Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Michael Savage - Similarities between Obama's Afghan speech and LBJ's 1968 Vietnam Speech


Michael Savage Show
Air Date: December 3, 2009

No matter which war it is, or which President is in the office, the speeches are always the same.

 "War is Peace".

 Many have compared Obama to LBJ, and apparently Obama's speech writer has no doubt been listening to him. Hegelian Dialectic, and Double Speak are what we hear once the bombs and missles start flying, the wars drag on, and this President's agenda is no different. Michael savage shows striking similarities in the speech given by Barack Obama to Afghanistan in 2009, and LBJ's speech to Vietnam in 1968.

Sen. Nelson Says He is Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Insurance Mandate-Tuesday, November 10, 2009 EST

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Ron Paul on Larry King 12/28/2009

December 29, 2009
Mark Matheny
Updated December 30,2009 12:42am est.

 Congressman Ron Paul (R) Texas, Ben Stein, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D) Texas, commented on Larry King Live about the attempted terrorist attack of flight 253. Congressman Ron Paul at one point addressed the fact that this attempted attack was motivated by the U.S. bombing of Yemen last week, and stated that motivation for attacks should not be overlooked by the U.S. That is when Ben Stein accused Ron Paul of being anti-semetic for having such an opinion. From that point on, the two argued until Larry King stated that he would have the two gentilman back on his show tomorrow night.

During the discourse Larry King made a point of saying "Look at this folks, two republicans going at it!". Isn't this always the agenda of the media? They want the Republican Party to look like it's in total shambles with disagreement and discord. They also continually try to make Congressman Ron Paul look bad by making it look as if he is on the side of the terrorists. Ben Stein was totally out of line when he brought the charge of anti-semetism into this argument. Ron Paul was correct in stating that there are repercussions to occupying foreign lands, and that we are suffering for these choices. There is nothing antisemetic about that statment.

Rudy Guilliani tried to pin a similar charge to Ron Paul during the Presidential debates in 2007.
Why do these people constantly attack Congressman Ron Paul? He is the closest Representative we have to what our founding fathers represented in establishing our great nation. Ron Paul is intelligent enough to know that military bullying in foreign lands brings what is called "Blowback". Blowback is where there is a reaction from the countries as a result of our involvment in their lands by invasion and occupation.

Ron Paul is not necessarilly saying we invited the attacks, but that our decisions to invade these countries bring about repercussions for doing so. If we would stay out of these foreign entanglments, many of these attacks and such could have been avoided. The CIA and other intelligence agencies here in the United States are aware of "Blowback", so the only conclusion to be drawn from this is the idea that maybe the blowback is the desired goal of these agecies to bring about further restrictions to our freedoms and to further nullify our rights under the constitution.

Don't be fooled by the operatives of the Mind Controlled Media. They are out to try and discredit Ron Paul in any way they can. He is an outstanding Representative shining in the dark halls of Congress, and I believe we need him to sit as President in the next election, so do your research on him and I think you too will choose him if freedom is what you want to restore here in our nation.
Watch Ron Paul's rebuttle to a question asked during a Presidential Debate:

U.S. placed under international police-state

In the dead of night on December 17, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama placed the United States of America under the authority of the international police organization known as INTERPOL, granting the organization full immunity to operate within the United States.

(AP Photo/Peter Dejong).

According to Threatswatch:

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

What, exactly does this mean? It means that INTERPOL now has the full authority to conduct investigations and other law enforcement activities on U.S. soil, with full immunity from U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.

In short, a global law enforcement entity now has full law-enforcement authority in the U.S. without any check on its power afforded by U.S. law and U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Read the entire story

America’s Artificial Rift: The Two Party System

Anthony Gucciardi

December 28, 2009

On any given day you can find a news story that focuses on the conflict between democrats and republicans, or Group A and Group B. These groups could be anything, but as long as they are toted as being the opposite of each other, they will clash. When one party supports a bill, the other tends to oppose it. This holds true for both sides, creating a never-ceasing battle over political parties, as opposed to policy.

The change in each party’s fundamental policies has been warped into an infinitesimally minute amount of distinction from one another. When one does not agree with the “Republican” stance, they generally lean towards a “Democratic” stance. The guise of the two parties creates a false sense of freedom and liberation from a structured ideal.

The Soviet Union’s single party system was a failure due to it’s inability to withstand a dissident attack. The United States two-party system is simply the post-beta form of the Soviet-style political spectrum, with the guise of liberty upon it’s aging fangs.

Holding Hands

The word paradigm (paradigma), compounded from it’s Greek root word δείχνυμι “to show”, accurately describes the dimension between the left and right party. This paradigm requires a vice grip of social ideology held together for stability. A single party’s influence can break, without a backboard to cater towards any dissidence.

Two parties can stand up against one another to create both geometrically and intellectually a more powerful structure that can withstand intense dissidence from each party for one reason: the rebellion of the first party’s ideals are reciprocated by the second.

Real Issues

The war between left and right diminishes the focus on real issues. A frighteningly large number of people will make all their decisions based upon their party leaders. The debate turns into left verses right, instead of what is best for the country. The mainstream media loves to turn everything into a matter of “party wars”, instead of discussing the actual issue at it’s core.

Instead of thinking “left” or “right”, think about it from a human perspective. What will this do to our country? How will it affect me? How will it affect my neighbors?

Thinking for yourself

Imagine for a moment that your car has broken down. You go to a used car dealership and search around for a nice car. There are no price tags on the cars, but the place seems rather professional. You find a car you like, and it looks like it’s in pretty decent condition. You ask about the price, and the salesman says it will cost you $95,000.

