He railed against the United States, helped scout out military installations for attack, offered to introduce his comrades to an arms dealer and gave them a list of weapons he could procure, including machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. These were not the actions of a terrorist, but of a paid FBI informant who helped bring down...
read more digg story
Friday, May 11, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Bush signs National Security Directive in Case of Big "Terrorist" Attack
I do not like the looks of this. Everyone needs to read this, straight from the White House.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
U.S.: Iran helping some Sunni insurgents
I don't know if I buy this. Looks like a convienant way to connect Iran and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda would love to see the America invade the Shiites: BAGHDAD - A U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday that Shiite-dominated Iran is providing support to some Sunni insurgents fighting American forces in Iraq.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Agent says mom tipped off cop son, still on force
An FBI agent testifying in federal court Wednesday said the mother of the ringleader of a group of crooked Englewood police officers was suspected of trying to warn her son that he was under investigation while she worked in the Chicago police internal affairs division.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Officer facing drug charges ordered held
BOSTON - A Boston police officer facing drug and extortion charges admitted after his arrest last week that he helped a drug dealer collect a drug debt on several occasions while in uniform, an FBI agent testified.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Voice expert doubts caller was key witness in Poindexter case
OMAHA, Neb. - A voice expert repeated his doubts that a key witness in a 1971 murder trial of two black radical activists placed the fatal 911 call he says he did. The 911 tape was not played at the 1971 trial. Obtained after the trial, a 1970 memo between Omaha police and the FBI said the tape could affect the prosecution's case.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Venezuela Seizes Last Private Oil Fields
President Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last privately run oil fields Tuesday, intensifying a power struggle with international companies over the world's largest known single petroleum deposit.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Venezuela criticizes DEA as 'new cartel'
Justice Minister Pedro Carreno said the South American nation suspended cooperation with the agency in 2005 after determining that "they were moving a large amount of drugs." President Hugo Chavez at the time also accused the DEA of spying.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Venezuela's President Declares Country will Quit the World Bank and the IMF
"We are going to withdraw before they go and rob us," he said in a TV broadcast. Venezuela has paid off all its debts so the move is largely symbolic.
read more digg story
read more digg story
US and Saudis Sponsoring Covert Action Against Iran
The governments of Saudi Arabia and the United States are working with other states in the Middle East region to sponsor covert action against Iran, according to a report in this month's edition of The Atlantic. The report also suggests that covert attacks may occur against Iran's oil sector.
read more digg story
read more digg story
An Interactive Map of Global Investment in Iran.
Interactive web site you can check by A) Country Listing B) Global Map or C) Company Listing. Just please keep in mind this is from the same people that brought you the Iraq War. It is very interesting info though.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Bush Won't Give up Military Option on Iran Says Rice
U.S. President George W. Bush will keep a military option on the table as he seeks a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear plans, Condi Rice said.
read more digg story
read more digg story
U.S. Plans to Attack Iran from US base in Kyrgyztan Denied
On May 3 Marie Yovanovitch, U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, denied reports that the Manas base near Bishkek is being used to store nuclear weapons for a possible attack on Iran. Yovanovitch commented on the “ridiculous” nature of these allegations, which suggested that the U.S. military could use low-yield nuclear weapons to attack Iranian nuclear...
Read Story Here.
Digg Link.
Read Story Here.
Digg Link.
Those Questioned in the Hazleton Shooting are not Illegal Aliens
Looks like this won't start up the illegal immigration debate: Ferdinand said none of those involved in Wednesday’s shooting are believed to be illegal immigrants. Yet a small city with historically little to no crime still has to deal with an increase in not only crime but violent crime. The people of Hazleton are fed up and rightly so.
Read the story here.
Read the story here.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Putin Is Said to Compare U.S. Policies to Third Reich
If we continue to police the world, the opposition is not just going to be rag tag "terrorist" groups and third world nations, it is going to be Russia and China. Both have invested in Iran. We would be wise to consider that when we remind ourselves of how much of our debt China has bought up. Who thinks they might start dumping dollars if we mess with Iran. Not only that we will face a new front in "terrorism" when Shiite groups set their sights on the US. This is what I believe Putin's words are all about. He is telling the US to not to bomb their investment. We go into Iran and we may just start WW III on military and economic fronts with a heightened state of terrorism. Time for the Neocons and their sheep to wake up to these potential consequences.
Read the story here.
Read the story here.
