Alex Jones Claims Dershowitz Debate was Nixed

Now there are no clues as to who gave Alex Jones the boot and why, but Jones is contending that he was supposed to do three segments but was cut after the second segment.  Interesting to see what is CNN's response will be to these allegations.  Did Dershowitz fear that Jones would go "low" and talk about OJ like he did with Piers about the phone hacking scandal in the first segment of last night's show?  Really easy to slide a knife into Dershowitz's back rhetorically, even if AJ did so while wearing a rare shoes.  If we want to talk about conspiracy theorists, the Simpson defense attorney is a perfect example.

Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan

Sometimes when someone takes a hammer to the idols, it makes a rather unattractive clanging sound and leaves unsightly dents.  Especially when one swings wildly.  

On Piers Morgan's show last night Alex came on Fast and Furious with an attention span short enough to have any pill pushing doctor prescribing him with Adderall even though he is neither a teenager nor a child.  Here is a rundown of some of the highlights from the show:

0:30-1:03: Why does Alex Jones want to deport Piers?  Alex states, as he has repeatedly done before that it was to call attention that foreigners are calling for the disarming of the American people.  Alex then goes on to state that the only countries where they haven't taken the guns are the Swiss and the American People and that once they disarm the Americans they can start their world tyranny.

1:04-1:13: Alex then goes on to mention while the government, the media, and Hollywood are pushing for gun control, the government is arming itself to the teeth (1),(2).  He then touches on the expansion of paramilitary equipment and drones, including predator drones.

1:14-1:22: The 2nd Amendment isn't for duck hunting, its to protect us from tyrannical government.

1:23-1:35: Alex mentions the women in India that are arming themselves to protect themselves from rape.

2:09-2:15: "Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chavez took the guns..."

2:16-2:21: "1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS!" 

3:02-3:22: "How about Prozac? You know the number, oh that's the big sponsor"..."In the US the number 1 cause of death is now suicide..."

4:28-4:31: "They arrest people in England if they defend themselves.  That's on record."

4:22-4:54: Alex then talks about Piers Morgan's potential reasons for fleeing the UK and proceeds to call him "a hatchet man for the NWO."

4:57-5:02: Alex challenges Piers to a boxing match.  Not sure what that was all about.

6:50-6:53: "Because there's criminals I don't lose my rights Piers."

8:10-8:16: "Why does Diane Feinstein tell 60 minutes that she plans to take Mr. and Mrs. America's guns?"

8:47-8:56: Makes the Sandy Hook/Jaws analogy where media hype can cause individuals to be scared of dying in ways that are very rare.

9:39-9:55: Alex expands on media hype with mass shootings.

10:06-10:08: "Its called Democide, google it folks."

12:00-12:14:  Classic Alex Jones plug for infowars.

12:15-12:39: Not a highlight, but it devolves into a discussion of 9/11 at Piers request.

12:40-12:48: Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Gladio

12:49-13:08 : Back to 9/11.

13:09-End: Alex mimics a British accent and starts talking about the Reichstag fire.

Following the segment with Alex, Piers brought Alan Dershowitz to defend him and serve as an expert on knife gun crime.  Piers was quick to point out that Alan Dershowitz once defended John Lennon, which is what Mr. Dershowitz is most remembered for.

New Beginnings

Dry your eyes my little friend, jubilation in the land.  The recent election has inspired me to to start writing about the ridiculous state we as a country find ourselves in.  The next few years are going to be a wild ride...

Thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses (hoping for 15-20%)

I supported McCain in '99. He stabbed all of us in the back by kissing Bush's ass. Bush's campaign was completely immoral with what he did in South Carolina and McCain took it. The reason that election was so close was because Conservatives, angry independents, and Libertarians stayed home. 9/11 changed politics for a while and we are back to square one, except the Philosophical Conservatives, angry independents, and Libertarians are even more pissed, we stayed home in 2006 and now many are backing Ron. We were the deciding factor in the 1994 Revolution, in many presidential elections and when we stay home it gets bad for Republicans and we don't feel like compromising with the Corporatists and Globalists, whether unipolar as with the Neoconservatives or multi-polar as with the UN Crowd. Endless wars, professional cosmopolitan bureaucrats and cronies are not acceptable choices but unfortunately they are damn near eternal if you really look at history and political philosophy especially classical and medieval.