In this case, most people would first investigate the true value of the car before purchasing it. While it seems completely logical to find the true value of the car, many do not take this metaphorical step when it comes down to left verses right. Placing blind trust in the leaders of a political party is just like trusting the used car salesman to give you the best price. Find out the truth for yourself, as it’s the only way to truly find out what’s going on.

Media Spins

The mainstream media loves to take legitimate topics and turn them into a battle between political parties. A perfect example is the Healthcare bill. Even though it has ridiculous policy changes, and a eugenics-based provision system, it is still turned into a left verses right issue by the media. Luckily people have begun to see through this false two party system, and are beginning to realize they are being played.

The mainstream media’s deception is wearing off quite rapidly, as the public begins to realize that they are being duped. The public is realizing that regardless of which party the current political figurehead (puppet) is affiliating himself with, he is still the same as the previous leader. It is a vicious cycle that continues to this day. The difference is that now the people are waking up to this cycle, and opposing it.

Ally yourself with humanity, not parties

You do not have time to waste on petty arguments that center around the false “party wars”. Use your time to get real information out, like the implications of the Healthcare bill, or the shocking dangers of vaccinations. True patriotism is to have thoughts that do not derive from the structured and targeting news media, or the most famous political puppet in your region.

Monday, December 28, 2009

How will Health Care Bill Affect Seniors?


December 28, 2009

Mark Matheny

Many aspects of this bill will not go into effect until 2014. The bill proposes $500 billion in cuts for Medicare.
  • The House has passed Health Care Bill
  • The Senate Has passed Health Care Bill
  • Next: Conference meetings will merge the two Bills into One
  • It will then have to get the President's approval
  • Congress will then have to pass the Bill
  • The President will then sign the Bill into law
Some of the issues in this bill will be whether there will be a Public option or not, which was passed in the House but not the Senate. Another issue will be whether federal funds will pay for abortions or not.

This means we have to stay persistent in resisting this bill. We must continue to contact our representatives and demand to see where they have a constitunional right to pass such a bill. Of course there is no such right in the constitution!

U.S Soldiers Are Waking Up!

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S. - How Average Americans are Lured into Debt Servitude by Promises of Mega Wealth.

Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S. - How Average Americans are Lured into Debt Servitude by Promises of Mega Wealth.

Posted: 26 Dec 2009 10:20 AM PST

Many Americans are not buying the recent stock market rally. This is being reflected in multiple polls showing negative attitudes towards the economy and Wall Street. Wall Street is so disconnected from the average American that they fail to see the 27 million unemployed and underemployed Americans that now have a harder time believing the gospel of financial engineering prosperity. Americans have a reason to be dubious regarding the recovery because jobs are the main push for most Americans. A recent study shows that over 70 percent of Americans derive their monthly income from an actual W-2 job. In other words, working is the prime mover and source of their income. Yet the financial elite have very little understanding of this concept. Why? 42 percent of financial wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent. We would need to go back to the Great Depression to see such lopsided data.

Many Americans are still struggling at the depths of this recession. We have 37 million Americans on food stamps and many wait until midnight of the last day of the month so checks can clear to buy food at Wal-Mart. Do you think these people are starring at the stock market? The overall data is much worse:

Source: William Domhoff

If we break the data down further we will find that 93 percent of all financial wealth is controlled by the top 10 percent of the country. That is why these people are cheering their one cent share increase while layoffs keep on improving the bottom line. But what bottom line are we talking about here? The Wall Street crowd would like you to believe that all is now good that the stock market has rallied 60+ percent. Of course they are happy because they control most of this wealth. Yet the typical American still has negative views on the economy because they actually have to work to earn a living:

The above daily poll asks Americans about their view on the health of the economy. Only 13 percent believe the economy is good or excellent. Funny how that correlates with the top 10 percent who control 93 percent of wealth. Many Americans were sold the illusion of the bubble. They were sold on the idea that their homes were worth so much more than they really were. And many used this phony wealth effect to go out and spend beyond their means. They started spending as if they were part of this elite 10 percent crowd. But once the tide rolled out, it was clear they were not. And the horribly built bailouts demonstrate who is controlling our political system. This was not the rule of a capitalist system but a corporate run government.

Just think about the bailouts and which companies were saved. We ended up bailing out the worst performing and troubled companies thus keeping alive companies that should have completely failed. Did we bail out Google? Proctor and Gamble? Of course not. These companies actually produce something that people want. Banks and especially the Wall Street kind merely keep that 42 percent happy by making sure their stock values stay high so they can keep on making money while the average Americans is sold up the river.

Yet many were brought into the easy money fold by going into massive amounts of debt. And who has most of the debt? That is right, the average American:

The bottom 90 percent have been saddled with 73 percent of all debt. In other words much of their so-called wealth is connected to debt. Debt is slavery for many especially with egregious credit card companies taking people out with absurd credit card tricks and scams. Yet the corporate propaganda machine is strong and mighty. Have you ever received an inheritance? A large one? Probably not because only 1.6% of all Americans receive an inheritance larger than $100,000. If this is the case, why in the world do politicians worry so much about the tax impacts of this? Because they want to keep the corporatocracy alive and well so their spawn can get a piece of their pie. They give the illusion to average Americans that if you only work hard enough you too can join this elusive club of cronies. The data shows otherwise.