Shooting in Hazleton Pennsylvania
Details are sketchy but if the shooters turn out to be illegal aliens, this will heat up the illegal immigration debate:
Shots rang out on a street in Hazleton Wednesday afternoon. When it was over, three people were hurt and several men were in police custody. The shooting comes one year, almost to the day, of a deadly shooting just yards away.
read more | digg story
Shots rang out on a street in Hazleton Wednesday afternoon. When it was over, three people were hurt and several men were in police custody. The shooting comes one year, almost to the day, of a deadly shooting just yards away.
read more | digg story
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Ron Paul and the DC Madam
ABC "News", owned by Disney, who owns a 37.5% interest of A&E Networks, which owns the History Channel, is where many Americans learn their perception of history. First ABC whitewashes the whole DC Madam story when people with sensitive national secrets may have been running around with prostitutes. The use of prostitutes is a classic espionage and blackmail tactic. Those people should have their clearances pulled and be fired and ABC could have done this country a service but they covered it up yet again. Brian Ross is a disgrace to his country. Now ABC attempts to lie about Ron Paul's support. The comments are clear. The very reason the internet is exploding with support is because we cannot turn on our television and ever even hear our candidate's name unless it is mentioned in a list. We have to go to youtube, we have to go to myspace, we have to go to digg. We want coverage, but more than anything else we don't want the MSM to lie about our existence. The MSM is trying to pretend Ron Paul doesn't exist and that is expected, but when they try to pretend we don't exist, they crossed the line. We are not spam, we are American citizens that do not like the direction this country is going in and want real change and we find garbage that ABC calls "reporting the news" as nothing more than canned bullshit.
Hey ABC, Ron Paul supporters exist and so do the Washington Bureaucrats who may be compromising National Security that you are covering up for!!!
Let ABC know what you think of them.
Hey ABC, Ron Paul supporters exist and so do the Washington Bureaucrats who may be compromising National Security that you are covering up for!!!
Let ABC know what you think of them.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Adviser to Duncan Hunter attacks Ron Paul and his Supporters
John Hawkins, the founder of RightWingNews and an adviser to Duncan Hunter: "Ron Paul’s people spam these polls,” says Hawkins. “We’re actually appealing to conservatives and slowly rising in those polls across the board. Paul’s our Dennis Kucinich. He’s not a conservative. He’s a libertarian. He’s a kook, and his supporters are pretty obnoxious.”
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, May 6, 2007
From the Vault: Unconstitutional Warrantless Wiretapping
Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Since the fourth amendment explicitly calls for all searches and seizures of American citizens to have judicial oversight, what happens in cases where time is of the essence and seconds count? Are we supposed to wait for a judge to approve a warrant? Absolutely not, the 1978 FISA law sets up a provision for just this purpose where warrants can be attained retroactively within 72 hours of initial surveillance. This ensures that both security and constitutionality can be protected. It worked fine for almost thirty years. Which brings the question, why was the fourth amendment and FISA law ignored by this administration?
"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."
Alberto Gonzales, December 19, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html
Now wait one second, Mr. Gonzales. The authorization makes no mention of these powers. It seems rather contradictory that an administration that appoints “strict constructionists” is making up laws through a very, very loose interpretation of the authorization of force. He then went on to say in the same briefing:
"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."
Excuse me Mr. Gonzales, but if congress gave you those powers in the authorization of force, which makes no mention of those powers, and you had previous discussions with congress on changing the FISA law, which you were told that it probably wouldn’t pass through congress, how can you possibly say that congress gave you those powers in the authorization? That doesn’t make sense. Well, let’s ask Mr. Bush why he has to circumvent the law:
"…the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do. And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right."
George W. Bush, January 26, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060126.html
Okay, “circumventing the law” may be the wrong choice of words, how about BREAKING THE LAW? And that apparent “28 year limit” on laws that you use as your argument is a new one. I will be sure to use it next April when I am supposed to send in my tax return. I will simply write the IRS a letter stating that the 16th amendment is 90+ years old, this is 2007. It’s a whole different world, thus my payment is not necessary. I feel the constitution is on my side.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Since the fourth amendment explicitly calls for all searches and seizures of American citizens to have judicial oversight, what happens in cases where time is of the essence and seconds count? Are we supposed to wait for a judge to approve a warrant? Absolutely not, the 1978 FISA law sets up a provision for just this purpose where warrants can be attained retroactively within 72 hours of initial surveillance. This ensures that both security and constitutionality can be protected. It worked fine for almost thirty years. Which brings the question, why was the fourth amendment and FISA law ignored by this administration?
"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."
Alberto Gonzales, December 19, 2005
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html
Now wait one second, Mr. Gonzales. The authorization makes no mention of these powers. It seems rather contradictory that an administration that appoints “strict constructionists” is making up laws through a very, very loose interpretation of the authorization of force. He then went on to say in the same briefing:
"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."
Excuse me Mr. Gonzales, but if congress gave you those powers in the authorization of force, which makes no mention of those powers, and you had previous discussions with congress on changing the FISA law, which you were told that it probably wouldn’t pass through congress, how can you possibly say that congress gave you those powers in the authorization? That doesn’t make sense. Well, let’s ask Mr. Bush why he has to circumvent the law:
"…the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do. And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right."
