911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Whether or not Bruce Ivins had a role in the anthrax attacks, trying to now blame him alone for the attacks is ignoring the elephant in the room: the anthrax attack was a classic false flag attack blamed on Arabs. For example:
Bruce E. Ivins, the anthrax researcher who supposedly committed suicide, and who the government is now trying to blame for the anthrax attacks, was involuntarily committed to 2 psychiatric hospitals shortly before his death.
Specifically, a month before his death, he was involuntarily committed to the Frederick Memorial Hospital and then transferred to Sheppard Pratt, another psychiatric facility.
Was Ivins crazy? Maybe.
Or maybe he was sent to a psych facility for the same reasons that the Soviet Union committed dissidents to psych hospitals. Maybe Ivins couldn't stand it anymore, and was about to blow the whistle on the real anthrax killers, so they ginned up some claims that he was dangerous and had him hospitalized.
The government is trying to bury the 2001 anthrax attack scandal (the anthrax came from a U.S. military base) by claiming that one of the key suspects - Bruce E. Ivins - was a "lone nut" who committed suicide. Case closed.
There are just a couple of loose ends:
Demand Local Law Enforcement Uphold Their Oath to Defend the Constitution . . . and Prosecute Bush and Cheney for Murder
I spoke with one of the leading constitutional scholars in the United States (he teaches at one of top law schools, and has literally "written the book" on constitutional law).
I asked him if there was any way the American people can force Congress to perform their constitutional duties to impeach Bush and Cheney.
He said no.
I persisted, by arguing that the founding fathers could never have envisioned Congress being so complicit with a rogue White House that they refuse to impeach, and instead cover up their crimes. I said there's got to be a way to force them to follow their duties, or to impeach or remove the congress people who are obstructing the rule of law.
He responded no. His last words to me were: "That's the way the constitutional cookie crumbles".
I was very disappointed, to say the least.
Is All Lost?
Trillions of Dollars Are Invested in "Socially Responsible Investing" . . . Why Not Invest in Freedom, Justice, 9/11 Truth, and
There are many good people spreading a lot of good messages of liberty and justice.
But trillions of dollars of investment capital is working against us and powering efforts to undermine freedom and justice. Specifically, trillions are invested into defense companies who push for new wars, and companies that torture on behalf of the U.S., and companies that spy on us, and companies that drive up food prices, destroy food safety, kill bees, and otherwise mess with our food supply.
In other words, all of the talk in the world won't turn things around if all of the money is working against what we're demanding.
Millions of us raised our voices and demanded that the U.S. not launch the Iraq war. Millions of us wrote to Congress and demanded that Bush and Cheney be impeached. But Congress listened to the large defense contractors and other well-financed companies (and flush lobbying groups, such as AIPAC), not to the American people. Actions speak louder than words, and money is
The Good News
The White House suspended the Constitution and implemented Continuity of Government Plans on 9/11, based upon a declared state of national emergency. Bush has continually renewed the declared state of emergency up until today. See this.
The White House has done everything it could to scare people and convince them that America is under attack, as a way to justify the yearly renewal of the declared state of emergency and the continuing unconstitutional seizure of power by the executive branch.
But Congress has the power to revoke the state of emergency.
Top Advisor to U.S. Military Confirms The War on Terror Is a Hoax: "There is No Battlefield Solution to Terrorism"
A leading advisor to the U.S. military, the Rand Corporation, just released a new study called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida".
As today's press release about the study states:
The murder of liberal unitarian churchgoers by a right-wing nut is truly horrible. The killer - Jim Adkisson - apparently was influenced by such right-wing talking heads as Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.
But let's put this in perspective . . .
We often think of psychological warfare as meaning disinformation.
But psyops also includes inducing and spreading fear, because fear immobilizes people more than any other emotion. We all know about false flag terror. And many people argue that the government's real reason for torturing innocent people is to spread fear and intimidation.
And we already know that the Pentagon employs bloggers to spread its propaganda (indeed, even private companies appear to do it).
I've increasingly recently run across a form of fearmongering psyops on the web. Specifically, whenever anyone posts a hopeful idea or a promising strategy for fighting tyranny, someone will post a fear-inducing comment like:
Arianna Huffington admitted in an interview with Politico:
“There are certain obvious things we have, certain specific things,” says Huffington. “Conspiracy theories — we don’t allow conspiracy theories. If you thought Sept. 11 was caused by the Bush administration, your comment is not going to appear unless it is a mistake.”
