Transcript - Dennis Kucinich Q & A - 7.10.2008

(Janice Matthews has a more complete transcript over at

The Q & A is preceded by a short statement by Kucinich on his latest impeachment article, and some info on's grassroots activism. The questions typed out below are the written versions provided to Kucinich, and may vary slightly from what you hear in the audio;

Paul: There are millions of Americans working to reclaim their government. Whether the issue is impeachment, voter fraud, a new 9/11 investigation, or ending and preventing wars, the American people seem to have no voice in their own government. They have protested, educated, presented an impeachment petition with more than 1 million signatures from a former attorney general. Numerous polls show all time low support for Congress, the President and the direction the country is going. Given these facts, we have 2 questions:

What prevents members of Congress from taking the action they know is necessary and demanded by the people? For example, why are there only have 7 co-sponsors on your impeachment bill when we know more representatives than that actually support it?

What is the single, most powerful strategy to reclaim our government?

Representative Kucinich: Well, these are very good questions. I think what prevents Congress from moving forward is a sense of fear. Fear of, what do you do when you start to exercise power? I mean, think about it, it's a classic story of a condition where people who have power, are afraid to use it, and then they forget that they have it, and when they're told to use it, they don't know how. This article of impeachment helps Congress regain its rightful role, not just as a co-equal branch of government, the Founders provided Congress would be established first, in a sense it has a superior position. We have to move away from this imperial presidency, away from a nation on a war path, away from a reach for empire and military build-ups, and return to a more humble position in world affairs, where we deal with the matters that people care about, their health, their housing, their education, their environment.

But America's first gonna have to go through a period of Truth and Reconciliation, and I know that's what you're about, and that's why I appreciate an opportunity to speak with you.

Paul: Dennis, you mentioned fear in Congress, what is the primary thing generating that fear and how can we help alleviate that fear so that they can take the proper action?

Kucinich: Encourage people to stand up. People need encouragement. The people in Congress have come into an environment which is dramatically different than it was before 9/11. Let me give you an example. Today, all over Capitol Hill, you will see cameras, and guard dogs, and streets that turn into instant barricades - they actually fold up, guards with shotguns and automatic weapons and sniper rifles that can fire hundreds of yards... we're like a garrison state here. And that plays with people's heads, and when it becomes ordinary, it becomes ordinary to vote for FISA, ordinary to vote for war, ordinary to look the other way when the president lies us into war, ordinary to not ask the type of questions that need to be asked about what do we do to make this country more secure without going into war...

We're in a condition right now which is not conducive to democracy. And so in a very simple way, an article of impeachment gives us the ability to reclaim some of that power that belongs to the people. It's not for these people that hold the offices, it certainly doesn't belong to the president to hoard the power and to pretend that somehow he's now a dictator or a monarch.

Paul: So, Dennis you've almost described a police state, in a way. What is the most powerful strategy for us to reclaim our government? What is the primary thing that you would suggest that we do, as activists?

Kucinich: To practice being free, every day. That may sound trite, but to exercise the capacity of citizenship. To stand up and speak out in forums both large and small, to write that letter, to make the phone call, to meet with a Representative, to organize rallies, to bring people together, to have discussion groups, to reclaim a sense of agency as citizens, because that's a quality that has been lost in the last 7 seven years.

We can reclaim it. It was lost, it can be reclaimed. But we can only do it through action, and in a sense we have to acquire a capacity for active thought, word, and deed. And it can be done in a way that can be dedicated, it can be done in a way that's joyous, but it needs to be done.

We need to remember the ferment that caused a nation to be born. And the nation is born and dies everyday by each of us, depending on our inclination to challenge the status quo, or to accept it.

Paul: So you're saying, Dennis, Grassroots activism is really our most powerful strategy.

Kucinich: That's what's gonna save America. Because what happens in Washington, everything in Washington is now from the top down. We're not paying enough attention to what's happening at that Grassroots level. And yet, the Grassroots activity, in its totality, has the ability to change Washington. People who are in positions of power... they lack a certain amount of humility, and secretly understand that they could be toppled very easily. And the system has a very fine line that supports its continuation, and if people get involved and decide to change it, they can do it. And that's actually our inheritance as you read the Declaration of Independence. If you don't like the system, you can change it.

Mike: Representative Kucinich, you told Student Scholars for 911 truth and stated in radio interviews that: "because you can you will hold hearings to examine the insider trading and financial market anomalies connected to the attacks." You told Justin of Student Scholars that you would have announcement about the hearings last September.