I just hope that snowballs chance in hell works because this country is on the decline and it is time to reject mediocrity and empire. While I agreed with Ron well before he was ever running for President, for many others he serves as a "Guide of the Perplexed" and it is refreshing to see him spread a message that doesn't get the credit it deserves and has been hijacked for too long.

Weekly Standard calls Ron Paul's military support phony soldiers

Michael Goldfarb says that Ron Paul's Military support is a fantasy. He doesn't offer any evidence other than speculation as to why he is right. Also not surprising is that the Weekly Standard doesn't know what active military means.

read more | digg story

Ron Paul Supporters 'Live in Their Mothers' Basements'

That's according to National Review's sneering Kate O'Beirne, who erroneously ascribes Ron's support to the pro-tax Fair Taxers. Kate, he's the no-income tax guy. Maybe Ms. O'Beirne needs to spend more time on her computer because her knowledge on the topic is obviously deficient. This is a perfect example of the current problem with the MSM.

read more | digg story

NAFTA Superhighway: Name doesn't matter Mexican Truckers free to travel US

Contact your Congressman, this is basically the end of American Jobs. This is something everyone should be mad about, I know Ron Paul supporters are worried about this. Get those phones ringing. Sleep deprivation causes a lot of accidents, illegal workers will be smuggled, and terrorism worries arise.http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

read more | digg story

CIA Inspector General Report

Lots have been made about the CIA OIG Report on the failures running up to 9/11. Frankly it doesn't tell me anything I don't know, it is an executive summary after all and we don't know everything that went on and don't get me started on government "investigations". Anyway there is no way possible that means everything is Tenet's fault even though he deserves plenty. The Talk Radio Right have been trying to spin this to vindicate Bush, but if people actually read the summary they realize there is no way it would place blame on Bush or anybody else for that matter. The next to last paragraph on the third page of the report explicitly says:

This review focuses only on those findings of the Joint Inquiry that relate to the Central Intelligence Agency. The Team cooperated with the Department of Justice Inspector General and the Kean Commission as they pursued their separate inquiries. For this report, the Team interviewed officers from other agencies who had been detailed to the CIA in the period before 9/11, but did not undertake to interview systematically other officers outside CIA and the IC Management Staff. This report reaches no conclusions about the performance of the other agencies or their personnel.

So there you have it folks. Seriously read the summary and tell me that it tells you much more than you should already know. Take a look at this, this raw data alone covers much of what is in the report and might even give potential clues as to what is whited out. And as you peruse through the previous two links, remember it is raw data, consider the sources and decide for yourself, but please do a better job than this schmuck did when he considered raw data.

Frankly I don't know if we'll ever truly know the real people that are to blame for 9/11 happening. Clinton definitely should get a lot of blame and so should Bush. All those people rushing to Bush's defense need to refer to their weak argument for WARRANTLESS wiretapping, "if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?" We should ask Bush the same question. If you don't have anything to hide, why refuse to go under oath? If you don't have anything to hide, why did you refuse to talk with the Commission unless Cheney was holding your hand the whole way? If you don't have anything to hide, why only let Philip Zelikow and Jaime Gorelick look at classified NSC documents? Zelikow worked on Bush's transition team and wrote a book with Condi Rice. As a side note this is an interesting little speech on page 5. Jaime Gorelick wrote this. Don't just skip over it, read it in full. So you have Condi's friend/Bush's employee on the Republican side and somebody who should have been interrogated by the 9/11 Commission on the Democratic side, instead of being on it. That is what we call in Washington a "bipartisan investigation." All those people who think laser beams melted the twin towers and all those people who think that the 9/11 Commission was legit should get a rubber room together.