But if we start looking at investment assets, the true wealth in the country, we start realizing why Wall Street is all giddy about the recent stock market government induced rally:

Of investment assets 90 percent of Americans own 12.2 percent. The rest goes to the top 10 percent. Welcome to the new serfdom. The bailouts that went out to the filthy rich were more about protecting their tiny corner of the world than actually making the economy better. That is why it is interesting to see companies fire people and Wall Street cheer for the increase in earnings per share. Good for the few at the expense of the many. Yet the propaganda out of Wall Street and our government is what is good for Wall Street is good for you. Just like that 1.6% inheritance issue, the vast majority of Americans won’t deal with that and their primary concern is simply a job. A job that has provided stagnant wages for a decade while the ultra wealth get richer and richer in a phony form of corporate socialism.

If you break down the data you realize that most Americans don’t have time to speculate in stock markets:

Only 34% of U.S. households make more than $65,000 per year. What is that after taxes? Let us use a state like California for example:

Now if we breakdown this data further you will realize that most of the money is consumed by cost of living necessities, not Wall Street speculation. Just to show this example let us look at a family budget for someone in California making $100,000:

Notice after running the budget we are in the hole for $1,000? That is because of many costs that typical families have. We can debate the merits of where they are spending money but the point is this; are these people really making beaucoup money from the stock market? They are putting away $12,000 a year into their 401k. As we have now found out, 8 percent a year is never guaranteed in the stock market although the corporate powers would like you to believe that so they can have other suckers to unload stocks onto.

“Yet the median household income in the U.S. is $50,000 and not $100,000. They have even less to invest.”

They are more concerned on working to have a paycheck to pay for necessities. They are more concerned about paying their house off by the time they retire and hopefully, have a little bit of retirement funds coming in. The sad fact is most Americans rely on Social Security when they retire. All those ads of unlimited golf and daily trips to Tahiti are propaganda of how Wall Street lives and they want to sell you the sizzle, and clearly not the steak. They live their lives paper pushing and sucking the life out of the productive part of our economy. The average American should now realize this since this financial crisis was primarily caused by them. They are now on a massive campaign to blame Americans for this. This is hypocrisy to the next level. Many Americans have paid for their mistake by losing their home through foreclosure. We have 300,000 foreclosure filings a month. Many have taken a hit to their overall stock portfolio (if they have one). Yet the corporate cronies have protected their horrible economy crushing debts at the taxpayer expense. Unlike you, many hold bonds on the companies and not common stock like many Americans. Bondholders have been protected at all costs during this crisis. Goldman Sachs through AIG received 100 cents on the dollar for their horrible bets. The banks have unlimited back stops thanks to taxpayers. This is how the top 1 percent rule the new feudal state.

Welcome to the 2010 serfdom. Time to wake up and restructure the system. Many people are starting to wake up to this massive scam.

Friday, December 25, 2009

A Shill By Any Other Name, Is Still A Shill


December 24, 2009

By Mark Matheny

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings, and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity." -David Rockefeller, June 5, 1991 speaking at a Bilderberg Meeting in Sand Germany
When I was growing up, there were saturday cartoons which I would wake up eagerly to watch. In between the different cartoons there would be instructional cartoons-one of which would teach valuable lessons to children all over the country who would be watching. One phrase taught by a super hero would be "Knowing is half the Battle!" Apparently, if we at least knew of a problem, we would then be able to work at a solution.

In today's world, this lesson holds very true. If a doctor can come to know of a problem and correctly identify it, he can then begin to determine a solution whether it be medicine or surgery. In the same way our government can solve problems if they know what the root of the problem is.

There are those in high places, however, who have a plan to consolidate economic and political power on a global scale, who also want to do so while withholding this knowledge from the masses in order to prevent the masses from stopping such a drastic move.

Those Elitists bent on such a dramatic change on a global scale know that to do so, they would have to control the media on a world-wide scale in order to prevent the true agenda of a one world government from coming to the knowledge of the masses.

David Rockefeller, among other elitists knew that they would have to control the media in order to shade or cover their true goal of world domination. News and journalism in its purest form should seek to inform the public so that the public then can take some action to prepare, or correct some problem when it develops. News is meant to inform us in an unbiased way, so that we may have a clear view of the events that are shaping our world. It is often said that "Knowledge is power", and this is the reason that those who have a desire to control us also have a desire to control the media.

Of course there are many news agencies to choose from now days, and so the average American feels confident they are being well informed about the world around them. But are we being informed if those many news agencies are all under the unbrella of a dominating cartel? Over the past decade there have been several mergers that have taken place so that a majority of the News and Entertainment media are now under the control of a few transnational conglomerates. Companies such as AOL Time Warner, Disney, News Corp, Viacom, and Sony.

According to an article in The New American,
Passive media consumers generally don't understand the extent to which the cartel limits their options. For example, Viacom owns both the CBS and UPN television networks, as well as Showtime, MTV, Paramount Pictures, and Simon & Schuster Books. Disney owns the ABC, A&E, and Lifetime networks, co-owns ESPN, and operates Disney's well-known motion picture properties. AOL Time Warner is not only the world's largest internet service provider, but also owns the CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO networks, Warner Brother studios, and a host of publishing ventures. - The New American, Vol. 19, No.3 February 10, 2003, pg 9 article: 'No Channels,No Choice'.
Is it any wonder that we hear the same news on every channel we turn to? Try it sometime- turn to a news channel and watch the main three stories they cover, and then turn to another station, and you will more than likely hear about the same three stories. Sometimes they are almost word for word.