Since you stated you would hold these hearings more than a year and a half ago, what prevents you from holding these hearings? Additionally, would you include hearings regarding the missing $2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon announced by Rumsfeld?

Kucinich: First of all, of course I remember speaking to Justin, the presidential campaign that I was in quickly turned into a congressional campaign where I had to fight to stay in Congress, I won that race in March, and since then, I've been I've been working on these impeachment resolutions, I have every intention of moving forward with a hearing, or hearings, on the matter of stock options. It's something that I've been looking at for quite a while, and gathering information. I'm hopeful to be able to do something before the election. I don't wanna make it hotter just for this campaign, it's a matter of seeking the truth, I have a small subcommittee, but I am absolutely determined to hold a hearing. The only thing that prevents me from doing it is limitations of staff and time. But I want to do this. No one is telling me not to do it, I want to do it, I've been gathering information, and I'm always ready to receive more. You just told me about that matter involving Rumsfeld, I can't say that I've heard that before, I'm certainly interested in hearing what anyone has to offer.

I'm the kind of person who's not afraid to ask questions, and I've certainly asked questions in Washington that others have failed to, and I will continue to do that, and I look forward to looking with you on some of the areas that we just talked about.

Mike: Well I would like to offer our effort in helping you, if you're short of staff, we would be more than willing to help you in any way we could, with time and volunteers, and I'm certain we could do that if you would like our help...

Kucinich: Well of course I'd like your help! Look at the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Congress and go to the web and look at Government Oversight. I have one of the more active subcommittees. We cover a range of things that come into our view. And while I've been doing all the things you can look at, at the same time I have been meeting with people who talk about this issue of the stock transactions. Because from the minute it happened I've been interested. So, I'm gathering information, the Hearing process is a long and drawn out one in terms of setting the stage for a Hearing, but it's my intention to have a hearing, certainly before this Congress runs its course.

And that is a commitment.

Allan: There are many questions about 9/11 that could have been answered long ago if the 9/11 Commission had proceeded in a more open manner. The Commission turned over its records to the National Archives where they remain under a "general restriction from public access on these records until 2009". (1) The National Archives website states that these materials are free from FOIA requests, "Because the Commission was part of the legislative branch". (1)

My question is;

Will your office write a Bill or Resolution that will make the public release of these records lawfully binding? It should be crafted to include a message to all government agencies to collaborate with, and aid, the Archives in its work. It should also include text that will release physical evidence for public examination, so that the public can weigh the value of any proofs that the Commission used to draw their conclusions. (This would include all Pentagon surveillance videos depicting the attack on the Pentagon; all surveillance video that depicts the alleged hijackers boarding the aircraft that were used as missiles on 9/11; access to the debris from United 93 currently stored at the Iron Mountain facility in Boyers, Pennsylvania; and, access to the steel recovered from the World Trade Center, currently stored in Hangar 17 at the JFK airport in NY.) (2)

1. /

Kucinich: Well, first of all let me say that when the National Archives received the legal custody of the 9/11 Commission, it was back in August, 2004, it set up, through the commission this restriction for public access.

I think that saying the commission was part of the legislative branch... is not appropriate. And I think that I would argue that these records should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Especially since there are so many contests about the verifiability of facts that were presented to the public. And I certainly favor an open and transparent information process... wherever you have information that is not available, it's very easy to manipulate a public position. So I'd be happy to entertain the question that you raised about launching a law that would open it up. But, what we would have to do, apparently, is amend the Federal Records Act so that we would say that the Commission would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

And I think that it should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Janice: On 9/11, Continuity of Government procedures were implemented. Are we still operating under COG? Is this the reason why Congress cannot do anything, because they literally have no power? Even the Committee on Homeland Security, which has proper clearance, has been denied access to the detailed documents. Has Congress been prohibited, legally, from talking about COG? The American people deserve to know what structure of government we're living under, and we appreciate you clarifying this for us. Congress clearly has no oversight over secret operations of the Executive Branch. What do the American People need to do to restore co-equal branches of government, given this scenario?

Kucinich: Well, Congress does have power and is acting, whether it's acting wisely is another question. The president set a couple months ago an executive order that continued this emergency that existed... after 9/11.