Letter to the Editor

I was perusing the Internet after work on Friday and happened to come across a letter to the editor by a one Bill Herzog. Needless to say I was somewhat impressed with his level of rhetoric no matter how ill informed and faulty the reasoning. Mr. Herzog starts out by saying that anyone who opposes this war is a defeatist and that history shows that isolationism doesn’t work. Unfortunately for the sake of Mr. Herzog’s argument he is right. The United States Government has isolated us from the rest of the world after it was rather united with us. After 9/11 we had people all over the world joining in our sorrow. We rightly went after Al Qaeda, we were even provided assistance in combating Al Qaeda from Tehran, but somewhere along the line we got sidetracked. We invaded a country that was not mobilizing against us as the administration suggested to the American people. Some of the Intell was rather sensational, I remember myself agreeing with the War when Bush stated that Saddam had improved his military armaments to the point that he could attack us within 45 minutes of his command with CBRNs, turns out Tenet ridiculed that statement himself. Turns out the smoking gun wasn’t a mushroom cloud, it was the Downing Street Memo, it was the fact that much of the intelligence cited was not deemed credible, it was the fact that people with a literal paper trail of vocally wanting war with Iraq since the last war with Iraq created their own mechanism of vetting intelligence straight to the President. Much of the sensational evidence was contended by various intelligence agencies and some times stricken from Presidential speeches because they thought it was just not credible. We weren’t going to be sprayed with chemical weapons through Iraqi drones. In other words it was an unnecessary war. When one makes a severe misjudgement one must reevaluate the process that led them to the faulty conclusion. I do agree with Mr. Herzog’s sentiments on the UN, but I must inquire why he is so supportive of Bush’s War, which apparently was to enforce UN Resolutions? It can no longer be about WMDs because the Intell was a joke. Why do the Busheviks always change their rationale? They do so because it was a faulty rationale. We have way too many troops stuck in Iraq. Why are they stuck? Because they have nobody to turn the country over to, they can hold a position but they can’t leave. Who are they going to turn it over to? The Iraqi Government is faltering, Sunnis are pulling out, they are on vacation and I really don’t hear much about Iraq Forces improving in quality and more importantly quantity. All the while Al Qaeda has it easier because we are bogged down in a country that was once held by their enemy Saddam. Bin Laden tried to overthrow Saddam during Gulf War I, but was turned down by the Saudis, but this by no means that Saudi money isn’t and hasn’t been a main source of funding for Al Qaeda. The Saudis are also funding the Sunni insurgents who are responsible for the vast majority of attacks in Iraq. Guess who is arming the Saudis to the tune of a 20 billion dollar arms deal. You got it, our government. How long does Mr. Herzog wish to stay in a stalemate where we are funding both sides? How much money does he wish to burn? How many more lives must be lost for a stalemate? When will people sympathetic to Mr. Herzog’s opinions find the time to go after Al Qaeda who has been benefiting from our intervention in Iraq? Unnecessary interventions should be shunned, they do nothing but waste money and lives but also serve as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden can say to Arabs that the United States doesn’t care about combating terrorists, they want to fight imperial wars throughout the Middle East and that Bin Laden was just an early whistleblower, not a rogue murderer. If you take interest in political argument you will notice that it is a rather strong rhetorical argument considering the audience and the facts that are coming out with regards to the conduct of the Administration. Recruiting for Al Qaeda has surged and so has sympathy for it throughout the Middle East. Attacking Iraq has helped isolate us from many Arabs that would usually not be willing to kill themselves unless they truly believed that they are being invaded and oppressed by “Crusaders”. Unlike Mr. Herzog I propose we isolate Al Qaeda, show them for the rogue murderers that they are. We show Islamic Terrorism to be foolish and fruitless by defanging its arguments and specifically targeting them militarily. Mr. Bush, stop isolating us from the rest of the world, let us conduct honest trade with nations and respect their sovereignty, why would somebody want to kill themselves then? Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a system bogged down by its own tenets, yet propped up by faulty foreign policy by our government for the last fifty years. Like Communism Islamic Fundamentalism is based on faulty philosophy. It will crumble when there is no scapegoat to blame. When the Arabs will no longer be able to blame us they will blame their leadership and exact change throughout the natural evolution of a state just as the western world did over time. Rapid Evolution shocks the social construct and is automatically rejected. Our revolution came from within for the better and so will eventually go the Arabs. The Caliphate is a myth propped up by scapegoats and hate. It is time we expose it for what it is. The Caliphate cannot exist for the differences in Shiite and Sunni is a balancing factor, but more importantly like the Communists permanent revolution has never been successful. Nobody can conquer the world, not the Romans, not the British, not Hitler, not Communists. Imperial ideologies end in disaster whether it is the Islamic Caliphate or a continuation of Wilsonian Democracy Spreading. They are two ideologies based on emotional rhetoric and not solid reason or sound strategy. Let Mr. Herzog now reevaluate the process that led to his faulty reasoning like I once did myself. For this “Bush Basher” voted for him in 2004 has regretted it ever since.