As  a salesman, I used to drive to people's homes in order to sell a product to them. I would have a prepared presentation in which I would slowly convince them that my company, product, and price were all the solution to their problem. It would be important for me to gain their trust, and to make them aware of the problems they were currently experiencing. I would in effect present a 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' presentation in order to win them as a customer.

Throughout the presentation, I would get them to commit to various aspects of my company, my product, and ultimately to my final price. The presentation would usually take 2 or three hours, and if I took shortcuts in my pitch, I would usually walk out empty handed.

Today, in the news world we also have salesmen (and women) who come into our homes in order to sell us on an idea or issue. Usually these issues in some way, shape, or form lead us to side with the establishment's goal of global governance. These salesmen and women are refered to as "shills."

What is a shill- you may ask?
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used. -Wikipedia
 News broadcasters such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, along with others are on TV to guide us through so-called "journalism" (fair and balanced) in order to fully inform us. They say things like " The Spin stops here- cause we're looking out for you." But the question is, are they really looking out for us- or are they pushing the agenda of the corporations and the military industrial complex, who inturn are pushing the policies of "think tanks" such as the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission who were established by elitists such as David Rockefeller, and Zbigiew Brzezinski?

Topics such as War, Taxes, Flu vaccinations, and  Stimuluses are shown to the public as vital to support in order to keep a "crisis from becoming a catastrophe", yet they won't tell the public that these very same issues are costing us trillions of dollars, and are all unnecessary if we would just abide by the constitution. Wars wouldn't be long and drawn out, (if they were even necesssary in the first place), and if necessary, they would be declared by congress and settled quickly, as a true budget would not support these current wars. Taxes would not be hidden in the form called inflation because we wouldn't have a Central Bank called the "Federal Reserve" that could print money out of thinair in the first place! But yet the 'spin doctors' on the nightly news teach us that "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery" when they portray the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary to our national security! Tapping our phones and monitoring every transaction, or internet site we look at is somehow keeping us free!

Here are a few more definitions which will clarify the true job of a shill in various ways:

 Shills in journalism
The term is applied metaphorically to journalists or commentators who have vested interests in or associations with parties in a controversial issue. Usually this takes the form of a show or network pretending to be offering news when in fact they are simply repeating talking points offered by a political party. Journalistic ethics require full disclosure of conflicts of interest, and of any interference by other parties with the reportage.  -Wikipedia

Critical shills

Sometimes shills may be used to downplay legitimate complaints posted by users on the Internet. See Spin (public relations) and sock puppet (internet). -Wikipedia

Spin (public relations)

In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.

Politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while using spin tactics to manipulate public opinion. -Wikipedia

"Burying bad news": announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular one.

State-run media in many countries also engage in spin by only allowing news stories that are favorable to the government while censoring anything that could be considered critical.

To Shill
(pejorative) To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly. -Wictionary
  • 1996, Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World,

Today there are even commercials in which real scientists, some of considerable distinction, shill for corporations. They teach that scientists too will lie for money. As Tom Paine warned, inuring us to lies lays the groundwork for many other evils. -Wictionary
You will notice a few things about all of these shills in the news, whether they are on the Left or the Right, the all try to discredit key issues that are important to those who seek after true liberty. Some of these issues are:
  • The truth about 9/11: They will call those who wish to have another investigation (those refered to as 9/11 truthers)  wackos, nuts, racists, and terrorists in effect. Often times they will invite "9/11 truthers" on TV, only to yell at and discredit them on the air, so making all those who would want an investigation look un-American, psychotic, or extremist.
  • National Healthcare: Again those who would oppose this issue are painted as uncaring towards the poor, or out for insurance companies and special interests groups. Those who speak out at the Town Hall meetings are refered to as terrorists, Nazis and even "astroturf" (Nancy Pelosi said this). One thing that is never mentioned by either side is whether congress even has the right to be nationalizing healthcare!Those who attend the "Tea Parties" are called "Tea Baggers" (a sexually explicit term used by media shills to make fun of, and to discredit the people bringing up real issues that the astablishment wishes to avoid). 
  • The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: News Agencies such as Fox News are really hardcore about supporting the "war on Terror" and insist that it is patriotic to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to "preserve democracy." (Notice too, that it's a 'Democracy' that we are protecting and not the 'Republic' that we pledged alliance to.) If you are against the wars, then you are unpatriotic. When Ron Paul spoke of "blowback" because of the foreign policy of America towards Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, Rudy Guilliani tried to make Ron Paul look as though he was un-American. The networks covering the elections all seemed to marginalize Ron Paul because he was against the agenda of the "Neo-cons" and the military industrial complex. The 'spin' here is again, "War is Peace."
  • On the issue of Obama's elidgibility: Here is another issue that will not be touched with a ten-foot pole by the media shills. If it is ever mentioned at all, it is painted in such a ridiculous hue of sarcasm that those questioning this very relevant issue are also painted as racist, or as sore losers because a democrat won the office. The term "Birthers" is used for the group of people concerned about the status of Barack Obama, and is spoken in a derogatory manner in order to downplay the severity of the implications behind the question of Obama's elidgiblity. 

Burying the news is another tool of the shill. A good example of this was the day Michael Jackson died. Every media channel covered the event as if the President was the subject instead of a singer. All the while, the Pope was giving a speech calling for a "World Economic Order"!! How many of the average people on the street knew anything about the Pope's speech? I'm confident in saying that a majority knew nothing about it (and probably still to this day know nothing of it), but they can tell you all about the pomp and ceremony that went on with Michael Jackson's funeral arrangements, tribute, etc.