Can you spell g-a-t-e-k-e-e-p-e-r?
Nancy Pelosi was secretly briefed on torture many, many years ago, and yet did nothing to stop those unlawful programs. Indeed, she egged the torturers on.
As the Washington Post revealed:
History shows that people usually don't know when we are about to win. We are lousy at knowing whether we have a chance at victory.
When people struggling for liberty and justice face seemingly overwhelming power and impossible odds, they can suddenly breakthrough and win when things seem most hopeless and they least expect victory.
Why We Underestimate Our Chances
Energy and food prices will keep going up (due to the printing of gzillions of dollars by Helicopter Ben to pay for the Iraq war and the bailout of Freddie, Fannie, Bear et al, the biofuels subsidies, and other idiotic financial policies).
How can we protect ourselves against this threat to our wallet?
Perhaps by producing more of our own energy and food. Now, this article is not about getting back to the land and singing Kumbaya. I'm writing simply on how to stay afloat financially in a very unstable economy.
Due to high oil prices, major breakthroughs in energy production are happening every day.
A recent poll showed that 44% of Americans support torture on "terrorist suspects".
Why so many?
A key architect of America's torture program, Doug Feith, testified under oath to Congress today that torture is necessary because - otherwise - we couldn't get any information out of the "bad guys". Several Congress people agreed.
Why do any Congress people support this argument?
Because many people mistakenly assume that torture works, and is thus a necessary evil.
Let's put aside questions of morality, humanity, and legality . . . Let's just focus on one question: does torture work?
In fact, the professional FBI, CIA and army interrogators all say no.
Confirmed: The Pakistani General Who Wired $100,000 to Mohammad Atta Met with Wolfowitz, Feith and Other Neocons the Week of 911
In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request submitted by Kevin Ryan, Mick Harrison and Paul Smith, the government has disclosed documents confirming that Pakistani ISI General Ahmed - the guy who wired 100,000 dollars to lead hijacker Atta -- met with Wolfowitz, Feith, Peter Rodman (PNAC), and others the week of he week of 9/11.
All credit goes to Kevin, Mick and Paul. I'm just reporting on their efforts.
Former deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats, a 23-year senior CIA analyst, who "drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country [and who] devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat", writes today in the Washington Post that the neocons have whipped us into an irrational fear of the terrorism. In reality, "Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears" and our leaders.
Liberals love to say they are in the "reality-based" community, and not living in a "faith-based" delusion.
But many liberals form their belief about what happened on 9/11 based on faith . . .
- Faith that Bush isn't smart enough to have pulled off so large an act of treason
- Faith that our government wouldn't murder thousands of its own citizens for political gain
- Faith that they have the basic information about what really happened that day
- Faith that scientists and military experts verify the official explanation for 9/11
Is their faith well-founded? Well, in reality:
Sometimes, a single sentence is all that is needed to debunk a bogus claim.
NIST claims in its soon-to-be released report on WTC 7 that fires alone brought down the building. People like Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Gordon Ross and others will - in the near future - definitively demolish that claim in numerous ways.
In the meantime, here's a one-sentence rebuttal to NIST, which links to a New York Times article:
Consider voting up at Reddit
Yesterday, in response to an essay arguing for impeachment, I got the following comment:
"If anything, the start of impeachment proceedings might force Bush to start the war against Iran early or cause him to bring about the false flag attack you mention. What better way to show the country how the Democrats engage in devisive partisan politics than to have them impeach him while the country is at war. Bush could also use the threat of impeachment as a pretext for declaring martial law and sweeping aside all opposition. It's better to just let Bush leave office quietly than to risk the horrors that he could unleash on us before then."
What is he talking about?
I am constantly amazed at how we can fail to see things which are right under our nose.
For example, former Congressman Dan Hamburg's excellent essay entitled "State of Emergency: The US in the Final Six Months of the George W. Bush Administration" got a lot of interest in the alternative press last Friday.
In that essay, Mr. Hamburg wrote:
We believe that this administration is so zealous, so determined to hold onto power, that they may well stage a “false flag” attack, creating just the kind of “catastrophic emergency” to which NSPD-51 refers.