An Apology for Jurisdiction and Limited Government

This was my response to comments that, to paraphrase, the World would end as we know it if Ron Paul became President. I feel that its subject matter requires repetition:

I see a lot of people on this site who are completely ignorant of Jurisdiction. Why is everything this or that? If we operate on the premise that money corrupts politics, why do so many people think we should put all that money in one city to be spent? The corrupting special interests only need to fight one front. I would much rather give them fifty fronts to fight on so, at least as a last resort, I can move somewhere that doesn't have as much corruption. If you want subsidized health care, do it at the state level, I don't want an apathetic public only having one chance to get it right, based on the track record of government. California can be a socialist state, Mississippi can believe whatever the hell they want, or a Northwest state can be a Libertarian haven. What is wrong with choice? If you live in a state that I don't, what gives you the moral authority to dictate how my state operates on issues not pertaining to national defense, immigration, and INTERSTATE Commerce, and what the hell gives me the right to tell your state how to govern. This respect for jurisdiction then overflows to other nations, where we respect the sovereignty of other nations and our own. Admittedly Dr. Paul does not explain the importance of jurisdiction , nobody does, and that is a great disservice to all the Chicken Littles out there proclaiming that the sky would fall if he were President, the sky would only fall on the corrupt, because their Washington interests would become out of date, they would have to fight on fifty fronts, and states that excel at governing in a non corrupt fashion will become popular. Why do we want to limit ourselves to one chance to get it right, when we could have fifty? Until we finally come to a realization on the concept of a Limited Federal Government, we continue to punish well meaning citizens of many political ideologies by taking away their chance to get it right.

Neoconservatve commenters loathe CIA "Family Jewels" Declassification

Here is a funny piece from Hotair. Neoconservative commenters cry for government secrecy. They want unconstitutional actions to remain classified and come up with "Clintonian and Leftist Conspiracy Theories." I would think that this best illustrates the differences between Neoconservative Republicans and Ron Paul Republicans.



read more | digg story

Fred Thompson Internet Candidate?

Turkey leader backs idea of attack on Kurdish rebels in Iraq

The prime minister said he would back Turkey's generals if they decide to retaliate for a suicide bombing in the capital by striking Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

read more digg story

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

read more | digg story

Two People I Wouldn't Want as President

On Liberty and Freedom:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do," Rudolph Giuliani

"In reality, the more primitive a people is, the more it resents as an intolerable restraint any limitation of the liberty of the individual." Adolf Hitler

"A very large measure of individual liberty is not necessarily the sign of a high degree of civilisation. On the contrary, it is the limitation of this liberty, within the framework of an organisation which incorporates men of the same race, which is the real pointer to the degree of civilasation attained." Adolf Hitler

(Disclaimer: Now I hate to bring out the Hitler quotes but Rudy's quote reminded me too much of these Hitler quotes I found while researching gun control once. I am in no way trying to insinuate that Rudy will put us in concentration camps or anything of the like...but preemptive aggressive wars and oppressive laws are definitely possible.)

One last quote from Rudy:

"It's about time law enforcement got as organized as organized crime." Rudolph Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani: America's Mayor or American Fraud

Since 9/11 happened, Rudy Giuliani, more than any other politician has reaped the benefits, both politically and financially, but does he deserve it? If Rudy is running on 9/11 let's take a look at the record.

In a 20 May 2007 transcript from Hannity's America Giuliani states:

I actually didn't expect it at a Democratic debate. It was sort of the kind of thing that I remember like the Saudi prince saying, you know, the one who gave us $10 million, said American foreign policy had something to do with it, that had to be changed.