Another example was a story that was published on December 26, 2001 in an Egyptian paper about the death and the funeral of Osama Bin Laden!!!! How many news agencies covered this in America? How many Americans are there that have ever seen this article? This of course, if true, would have spoiled the plan of finding Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan would it not? What excuse would the elitists used for invading Afghanistan then? Whether or not the account is true- wouldn't it have been on the front cover of the papers if news such as this would have somehow furthered the cause of those plotting for a "New World Order"?

Even the whole Global Warming Scandal was pushed by shills who covered up evidence to push the agenda of Global Warming in order to bring all nations under a carbon tax and regulations that will in effect lead to Global Government. Here's what Carl Sagan said once in 1996, but describes the 'ClimateGate' shill tactic well:

1996, Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World,

Today there are even commercials in which real scientists, some of considerable distinction, shill for corporations. They teach that scientists too will lie for money. As Tom Paine warned, inuring us to lies lays the groundwork for many other evils. -Wictionary

Often, those who are considered to be conservatives or Republican will often get their news from Fox News, which is considered to be a right leaning alternative to CNN and other establishment news. However, it is important to note that Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News is the showpiece property of News Corp, a transnational  media empire owned by Australian expatriate - and CFR member - Rupert Murdoch. The $38 billion Murdoch global empire (which includes the New York Post and half dozen major news publishers) was built on a foundation of Fleet Street tabloids in London. Fox Broadcasting Company's primetime entertainment programs rely heavily on titillation and "edgy" sexual content. ...Conservatives and liberals alike regard Murdoch's Fox News Channel as a right leaning alternative to CNN and the network evening news.....Fox News boasts the motto, "We report-you decide," which many percieve as  a commitment to independence and objectivity. But that credo can also be viewed as a variation on the New York Times' motto, "All the News that's Fit to Print," after all, who decides what is reported by Fox News? Do Murdoch's Insider connections and calculations of corporate self-interest play a gatekeeping role in defining Fox's news coverage? Murdoch's media track record abroad demonstrates that he's very much in the business of dispensing managed media. - The New American, Vol. 19, No.3, February 10, 2003, pg 11, article: Many Channels,No Choice.
This is why it is so important to understand that there are alternatives to the establishment news. The internet is a very important source of news to any American who wants to awaken out of the trance that the controlled media has been keeping them in. There are many great sites that you can get your news from on the internet. You can read multiple versions of an event or issue so that you can judge the veracity of an issue, and determine the motive of the source. In this way, you will become an informed American who can properly defend himself against the onslaught of Shills that are out to get the masses to follow them. It reminds me of the fairy tale of the "Pied Piper", who played a sweet melody and led all the rats out of the city to their demise.

So whether they are called Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, or Republican-
 A Shill By Any Other Name, Is Still A Shill.

Mark Matheny.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Glenn Beck HATES 911 Victim's Family Members!

December 24, 2009
Mark Matheny

For all the 'Glenn Beck' lovers out there, you need to hear what he had to say on his radio show. 9/11 was a tragic event, and the families of those murdered that day are still grieving and looking for answers to the event that happened 8 years ago. Glenn beck has shown his true colors about these families. He is such a hypocrite! If you are in the 9-12 movement- get out now! We don't need Glenn Beck and his double speak! Even Keith Olberman got it right in exposing Glenn Beck for the Schill that he is! (Olberman is one too however).
Liberty and freedom will do better with the grass roots people- people who aren't bought and paid for!!! And to all the 9/11 families- We love you and support you. One day the truth about the attacks will be uncovered!!!!

See Also: To Heck With Beck

DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules Changes in Reid Health Bill


Posted December 23rd, 2009 at 2.03pm in Health Care.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has pointed observers to a problematic section of the health care legislation now before the Senate that proposes (in Section 3403) to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Board. He rightly observes that the bill language makes it virtually impossible to repeal that part of the legislation, thereby attempting to bind future Congresses.

DeMint is right about all this, but—having read through the legislation—by my read it is actually much worse than has been suggested, and much more destructive of the rule of law and democratic governance.

The purpose of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” (p. 1001) Its proposals to reduce that spending “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” (p. 1004) (And the legislation won’t pay for abortions – yea, right.)

But the Board’s proposals “shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans . . . that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) for basic coverage.” (Hmmm . . . . Sounds like rather than directly rationing health care, they just won’t pay for it.)

Setting the rationing questions aside for a moment, what is most disturbing is the process by which these cost-savings dictates made by an unelected board of experts will be implemented regardless of the majority opinion of the law-making branch of government. So much for the rule of law.

This Board—which is appointed by the President, is not required to hold any public meetings or take any testimony and cannot be disbanded except by a 3/5 vote of Congress—transmits a legislative proposal that implements its recommendations to the President, who shall immediately submit such proposal to Congress. (p 1011)

On the day on which the proposal is submitted it shall be introduced in Congress (p 1017) and referred to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives (p. 1018), despite any standing rules of the Senate (p 1019). If the committee does not act fast enough, the bill shall be discharged from (ie forced through) that committee (1019).

And then there is this zinger:

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board” if the bill, resolution, amendment or report does not satisfy the requirements of the legislation.

And here is DeMint’s troubling discovery (p 1020):

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection” other than by three-fifths of the Members of Congress.

The section then goes on to promulgate the rules of debate in the Senate and House for considering the legislation, and that if the one House passes the legislation the other “shall consider the bill introduced in that House through all stages of consideration up to, but not including, passage.” No more pesky committee mark-ups and amendments.