George W. Bush, January 26, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060126.html
Okay, “circumventing the law” may be the wrong choice of words, how about BREAKING THE LAW? And that apparent “28 year limit” on laws that you use as your argument is a new one. I will be sure to use it next April when I am supposed to send in my tax return. I will simply write the IRS a letter stating that the 16th amendment is 90+ years old, this is 2007. It’s a whole different world, thus my payment is not necessary. I feel the constitution is on my side.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
New Campaign Tactics
Ron Paul...WOW...he has the same first name as Ron Reagan. You should definitely vote him for President based on this. I think this completely makes him electable.
I know it's shallow but I already tried explaining what conservative policy is and has historically been to a lot of fellow Republicans and they just aimlessly stare at me, shaking in fear that Muslims will be under their bed when we leave Iraq, especially when they have absolutely no clue why those Muslims hate us in the first place.
Somebody told them freedom was the reason why they hated us, so being the tough guys that they were they decided to show the terrorists we mean business and just disregard the Bill of Rights altogether, they told me I was letting the terrorists win because I dissented, and that I can't have the Bill of Rights if I'm dead, which is unfortunate because I apparently can't have the Bill of Rights when I'm alive either.
Then they told me that the reason the Muslims hate us is because they have lived under dictatorships and Democracy Spreading is the answer. I pointed out that while not a great system, our next unfortunate target, Iran did have eight candidates in their last election. They called the elections shams. I then remembered that they did have a despotic ruler and he was overthrown by the Islamic Fundamentalists, so there may be some truth to this. I then remembered how he came to power and they told me I hate America.
They then explained that at some level of the Iranian Military there was some kind of intelligence report that said they cooperated with the insurgents responsible for a certain percentage of the combat deaths. I asked them when we were going to attack the Saudi Royal Family as well. They said that I didn't have my facts straight.
A somewhat famous author named Dinesh D'Souza told me the reason the Muslims hate us is because of MTV, Hollywood, and our vile media. I can't see how he believed that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon symbolized our music and movies. I always found the Pentagon to symbolize our Military Policy and the Twin Towers to symbolize the way we do commerce but I guess I am just being a conspiracy theorist. He then cited three word phrases from Bin Laden's Fatwa. I then read Bin Laden's Fatwa.
Then a few of them told me that the Muslims wanted a holy war. Because 4,000 years after the earth was created Jesus arrived first and thus the Muslims hate being second place and wrong. I shook my head.
Finally, the other reason I used such a shallow tactic is that many of those same Republicans have been using, almost exclusively, looks as a justification for their candidate, usually Romney and Fred Thompson (CFR, AEI, China Commission). So I hope my attempt at benchmarking from other more popular campaigns will work and gain candidate Paul more support.
I know it's shallow but I already tried explaining what conservative policy is and has historically been to a lot of fellow Republicans and they just aimlessly stare at me, shaking in fear that Muslims will be under their bed when we leave Iraq, especially when they have absolutely no clue why those Muslims hate us in the first place.
Somebody told them freedom was the reason why they hated us, so being the tough guys that they were they decided to show the terrorists we mean business and just disregard the Bill of Rights altogether, they told me I was letting the terrorists win because I dissented, and that I can't have the Bill of Rights if I'm dead, which is unfortunate because I apparently can't have the Bill of Rights when I'm alive either.
Then they told me that the reason the Muslims hate us is because they have lived under dictatorships and Democracy Spreading is the answer. I pointed out that while not a great system, our next unfortunate target, Iran did have eight candidates in their last election. They called the elections shams. I then remembered that they did have a despotic ruler and he was overthrown by the Islamic Fundamentalists, so there may be some truth to this. I then remembered how he came to power and they told me I hate America.
They then explained that at some level of the Iranian Military there was some kind of intelligence report that said they cooperated with the insurgents responsible for a certain percentage of the combat deaths. I asked them when we were going to attack the Saudi Royal Family as well. They said that I didn't have my facts straight.
A somewhat famous author named Dinesh D'Souza told me the reason the Muslims hate us is because of MTV, Hollywood, and our vile media. I can't see how he believed that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon symbolized our music and movies. I always found the Pentagon to symbolize our Military Policy and the Twin Towers to symbolize the way we do commerce but I guess I am just being a conspiracy theorist. He then cited three word phrases from Bin Laden's Fatwa. I then read Bin Laden's Fatwa.
Then a few of them told me that the Muslims wanted a holy war. Because 4,000 years after the earth was created Jesus arrived first and thus the Muslims hate being second place and wrong. I shook my head.
Finally, the other reason I used such a shallow tactic is that many of those same Republicans have been using, almost exclusively, looks as a justification for their candidate, usually Romney and Fred Thompson (CFR, AEI, China Commission). So I hope my attempt at benchmarking from other more popular campaigns will work and gain candidate Paul more support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)