So we the alternative media publish a story warning about a possible false flag attack so as to create a state of emergency which will allow the overt declaration of martial law.
Most Americans know that Bush, Cheney and the boys have committed impeachable offenses.
But they assume it is "too late to impeach" them.
Are they right?
Well, in 1876, Secretary of War General William Belknap (who served in the administration of Pres. Ulysses Grant), accused of accepting a bribe, resigned just hours before the House was scheduled to consider articles of impeachment. The House went ahead and unanimously impeached him, and by a vote of 37-29 the Senate rejected the argument that Belknap’s resignation should abort the case.
Indeed, numerous constitutional experts have stated that Bush and Cheney can be impeached even after they are out of office (see this, for example).
If articles of impeachment can be introduced even after Bush and Cheney are out of office, it is obviously not too late to introduce them now, while they are still in office.
What Good Would It Do?
Part of being a father is making sure my kids have enough to eat, have a roof over their heads, are protected from harm in our neighborhood.
These are all fairly traditional notions of fatherhood.
But being a father means more than that . . .
Didn't See it Coming
Imagine that you're a father living in 13th century Mongolia. A farmer, you work hard, put plenty of food on the table, keep a waterproof roof over your kids' heads, and protect them from the local thugs.
Not if your village lay in the path of Genghis Khan 's invading army. Unless you get your family out of harm's way, or figure out a way to organize all of the villages together and train them up in warfare, your kids aren't going to have it very easy, and all of your fathering will be for nothing.
Okay, that was pretty obvious, right?
Let's talk about another hypothetical example. Let's say you're a father in Germany in 1930. A banker, you work hard, and give your kids the best of everything.
Sometimes simple statements are the best.
So print out and then fax the attached one-page statement to Congress.
Start with the members of the Judiciary Committee.
For those who do not yet understand that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses with regard to 9/11, I will provide information to back up the relevant portions of Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against President Bush which deal with 9/11:
Article 2: Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression:
- Here is information justifying this basis for impeachment.
Article 33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11:
"It Would Be the End of His Business ... He Would Be Denounced as an Anti-American and Demonized as a Terrorist Sympathizer"
Now that many highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects have publicly questioned the official explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center (see this, this, this, this), government apologists are making the following argument:
"Yes, but there are many more scientists, engineers and architects who support the official theory".
Are they right?
Well, initially, there aren't that many people who have come out and publicly supported the official story. In fact, most scientists, engineers and architects have not made any public statement about 9/11 one way or the other.
One of the arguments made by government apologists has to do with the nationality of the hijackers.
Specifically, they argue that if 9/11 had been an inside job, the perpetrators would have cast Iraqis as the hijackers, to provide an excuse to invade Iraq.
This argument fails for several reasons:
Leo Strauss is the father of the NeoConservative movement, including many leaders of the current administration. Indeed, some of the main neocon players were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago, where he taught for many years. Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers and of Machiavelli.
Strauss believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured. Specifically, Strauss thought that:
Even experts at the U.S. bioweapons facility at Fort Detrick think that the anthrax which was used in the 2001 attacks came from their facility:
"In an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.
"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"
Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that our country is going in the wrong direction. That the Iraq war was a mistake. And polls show that the majority of Americans questions the government's version of 9/11 and other basic tenets of the "war on terror".
So why aren't people doing anything to fix things?
It is largely because people are hopeless . . . they don't think there is anything they can do to turn things around and improve our situation. Also, many people believe that they should just "lay low" until things get better, and that the only thing that standing up will accomplish is getting whacked in the head.
While this essay focuses on Iran, the principals apply equally well to false flag attacks. In other words, if there hasn't been another large false flag since 9/11, it is because the public has remained vigilant in publicizing 9/11truth and the history of false flag terror.
A mountain lion wanders up to a rancher's property, looks in the direction of his sheep, and licks its lips.
The lion charges towards the sheep, but the rancher hollers loudly and scares it off.
Later that day, the rancher runs into his neighbors in town and tells them about the mountain lion. They say "Oh, we don't think he really wanted to eat your sheep. He was probably just being sociable and wanted to play".
The next day, the same lion came back. After circling the ranch twice, it charges towards the sheep, extends its claws, and with a fierce roar, attempts to lunge at the nearest sheep.
The rancher fires his shotgun up in the air, scaring the lion off.