I think that the questions that have been raised about Continuity of Government are very serious, because they relate as to whether or not the president can take us into a state of emergency and suspend the Constitution. We need to know what the rules are here. Members of Congress have made efforts to try to get the documents from the administration, that relate to continuity of government, and not been able to obtain them. This is something that I'm very concerned about, that I have followed, that I'll continue to follow up on.

If we hadn't seen this administration take us into a war based on lies, suspend habeas corpus, attack the Fourth Amendment and many other provisions to the Constitution, then there would be no reason to be concerned about this provision of Continuity of Government, but since they have done that, and have shown a willingness to compromise the Constitution of the United States, in very deep ways, we better be very concerned, and I think that Congress has to get the information about what the intentions are of this administration, with respect to the issues of Continuity of Government, COG should not be about a power grab. If the nation is under some of severe attack, then that would be a way to continue the government.

But COG should not be used as a cover for an anti-democratic takeover of this nation. And I think that we have to be suspicious of this administration's activities anytime the president signs an executive order that seems to take steps in directions of anti-democratic conduct.

Janice: And is there something that we the people who are familiar with COG planning and what that means can be doing to push our legislators to take more action? Even the Homeland Security Committee that has proper clearance was denied access when they were trying to find out what was happening with .

Kucinich: Well, I can tell you that I've spoken to members of Congress who have been more involved with this than I have, and they told me they hit a stonewall in trying to get information out of the administration. Now when you have a Congress that is either unwilling or unable to enforce its subpoena powers... there are limitations here. That's why the articles of impeachment become important, because Congress reasserts its authority, causing the administration to realize that they're within the reach of legal process when Congress demands information.

Right now the Bush administration generally has ignored requests from the Congress for detailed information about areas that relate to its administrative conduct and its enforcement of the law, and its lack of enforcement of law.

Janice: So we need to push them to act on those subpoenas?

Kucinich: Congress' subpoena power relates to Congress' co-equality, its checks and balances. The next article of impeachment could very well deal with the administration not responding and obeying the subpoenas of Congress. Congress has trouble getting information. And when it does get information we always see the administration is held in a very bad light because they've been proceeding along a path that has either been anti-democratic or has undermined the Constitution, broken the laws or put money in the pockets of some special interest group.

Again this is something that Congress is going to have to do. It's Congress that has to get this information out that the administration is holding with respect to their plans and their views with the issue of COG. I was the one who raised the question about posse comitatus, where the administration clearly was taking a step that compromised the century old prohibition on the use of military in domestic affairs.

We've got to realize that our Constitution's on the line everyday, in every way, and COG is just one way...

Janice: We get contacted by whistle blowers on a regular basis with information pertaining to 9/11. For example, we are aware of a military intelligence officer who is sitting in prison, at this moment, in Georgia, who has no habeas corpus rights. He is in effect, a political prisoner. Without a criminal investigation into 9/11, who can these whistle blowers turn to with their information? There are no organizations willing to help them, or this person specifically. They have told us they do not have attorneys willing to take on the government or help with these cases as they are afraid of repercussions. The whistle blowers' lives are on the line. What can you do to help them?

Kucinich: Well, whistleblowers are a special breed of people, it takes a lot of courage to put their careers on the line, they have a moral responsibility to come forward to protect the public, and I think that we need to protect whistleblowers, we need to welcome them, we need to make sure they don't lose their job. We need to encourage people that if information is being brought forward by their superiors that they learned is not true, we need to reward them. Currently, we have an administration where whistleblowers are always in jeopardy, if you stand up and speak out, you can lose your position, you can lose your job, lose your security.

So here again, we have to get rid of the fear in our society, have an open government, a transparent government, encourage people to have a place to come to -- I certainly have an open door to all those who come to bring information forward in confidence, and protect them, so we need to make sure whistleblowers are protected...

So I'm always interested in a case where there's a whistleblower at risk, and whatever help I can be to anyone who stands up and courageously challenges corrupt government... its an honor to do so.

(Check out the audio linked up top for the entire interview.)

the missing $2.3 trillion dollars

I find it hard to believe that he never heard of the missing $2.3 trillion. Come on now. I am just a 9/11 truth grunt and I have heard about it many times. To be honest I don't believe any of these politicians. Big talk, no action. To be honest I find the entire US Government disgusting including Kucinich. Who is he trying to con? ................I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.