This 14 May 2007 article on Giuliani's business ties, it states:

In addition to its lobbying clients, Bracewell & Giuliani represents businesses in legal and financial matters...It also is working for Saudi Arabia. In March, the firm filed papers in a Texas court case on behalf of Saudi Arabia's oil ministry — taking sides with another international energy giant, Citgo, which is controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a rival of the Bush administration. One month after the 2001 terrorist attacks, then-Mayor Giuliani famously rejected a $10 million check from a Saudi prince to help terrorism victims. Giuliani spokeswoman Comella declined to comment on the firm's Saudi connection.

I'll at least give FOXNEWS credit for reporting it, even though they don't seem to be repeating it over and over like their lies about Ron Paul. So 10 million dollars to terrorist victims isn't more valuable than good PR, but money in his pocket from the Saudi Government is just fine? Hannity conveniently didn't mention this piece of information in his 20 May 2007 interview. I think it will be interesting to hear Giuliani's response to this charge of hypocrisy if he ever responds. So far TV News doesn't care about this, among other potential problems for Giuliani.

There has also been concerns about his potential role in ignoring problems with air quality. Here is a 14 May 2007 article that talks about the failure of government agencies to warn Ground Zero workers of toxic air quality:

Lee Clarke, director of health and safety for District Council 37, the city’s largest public employees’ union, said Mr. Giuliani used “very, very poor judgment” in rushing to reopen the financial district without watching out for the workers who cheered him at ground zero.

Ms. Clarke said that if those workers found themselves in a meeting with Mr. Giuliani today, “a number of them would be standing up, wanting a piece of Rudy.”

But it doesn't stop there, we all remember Rudy sporting those FDNY hats during the World Series, but how do the firefighters view Rudy? It appears they don't like him that much either.
Here is a 8 March 2007 article:

In the days after 9/11, Giuliani attended scores of funerals for police, fire and emergency workers killed in the attacks. He said he felt "very bad" that he couldn't get to all the funerals for firefighters.

The mood changed abruptly in November. Giuliani, citing safety concerns, cut back search and recovery efforts at Ground Zero before many firefighters' remains had been found. Firefighters protested and a number of them were arrested, further souring relations."

Probably most damning is this 8 March 2007 letter from the International Association of Firefighters:

Many people consider Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor," and many of our members who don't yet know the real story, may also have a positive view of him. This letter is intended to make all of our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11, and our New York City union officers following that horrific day.

Rest assured, our exclusion of Mayor Giuliani is not about any particular contractual or policy issue or disagreement, nor is it based on his unfriendly relationship with our New York City affiliates prior to 9/11 — which we will document and explain in additional correspondence later on during the campaign. In fact, we invited several candidates with whom we have had substantial disagreement on policy issues because we feel very strongly that our members have the right to hear from all candidates, not just those who tow the IAFF line.

Regrettably, the situation with former Mayor Giuliani is very different. His actions post 9/11 rise to such an offensive and personal attack on our brother and sisterhood — and directly on our union — that the IAFF does not feel Rudy Giuliani deserves an audience of IAFF leaders and members at our own Presidential Forum.

The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten.

Finally much was made in this exchange with Texas Congressman Ron Paul:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

Now I could understand if Rudy misunderstood Ron Paul's statement, but when he was asked after the debate why Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 he stated that they "hated our religious freedom and women's rights." This is Mayor of the city that suffered the largest terrorist attack on American soil. He once again has benefited both financially and politically from his performance on 9/11 and what is perceived to be excellent leadership. He more than anyone else brings up 9/11 at the hint of it, constantly talking about how "he lived through it." Taking that all into account you would figure that Giuliani would at least study up on his enemy. On Hannity's America he talked once again about Ron Paul's comments:

GIULIANI: And the one that really struck was that this had to do with our bombing Iraq in the period before they attacked us. And of course, this was the whole debate that's been going on — were Iraq and Al Qaeda tied with each other?

I mean, it seemed like it was so off the wall. And there are so many of these conspiracy theories about September 11, to hear one coming from a Republican was very, very disappointing. So I thought I just had to step in, nobody else seemed to be doing it. And I seemed to — I had to step in, somebody had to correct this.

HANNITY: It is hurtful to the families, though. You hear all of these 9/11 conspiracies. John Kerry even sort of regurgitated one of them recently. This — the families of...