If there is any doubt that this section of the Healthcare Bill changes the rules of the Senate and the House in violation of clear constitutional language guaranteeing each House’s determination of the rules of its proceedings (Article I, Section 5), consider this Orwellian language (p. 1028):


This subsection and subsection (f)(2) are enacted by Congress—

‘(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of bill under this section, and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and

(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

Sooo, . . . the Secretary shall not implement the Board’s “recommendations” but only if Congress follows all these new rules and goes to great length to pass another law.

But wait! Perhaps the bureaucrats can implement the law anyway(p. 1031):

NO AFFECT ON AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to affect the authority of the Secretary to implement any recommendation contained in a proposal or advisory report under this section to the extent that the Secretary otherwise has the authority to implement such recommendation administratively.

Paragraph 3 is the exception under which Congress enacts legislation against the specific Board recommendation. Given the wide latitude by which bureaucrats wield their administrative authority, and the looseness of this language, the legislation could be read to give them a green light to proceed administratively despite congressional disapproval. And, just to make it clear they mean to rule us, there shall be no administrative or judicial review of this decision.

It has become commonplace for Congress to pass massive pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation; it is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are promulgated by administrative agencies in the guise of “regulations”—a form of rule by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.

This bureaucracy is so overwhelming that it is unclear whether modern presidents actually can be held constitutionally responsible for “tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Presidents now appoint numerous policy “czars”—megabureaucrats operating outside of the existing cabinet structure—to forward their objectives over the inertia of their own administrations.

And now, in this new form of administrative governance, unelected and unresponsible experts who are beyond legislative control and the rule of law will tell us what is good for us and the rules by which we will shall live our lives.

This legislation is not about health care, but about placing one sixth of the American economy—and some of the most important and personal decisions in our lives—under the permanent control of government. This section of the legislation—and the operations of this Independent Medicare Advisory Board—is a prime example of the autocratic rule that is increasingly overtaking us.

Is Usama Alive?

December 23, 2009
 Mark Matheny
 A relative of Usama Bin Laden is held up in Iran, apparently under some type of house arrest. According to the broadcast it's not known whether Usama Bin Laden is even alive. Some reports have shown that there was a funeral held in Egypt for Bin Laden as far back as December of 2001.

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:

al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633

News of Bin Laden's Death

and Funeral 10 days ago

Islamabad -

A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.


Phelim Mcaleer on Fox News talks about the myth of Global warming.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Senate health bill clears final hurdle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats cleared the last 60-vote hurdle on President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul on Wednesday, virtually ensuring final passage of its version of the biggest health policy changes in four decades.

For a third straight day, Democrats mustered the 60 party-line votes needed to keep the healthcare bill on track for passage on Thursday over unified Republican opposition.

The vote on final approval, which requires a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, is slated for 7 a.m. EST on Christmas Eve on Thursday.

Passage in the Senate would set up potentially tough negotiations in January to iron out differences with the House of Representatives, which approved its own version on November 7.

"It's been a long, hard road for all of us," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters. "We stand a few short steps from the most significant finish line we've had in Congress for many decades."

Read more

William Jasper & Alex Newman on Alex Jones Tv 1 of 4: Latest From Copenhagen NWO Central

Watch here

Monday, December 21, 2009

The Weimar Hyperinflation: Could it Happen Again?

The August Review: Globalist Research Center

By Ellen Brown 

May 20, 2009


“It was horrible. Horrible! Like lightning it struck. No one was prepared. The shelves in the grocery stores were empty. You could buy nothing with your paper money.” (1933 interview)

Some worried commentators are predicting a massive hyperinflation of the sort suffered by Weimar Germany in 1923, when a wheelbarrow full of paper money could barely buy a loaf of bread. An April 29 editorial in the San Francisco Examiner warned:

“With an unprecedented deficit that’s approaching $2 trillion, [the President’s 2010] budget proposal is a surefire prescription for hyperinflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing a spending spree that could very well turn America into the next Weimar Republic.”1

In an investment newsletter called Money Morning on April 9, Martin Hutchinson pointed to disturbing parallels between current government monetary policy and Weimar Germany’s, when 50% of government spending was being funded by seigniorage – merely printing money.2 However, there is something puzzling in his data. He indicates that the British government is already funding more of its budget by seigniorage than Weimar Germany did at the height of its massive hyperinflation; yet the pound is still holding its own, under circumstances said to have caused the complete destruction of the German mark. Something else must have been responsible for the mark’s collapse besides mere money-printing to meet the government’s budget, but what? And are we threatened by the same risk today? Let’s take a closer look at the data.
Read the entire story

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Is the European police state going global?

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Ugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.

Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.

Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.

Outside, in the real world, it was snowing, and a foretaste of the Brave New World being cooked up by “world leaders” in their fantasy-land was already evident. Some 20,000 observers from non-governmental organizations – nearly all of them true-believing Green groups funded by taxpayers – had been accredited to the conference.However, without warning the UN had capriciously decided that all but 300 of them were to be excluded from the conference today, and all but 90 would be excluded on the final day.

Of course, this being the inept UN, no one had bothered to notify those of the NGOs that were not true-believers in the UN’s camp. So Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us.

In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.

Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.

He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.

I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.”

In fact, the phone was in my coat pocket, where my hand had been at the time of the assault. The ambulance crew led me away and laid me down under a blanket for 20 minutes to get warm, plying me with water and keeping me amused with some colorfully colloquial English that they had learned.