Apologies beforehand that I would link to a scum debunker site, but I think they are basically correct, and I don't have time to do a broader search:

The "missing trillions" is one of those things like the "pull it" comment that I wish 9/11 Truth would drop. It was not about $2.3 trillion dollars literally disappearing, but problems within their accounting and computational system that needed to be addressed.

Unless there's something I don't know about those missing trillions, I hope this dead weight is dropped, and dropped quickly. It should not have been brought up with Kucinich, who is already opening himself up to greater media censure by working with us more and more closely.

And if there is something more to it, then let's see a more sophisticated argument than just saying '$2.3 trillion is missing.' I would want to hear how it tied in to real sums of money that actually did go missing or permanently unaccounted for, say, due to the attack on the Pentagon.

Try telling the IRS

gee, I'm just off by a couple of trillion. It's just an accounting error. Don't worry, it's no big deal.


It is closer to what many decades-old Fortune 500 companies have gone through at one time or another, during the switch from manual accounting to computing, or the switch from one type of computing system to another.

With an organization as enormous and fiscally corrupt as the Pentagon, it is way more complicated than that. No doubt there are many, many billions stolen or misspent and so forth, and lots of cooking of the books involved in that. But that is what should be talked about.

To say that $2.3 trillion is missing is like saying that there was basically no military spending of any kind for the 10 years or so before 9/11. No troops, no weapons, nada. All the funding for them was just taken...missing.

After finally putting the no-planers and the pod theorists behind us, along with a lot of the weaker arguments from the early years, I woulder why we would still want to get behind stuff that can make us look foolish.

I'm not sure about that.

There is a truly remarkable amount of "money" being spent that we have no way of properly accounting for.

Check out this exchange between Chuck Spinney and Bill Moyers from 2002;

SPINNEY: It's to enforce the accountability clause of the Constitution. Which means that you can't spend money unless Congress specifically appropriates it. Well, the Pentagon has never passed an audit. They have 13 or 15, I forget the exact number, of major accounting categories. That each one has it's own audit. The only one of those categories that's ever been passed is the retirement account.

Now under the CFO Act of 1990 they have to do this audit annually. Well, every year they do an audit and the inspector general would issue a report saying we have to waive the audit requirements, because we can't balance the books. We can't tell you how the money got spent.

Now what they do is try to track transactions. And in one of the last audits that was done the transactions were like… there were like $7 trillion in transactions. And they couldn't account for about four trillion of those transactions. Two trillion were unaccountable and two trillion they didn't do, and they accounted for two trillion.

MOYERS: So, you mean, they're…

SPINNEY: They don't know where the money's going.

Well, guess what the Senate Armed Services and the House Armed Services agree to do in their infinite wisdom? They decided to waive the Pentagon's requirement for these annual audits in their authorization bills. So the Pentagon no longer has to do it.

Now the rationale was that we all know that this is a problem, we don't need to be told every year. Of course the one good thing about these audits was it would generate a small burst of news stories every April or May when the audits were due saying the Pentagon can't follow it's money. You know, there's a trillion dollars unaccounted for.

MOYERS: What does this do to the national ethos?

SPINNEY: Oh, I think it corrupts it. I think it corrupts it. Essentially you have all the pretensions of a democracy, we're really a democratic republic where you have representatives of the people in the government, and you have the representatives are under certain strictures to behave in a certain way. And in fact they're not behaving that way.


OTOH, suggesting that 2.3 Trillion was earmarked for 9/11 specifically, well that's probably incorrect. It's definitely a historical problem. But trillions mis-spent on a regular basis, as insane as it may sound, is actually not that far-fetched, according to Pentagon insider Spinney.

with all respect

we are talking about different things.

There is a big difference between money that is missing and money that can not be clearly accounted for. We are talking $2.3 trillion. To put this in perspective, the military budget for 1999 was $270 billion. $2.3 trillion dollars that was literally 'missing' in 2001 would mean that we would have no military.

You can certainly explain that something is missing in terms of accounting, but that is different from money that is not there. And most importantly, that distinction should be clearly made in the original comment.

We are fighting a battle on a terrain where we are subject to constant ridicule. Do you think that Sean Hannity or the BBC or whomever would give us the benefit of the doubt that we know what we are discussing when we bring up the "missing $2.3 trillion?" Probably not, and in a way they would be right, since a lot of people seem to think that Rumsfeld was saying that this money was simply gone, and he's not. He's saying that the problems with Pentagon record keeping and accounting are so grave that there may be up $2.3 trillion in expenditures that they do not have a clear accounting of. The money was spent, otherwise we would have no military. But we aren't in a position to look back carefully and see if it was spent wisely, and based on past history of Pentagon spending, the likelihood that a good chunk of that money were lost to fraud and waste are very high.