GIULIANI: You just think of all of this stuff that has gone on about, was there a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Now we have this fellow saying that because we were bombing Iraq occasionally because of the problems with Saddam, that that — Al Qaeda all of a sudden came here and attacked us for that reason. Now that makes no sense. And maybe it is just to say something for the purpose of saying something.

This is too important a subject. And one of the points that I am trying to make in this campaign for president is, we need a clear-headed, realistic President.

Yes Rudy, we do need a clear-headed, realistic President. You have had plenty of time to figure out why the terrorists kill us, yet you spew ignorant garbage. Here are some links to educate you:

Brian Jenkins Rand, statement to the 9/11 commission.

Abraham D. Sofaer Hoover Institution Statement to 9/11 Commission

9/11 Commission Staff Statement

Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett

John Miller of ABC's May 1998 interview with Bin Laden.

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair May, 9th 2003

Bin Laden speech of October 2004

Bin Laden Fatwa 1996

Bin Laden Fatwa 1998

America's Mayor or American Fraud? You Decide.

Giuliani Spins, Calls Ron Paul's Debate Statement a "Conspiracy Theory"

And of course, this was the whole debate that's been going on — were Iraq and Al Qaeda tied with each other? I mean, it seemed like it was so off the wall. And there are so many of these conspiracy theories about September 11, to hear one coming from a Republican was very, very disappointing...I had to step in, somebody had to correct this.



read more | digg story

Giuliani has business ties to FOXNEWS, NY Post, and the Saudi Royal Family

Giuliani has been getting positive press on FOXNEWS and the NY Post after his factually incorrect response of Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Shouldn't both media outlets have to disclose this relationship when they run stories? Last night Giuliani and Hannity called Ron's statement a crazy "conspiracy theory."

read more digg story

Open Letter to Sean Hannity

Dear Sean,

Sunday night on Hannity's America you called Ron Paul's statement a crazy "conspiracy theory" when he said in the debates that US Foreign Policy contributed toward western hatred and provided a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. That 9/11 was "blowback" for US intervention in the Middle East. What is it that compels you to deny reality? Supporters of Ron Paul will help you come to grips. I proprose we call into your show and try to give you the facts. While listening we will write down the name of every sponsor. We will boycott your sponsors and send them emails informing them of this. The boycott will last until you admit the truth and end your slander. As a member of the media you have been doing your listeners a great disservice. You are now doing your sponsors a great disservice due to your ignorance of history. It should also be reminded that people who possess computer literacy usually come from coveted demographics. I trust you will do the right thing. Here is some info to help you.

In the debate the following exchange occured:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Now here are some people that have heard this Idea:

There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it's huge – is that ... we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda.

"In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

"I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement." – Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair May, 9th 2003

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations.

"This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. ...

"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

Bin Laden speech of October 2004

"Al Qaeda has indicated specific political grievances-the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia, the oppression of the Palestinians, the suffering of Iraqi civilians under UN sanctions, or now, an American-led war-but such grievances are primarily used to recruit adherents to its cause."

Brian Jenkins Rand, statement to the 9/11 commission.

On June 26, 1996, car bombs killed 19 American servicemen in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and injured over two hundred. The US suspected bin Laden and Al Qaeda. All we did, however, was open a criminal investigation that the Saudis did not allow the FBI to pursue on Saudi soil. Bin Laden was not intimidated by the thought of FBI investigators sitting in Saudi hotels. On October 12, he issued a "Declaration of War" against the US: "It is the duty now on every tribe in the Arabian peninsula to fight jihad and cleanse the land from these Crusader occupiers. Their wealth is booty to those who kill them."

"In February 1998, bin Laden put his war into the form of a religious order -- a fatwa -- declaring that "the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim . . . ." He had no difficulty justifying the deaths of civilians. After all, he argued, the Judeo-Christians had dropped atom bombs on civilian populations, had stood by while Christian Serbs massacred and raped Muslims in Bosnia, had killed Muslims ruthlessly in Chechnya and other places, and had imposed sanctions on Iraq that even the UN said had killed 600,000 Iraqi children."

