not a nation, no law is valid, no tax is just, no expenditure for public purposes is legal. That Bush sought to expand his power far beyond the express powers of the executive is an indisputable matter of fact and record. He could not have done so without 911! It matters!

    How does a man of no charisma, little talent and less intelligence get himself into a position in which he rules the world? Typically it is always done the Adolph Hitler way --a phony terrorist attack, a homegrown version of the Reichstag Fire. In Bush's case 911! [See: Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks.

    The next step is the prosecutions of George W. Bush et al in federal courts for mass murder and in world courts for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.
    Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

    Principle II

    The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

    Principle III

    The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

    Principle IV

    The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

    Principle V

    Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

    Principle Vl

    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
    1. Crimes against peace:
      1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
      2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
    2. War crimes:
      Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    3. Crimes against humanity:
      Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
    Principle VII

    Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

    --Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal
    An October 2006 poll by New York Times and CBS News indicated that some 84 percent of Americans don't believe George W. Bush is telling the truth about what he knew prior to the attacks of 911. In the same year, Zogby reported that 45 percent of Americans support an investigation of George W. Bush by an International Tribunal. Such a tribunal should re-investigate whether officials of the US government allowed or consciously and deliberately helped or facilitated the attacks.

    In the same year, 911truth.org commissioned Zogby which found that about half the population of New York believes that members of the Bush administration 'knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." 911 was, therefore, a deliberate act of mass murder perpetrated upon the American people by the man who presumes the office of 'dictator'. Since that is the title he prefers to 'president', then I suggest we stop calling him "President Bush'. He is merely Bush or, more properly, Mass Murderer Bush, if you must attach a title.


    911 Inside Job


    911: Atrocity, Mass Murder, High Treason!


    Justice for 911 Perpetrators

    Additional resources:

    Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

    Subscribe

    GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Download DivX

    Spread the word