I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying.

The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason.

To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost.

Nor does this incident, and far too many like it, reflect the slightest credit on Denmark. We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference.

However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve.

It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy.

A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic.

While we still have one or two statesmen of his caliber, there is hope for Europe and the world. Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum.

However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.

He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.”

Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.

California City's Police to Wear Head-Mounted Cameras

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Associated Press

SAN JOSE, California — Police in California are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public.

The test using 18 patrol officers comes as citizens' groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.

Officers are to turn on the cameras every time they talk with anyone. They download the recordings after every shift.

The cameras are the size of a Bluetooth cell phone earpiece and attach by a headband above the ear.
San Jose is the first major American city to try the devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International. Taser is paying for the experiment, but the price could be high if San Jose equips all 1,400 officers.

Each kit costs $1,700, plus a $99 per officer monthly fee. That's $4 million department-wide each year.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Fwd: 11/17/09 - Flight #297 Atlanta to Houston


December 19, 2009
Mark Matheny

From the Editor:I recieved this Email yesterday, and decided to post it. One point I would like to make is the fact that I am not exactly sure what to make of it at this point, but felt it necessary to publish in order to possibly get some feedback from anyone who might have more information on this subject. Feel free to post any information or comments  in the 'Post' section below.I have posted some sites in regards to this story at the bottom of this page. Again, I can neither confirm nor deny this email, but publish it in the hope of bringing it to the attention of all who read, and are in search of the truth behind the 9/11 attacks and the possibility of another 'False Fag' scenario,     Mark Matheny.


Date: December 18, 2009 1:27:18 PM EST


Subject: Fwd: 11/17/09 - Flight #297 Atlanta to Houston. I don't know if this is true... but it could be. Snopes, who I only 1/2 trust, said it was 1/2 true. According to The Atlanta Journal Constitution, AirTran said in a statement: "After conducting additional research into this situation, we have verified, according to flight manifests (legally binding documents) that the individual that allegedly created a first-hand account of events on-board AirTran Airways Flight 297, a Theodore Petruna (a real person), was never actually on-board the flight." I don't know if I can actually believe that to be true.

If it is true, it is something to think about. You be the judge.


I, Gene Hackemack, received this email from my good friend Tedd Petruna, a diver at the NBL facility [Neutral Buoyancy Lab], at NASA Houston, whom I used to work with. Tedd happened to be on this same Flt. 297, Atlanta to Houston.

In my opinion, the Muslims are all getting very brave now, since they have one of their own in the white house... read Tedd's story below.

P.S. can you imagine, our own news media now are so politically correct that they are afraid to report that these were all Muslims... unbelievable. Thank God for people like Tedd Petruna.

Gene Hackemack


One week ago, I went to Ohio on business and to see my father. On Tuesday,

November the 17th, I returned home. If you read the papers the 18th you may have seen a blurb where a AirTran flight was cancelled from Atlanta to Houston due to a man who refused to get off of his cell phone before takeoff. It was on Fox.

That is NOT what happened.

I was in 1st class coming home. 11 Muslim men got on the plane in full attire. 2 sat in 1st class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back. As the plane taxied to the runway the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the 1st stewardess out of the picture for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she was not there.

The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd

stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims, one in the back aisle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it.

Now... they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her. (don't ask me... I don't make the rules, but I've studied) The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said "shut up infidel dog!" She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say "I got your back."

I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said "you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!" As I "led" him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said; "You WILL do the same!" He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11

were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.

We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happen, when suddenly, the door open again and on walked all 11! Stone faced, eyes front and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it!

Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal. She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men. The agent told her they had searched them and were going to go through their luggage with a fine tooth comb and that they were allowed to proceed to Houston. The captain and co-captain came out and told the agent "We and our crew will not fly this plane!" After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane. 5 minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on.

Again... this is where I had had enough! I got up and asked "What the hell is going on?!" I was told to take my seat. They were sorry for the delay and I would be home shortly. I said "I'm getting off this plane".

The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off. Now I'm mad! I said "I am a grown man who bought this ticket, whose time is mine with a family at home and I am going through that door, or I'm going through that door with you under my arm! But I am going through that door!" And I heard a voice behind me say; "So am I". Then everyone behind us started to get up and say the same. Within 2 minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met with more agents who asked me to write a statement. I had 5 hours to kill at this point so why the hell not. Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was cancelled. I was supposed to be in Houston at 6pm. I got here at 12:30am.

Look up the date. Flight #297 Atlanta to Houston.

If this wasn't a dry run, I don't know what one is. The terrorists wanted to see how TSA would handle it, how the crew would handle it, and how the passengers would handle it.

I'm telling this to you because I want you to know. The threat is real. I saw it with my own eyes.



Related Sites:

Friday, December 18, 2009

President Obama Heads to Copenhagen as Climate Conference Draws to Close

President Barack Obama is due to head to Copenhagen overnight to join the leaders of over 100 other nations for the final day of the U.N. Climate Change conference in the Danish capital.

Sonja Pace

December 17,2009

The question remains what sort of compromise they can agree on to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to help the most affected and less developed nations of the world cope with global warming.

For the past two weeks thousands of delegates have been meeting in a conference center on the outskirts of Copenhagen. Their task was to come up with a global plan to deal with climate change.

But, agreement has been elusive. Many of the sessions were taken up with finger pointing and rhetoric of who's to blame for global warming, who suffers most, and who needs to do more.