If you want to talk about the decision to waive the Pentagon's requirements for annual audits, that's fine. If you want to discuss examples of blatant military waste, that's awesome! But overall, it does not tie into 9/11 Truth per se, as stories of $300 hammers go back to the 1970s.

Fair enough.

You should write to Mike Berger directly about this;

Mike Berger
Media Coordinator, 314-308-4893
mike (at)

Thanks Reprehensor

I will, and thank you for posting this and for the interesting discussion. :-)

Btw, I don't want to seem like I was picking on Mike for this question, as this something that you see discussed everywhere. But when you are speaking with someone like Kucinich, a nationally known congressman who is embracing 9/11 Truth in an unprecedented way, it is very important that we give him the best possible information and do what we can to sustain our credibility.

And beyond that, it is important to think more defensively with our arguments. Not only was Rumsfeld talking about improper accounting and not just money that was simply gone, but he was also in fairness talking about an inherited problem. If you were to have a debate tomorrow with an idiot like Mike Reagan, wouldn't you want to keep that in mind? Because he would not only note that the money was not literally missing, it was only not subject to proper accounting, but more importantly it had nothing to with Bush, but with Clinton, blah blah blah. And to a neutral listener, you probably would have "lost" that part of the debate.

OK, '2.3 trillion in unaccounted expenditures' then

'He's saying that the problems with Pentagon record keeping and accounting are so grave that there may be up $2.3 trillion in expenditures that they do not have a clear accounting of.'

I for one would like to have an accounting of those expenditures.

'But we aren't in a position to look back carefully and see if it was spent wisely,'

Hmm, wasn't it the accounting department that was struck, with many records (and some auditors) lost on 9/11. If this is a mistaken view, feel free to provide a correction.

'overall, it does not tie into 9/11 Truth per se, as stories of $300 hammers go back to the 1970s.'

2.3 trillion? That's a lot of $300 hammers!!


"Hmm, wasn't it the accounting department that was struck, with many records (and some auditors) lost on 9/11. If this is a mistaken view, feel free to provide a correction."

I have seen that mentioned, but I don't see any links right now that are sourced from a major news story or comments by government officials, etc.. I can accept that this is likely true, and I can also accept that there is probably a 9/11 Truth story in there, but so far it has either not been put together, or if it has, it has not been widely disseminated.

If the story is there, that is what should be brought up, because that is what is telling. If we can say something like the statement below, then we have something highly suspicious that directly pertains to 9/11 Truth:

"On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld noted that the Pentagon was unable to properly account for an astonishing $2.3 trillion in expenditures. The events of the following day were later to make any efforts at a full accounting futile, as noted by the comments of (insert news story, excerpt from congressional hearing, etc)"

One issue about this whole story is that if the Pentagon crash also served, among other things, as an accounting coverup, it may not have been drawn out via official statement (though I suspect it has) simply because Congress has been so recumbent regarding Pentagon expenditures and the administration in general. Maybe they haven't had to fall back on it in in a significant way.

One other thing I should add is that on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld was talking primarily of an inherited problem, as the Bush administration had been in office for less than a year.

So, if you can't account for

So, if you can't account for your wallet, would you say it is "missing" or not? It's not that your wallet has literally disappeared, you just don't know where it went.

You are referring to one of the many instances in which the debunkers take one of our arguments and then twist it into a straw man that they can knock down. If the Pentagon can't account for any amount of money, then to them, yes, it is in fact "missing". Not in the sense that it has disappeared, but in the sense that they don't know where it went, and more importantly, can't tell the American people where it went.

A better analogy

would be if you depend solely on an online banking account to keep tabs on your expenditures, and you pay for everything through a debit card from that bank account. Then, at some point you can't access your online banking account due to technical issues on the bank's part, and this goes on for years.

You are paying your bills. The money did not disappear, and it is not missing except in an accounting sense. But you can't keep tabs on your account. You can't tell if the bank is being honest with the fees, except by guesswork. You can't tell if maybe you weren't double-billed or other problems. If you supposedly get a refund on something, you can't verify that it went back into your account.