Abraham D. Sofaer Hoover Institution Statement to 9/11 Commission

By 1992 Bin Ladin was focused on attacking the United States. He argued that other extremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel, had not gone far enough; they had not attacked what he called "the head of the snake," the United States. He charged that the United States, in addition to backing Israel, kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He also excoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War as a defilement of the holy Muslim land.

9/11 Commission Staff Statement

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World. Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places. The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.

Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett

Miller: What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?

Bin Laden: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ...

Miller: What message do you have for the European governments and the West in general?

Bin Laden: Praise be Allah and prayers and peace upon Mohammed. With respect to the Western governments that participated in the attack on the land of the two Holy Mosques regarding it as ownerless, and in the siege against the Muslim people of Iraq, we have nothing new to add to the previous message. What prompted us to address the American government in particular is the fact that it is on the head of the Western and the crusading forces in their fight against Islam and against Muslims. The two explosions that took place in Riyadh and in Khobar recently were but a clear and powerful signal to the governments of the countries which willingly participated in the aggression against our countries and our lives and our sacrosanct symbols. It might be beneficial to mention that some of those countries have begun to move towards independence from the American government with respect to the enmity that it continues to show towards the Muslim people. We only hope that they will continue to move in that direction, away from the oppressive forces that are fighting against our countries. We however, differentiate between the western government and the people of the West. If the people have elected those governments in the latest elections, it is because they have fallen prey to the Western media which portray things contrary to what they really are. And while the slogans raised by those regimes call for humanity, justice, and peace, the behavior of their governments is completely the opposite. It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries. The hostility that America continues to express against the Muslim people has given rise to feelings of animosity on the part of Muslims against America and against the West in general. Those feelings of animosity have produced a change in the behavior of some crushed and subdued groups who, instead of fighting the Americans inside the Muslim countries, went on to fight them inside the United States of America itself.

Miller: Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?

Bin Laden: Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula ... against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.

John Miller of ABC's May 1998 interview with Bin Laden.

This is just the tip of the iceberg Sean, there are many more instances. I hope you and your "research" department can clear up this error.

Paul Bronstein
spinfilter.blogspot.com

Amnesty for All?

To people who still support Bush, the "viable" Republican contenders running and not yet running, and the Republicans in Congress:

Apologize for Rockefellers and you get Rockefeller Republican policy. The Libertarians and Paleoconservatives are unreasonable? What did you think we have been complaining about? This President and many in Congress are not Conservatives, they have a track record on this and I hear is people call me liberal for criticizing them. The call us "losertarians", well your support for these people have caused us all to lose today. Keep it up and it will just get worse. All of you need to read Conservative writing and quotes from the early '90s because the current Republican talking points are completely different nowadays if you haven't noticed. See what people like Sean Hannity said about Kosovo. Savage said Clinton attacked to establish an oil pipeline. We complained about policing the world. We said we are just creating unnceccessary threats. We said you don't just go in with the military you have, you go in with the military necessary to win. You don't fight unnecessary wars but you don't fight on the cheap either. Fiscal matters had the upmost importance, now we have record debt. We wanted to eliminate departments and shrink government, it is the largest it has ever been. The Department of Education has doubled in size and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT tests your children and forces your local schools to conform to THEIR STANDARDS. These are the consequences of centralization. The "viable" candidates support the Assault Weapons ban. The Republican Congress once had a surplus, not now. What are you guys making excuses for? I know you were all against amnesty, but when you have politicians that don't vote conservatively on the issues and "compromise" on a consistent basis, what is to be expected?

What do you do when their family members get amnesty too? What about all the people that will flood into the US now that passage is near? Bought and paid for in your wages and taxes. Sold to Congress with campaign funds from big donors with future "employment" opportunities. I am sure they are grateful for your generosity. Do you guys remember all the arm twisting and loosening of the rules for CAFTA? We will have a similar vote in the house. They need to punch this in before the election and they will. Who are you going to vote for, all the candidates that are deemed "viable" by the MSM and Talk Radio are for amnesty? The moderate Senator from Tennessee turned conservative savior, Fred Thompson, is an amnesty supporter. This is the kind of scum we are going to make the President? And they call Ron Paul supporters "kooks"? Get real, there is no way in hell I would ever support somebody who ignores the Constitution and such a fundamental Conservative position. How do you justify that?