Addressing the conference, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd warned that, as he put it, no one has come here with "clean hands."

"The inescapable truth is that we, the developed world, carry the overwhelming historical responsibility for the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," Rudd said.

Prime Minister Rudd's message was that the developed world must set things right. But, he also admonished emerging economies to not continue to spew out greenhouse gases.

There have been major differences here at the conference between developed and developing nations and with major emerging economies.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a major funding initiative with a promise to contribute to a global fund of $100 billion annually to help poor nations deal with climate change. But, she said that could only happen if all major economies agree on emissions cuts and on proper monitoring of implementation. She made a clear reference to China, with whom the U.S. has been at odds over the issue.
"The United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries," Hillary Clinton said.

But, Prime Minister Rudd reminded delegates that everyone has a stake.

"The truth is that unless we all act together because we are all in this together there will be limited prospects of development because the planet itself will no longer sustain development," Rudd said.

That was much the message from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who admonished his fellow world leaders that failure is not an option.

He warned them they would all have to answer before global opinion and public opinion at home if they failed to act. Science has told us what must be done, he said, and we are the last generation to be able to do it.

In an impassioned speech, President Sarkozy said everyone would have to compromise. He appealed to world leaders to sit down and work out their differences and suggested a serious working meeting after Thursday's dinner to do just that.

Initial hopes had been the Copenhagen conference could come up with a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which mandates emission cuts for most developed nations. Developing countries are adamant that they want Kyoto extended beyond its 2012 expiration date. Leaders here have indicated they are looking for a political framework agreement from Copenhagen, with another summit to be held in about six months to work out details and turn it into a legally binding accord.

Cops need warrant to search phones, say Ohio Supremes

First top-level US ruling on celly seizures

By Austin Modine in San FranciscoGet more from this author

Posted in Law, 16th December 2009 11:13 GMT

Free whitepaper – PowerEdge M610 technical guidebook

Police officers must obtain a search warrant before snooping through the contents of a suspect's cell phone, Ohio's supreme court ruled on Tuesday.

The issue of whether mobile phones fall under US Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures appears never to have been weighed by any other US state supreme court or the federal Supremes.

Read the entire story

Thursday, December 17, 2009

To Heck With Beck

Updated: Dec.17, 2009 11:10AM E.ST.

December 17, 2009

Mark Matheny

An article titled 'The White House War on Glenn Beck and Fox' was published in the November 9, 2009 issue of 'The New American' magazine, showing how Glenn Beck's "coverage of Van Jones on his Fox News television Show (and his radio show)" that brought Van Jones to resign from his position, as well as "his high profile and relentless efforts to break news like the Dunn story have drawn the fire of the Obama administration officials, who have labeled the Fox News Channel an 'opponent' and 'not really a news station. in recent weeks."

The article also stated how Glenn Beck "unearthed footage of Obama's White House Communications Director Anita Dunn at a High school graduation last spring praising Mao Tse-tung as one of her two 'favorite political philosophers'." The article also stated toward the end, "Beck's revelations about Dunn came more than a week after Dunn had declared an administration war on Fox News, a fact that Time  magazine took note of as early as October 8." In the Time  article Dunn stated  that Fox News was 'opinion journalism masquerading as news'.

The New American article seemed to paint Glenn Beck as a true Journalist out to save the Republic, while exposing the socialists and Leftists that seem to attract themselves like magnets to the Obama Crew. Carol Lanham sees through the facade of Glen Beck, however, and has written a response to the November 9 article. I recieved a copy of the text via email, and called Carol for permission to publish it. She said yes, and so here it is:

To the staff of theNew American---------
I was also upset with the article that soft peddled Glenn Beck which appeared in the New American. Let's not forget who signs Beck's paychecks, that being Rupert Murdoch who gave large sums of money to Hillary Clinton, and Murdoch is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations who bragged that he would make money off the backs of conservatives while at the same time making money in the porn publishing 'business'.

 Beck also promotes a 'Constitutional Convention', a Fair Tax, and other schemes to undercut the return to Constitutional government. He has hijacked and undercut the legitimate patriot's movement and is steering and herding the movement to neutralize and destroy it. He mixes 90% truth with 10% arsenic and is more dangerous to freedom because he is more deceptive- I do believe one of  the past heads of the CIA stated that anyone who is anybody in the national media is CIA and let's not forget Operation Mockingbird.

 Beck covers for the 9/11 attack and insults and discredits those seeking the truth behind the real attackers who use it to further the Police State and the globalist agenda. Beck is media- how can he have time to do a TV show-  radio show- and write all those books? His handlers have made him and he marches to their orders- what is so sad is that those who should know better are marching along side this slithering snake and falling for the deception instead of exposing him.

Carolyn Lanham,
Grove City, Ohio.

Click the picure above to read the article The White House War on Glenn Beck and Fox.

TERROR CAMPS:The Global Agenda

TERROR CAMPS:The Global Agenda
Watch Full Length Movie Here

Libyan Violence: Globalist Plan for the Domination of Eurasia

Left-Right Paradigm and the Coming Election

More White House Propaganda... "The Unemployment Rate is Only 8.25%!!!!"

Defense Cuts Harmful to Economy or National Security?

The Obama Catholic Connection

The Globalists Plan for a Coming World Currency

Four Mega Banks Dubbed "The Four Horsemen of U.S. Banking"

New World Order Rising-Documentary

New World Order Rising-Documentary
Watch Here
Find out Why Here...

My Other Passions

My Other Passions
Aikido and Iaido