"You are referring to one of the many instances in which the debunkers take one of our arguments and then twist it into a straw man that they can knock down."

I feel that you can make a clear argument that can not be twisted by simply reading my posts in this thread and understand what I have been trying to say throughout them. These posts mostly have negative ratings now, which is a sign that I put some effort into them. LOL If they were random cheerleading comments that I wrote without thought, they would all have positive ratings.

Kind of silly, isn't it? :-)

Anyway, it's your call.


This is truly fantastic and so encouraging. We are definitely prevailing folks. Can you feel it?!

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

I too was surprised by Kucinich answer on the missing

TRILLIONS! But let's perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. After all it was the great magic wand of Rumsfeld saying we are about to look for the missing trillions here and then our attention was directed to the twin towers and of course the records of the pentagon's accounting office were simultaneously disappeared with those of the Enron etc scandal in WTC 7. No time to reconstruct any of that we need to put the finishing touches on the patriot act folks while the Iron's steel I mean still Hot.
Anyway Kucinich has been pushing for impeachment for some time and appears to have a genuine interest in protecting the constitution and not going to war. I think he's one of the best and he would have my vote if he was able to get some fair press etc.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous- he simply cannot believe it exists" J. Edgar Hoover

I sure hope you are right peacefullwarrior

I is just that I have been lied too by politicians for so many years that I find it hard to believe any of them even Kucinich. As I said before I hope and pray that I am wrong. It would be great to have some honest leadership in Washington but I am not going to hold my breath. I have been disappointed too many times before. The only one I completely trusted was Cynthia McKinney and she got the boot. When I see impeachment proceedings start then I will believe it. You can't blame me for being cynical.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Can't blame you for your understandable skepticism

and I completely agree with you on Cynthia Mckinney. I saw Webster Tarpley give a speech in DC last summer on 9/11. He said to those of us in the crowd not to believe that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich can save us. His advice was that we all need to start to think about running for public office and only when enough of us are elected will things start to change. I think he may be right. I have been a fan of Kucinich for some time now and I also like most of what Ron Paul and Congressman Defazio have to say but I simply do not trust most politicians. I have even thought about moving to San Francisco just so I could vote for Cindy Sheehan.

I agree with Tarpley

If we want change it has to begin with us. We haven't the time to wait for some savior to get us out of the mess we are in. I think it is strictly grass roots and what better way than becoming a 9/11 truther and running for office. I also hope Sheehan kicks ass on that witch Pelosi. I live 30 miles from San Francisco and will do all I can to get my friends who live in The City to vote for Cindy. She just may win. San Francisco is very liberal and anti-war, and most San Franciscans that I know hate Pelosi.

DK has a proven track record worth of trust

DK has not faulted when it comes to 9/11 Truth. Impeachment hearing WILL bring about a real investigation on 9/11. 9/11 is the root of all the evil the Bush/Cheney/PNAC/Neo-Con/AIPAC engage in.
All roads lead to Rome....Remember who has been to sole voice in Congress for Impeachment, who has brought Articles of Impeachment which specificlly mention 9/11 to the public discourse. Who has voted against the Patriot Act, the Iraq war and all its funding.

No politician deserves any trust for just being a politican. It is the action of the individual that builds or destroys trust. Look at the actions of the few political leaders to see who is trustful. DK and Mckinney are just 2 of the handful where their actions are worthy of trust!

Kucinich: "...abolish THE FEDERAL RESERVE"

This YouTube video has a great interview with Kucinich in that he calls for an end to the Federal Reserve System. A primary point that he makes is that things won't happen unless people stand up and voice their concerns in everyday public life.

(No subject)

Great Interview...

....and the use of the available time was executed smoothly. The questions were great, representative of the sentiments of the 911 movement and focused perfectly on the role Rep. Kucinich plays in government. Here is another, slightly different opportunity for what Robin Hordon likes to call "civil informationing." Mike Berger's offer to assist in gathering information was totally appropriate and I think it's incumbent upon Kucinich to take us up on the offer, even if it's not in an official capacity, or even "IN" an official capacity. Why not? Do we have any university student truthers willing to do an internship? Knowing Kucinich, his office will gladly receive all researched and referenced documentation. If he doesn't have a file on the trillions unaccountable at the Pentagon, we should make one up and send it to him -- pronto. The prep and execution of the interview by was commendable. If their follow through is equally thorough and smooth, this will be an extra base hit.