Monday, July 20, 2009

California sprouts marijuana 'green rush'



(AP) -- A drug deal plays out, California-style: A conservatively dressed courier drives a company-leased Smart Car to an apartment on a weekday afternoon. Erick Alvaro hands over a white paper bag to his 58-year-old customer, who inspects the bag to ensure that everything he ordered over the phone is there.



An eighth-ounce of organic marijuana buds for treating his seasonal allergies? Check. An eighth of a different pot strain for insomnia? Check. THC-infused lozenges and tea bags? Check and check, with a free herb-laced cookie thrown in as a thank-you gift.

It's a $102 credit card transaction carried out with the practiced efficiency of a home-delivered pizza - and with just about as much legal scrutiny.

More and more, having premium pot delivered to your door in California is not a crime. It is a legitimate business.

Marijuana has transformed California. Since the state became the first to legalize the drug for medicinal use, the weed the federal government puts in the same category as heroin and cocaine has become a major economic force.

No longer relegated to the underground, pot in California these days props up local economies, mints millionaires and feeds a thriving industry of startups designed to grow, market and distribute the drug.

Based on the quantity of marijuana authorities seized last year, the crop was worth an estimated $17 billion or more, dwarfing any other sector of the state's agricultural economy.

Experts say most of that marijuana is still sold as a recreational drug on the black market. But more recently the plant has put down deep financial roots in highly visible, taxpaying businesses:

Stores that sell high-tech marijuana growing equipment. Pot clubs that pay rent and hire workers. Marijuana themed magazines and food products. Chains of for-profit clinics with doctors who specialize in medical marijuana recommendations.

The plant's prominence does not come without costs, say some critics. Marijuana plantations in remote forests cause severe environmental damage. Indoor grow houses in some towns put rentals beyond the reach of students and young families. Rural counties with declining economies cannot attract new businesses because the available work force is caught up in the pot industry. Authorities link the drug to violent crime in otherwise quiet small towns.

"For those of us who are on the front lines. It's not about pot is bad in itself or drugs are bad," said Meredith Lintott, district attorney in Mendocino County, one of the country's top marijuana-producing regions.

"It's about the negative consequences on children. It's about the negative consequences on the environment."

Still, the sheer scale of the overall pot economy has some lawmakers pushing for broader legalization as a way to shore up the finances of a state that has teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. The state's top tax collector estimates that taxing pot like liquor could bring in more than $1.3 billion annually.

On Tuesday, Oakland will consider a measure to tax the city's four marijuana dispensaries, which the controller projects will ring up $17.5 million in sales in 2010. The city faces an $83 million budget shortfall, and expects the marijuana tax to raise $300,000.

Advocates point out that making pot legal would create millions if not billions of dollars more in indirect sales - the ingredients used to make edible pot products, advertising, tourism and smoking paraphernalia.

With a recent poll showing more than half of Californians supporting legalization, pot advocates believe they will prevail. And they say other states will follow.

Tim Blake is the proprietor of a 145-acre spiritual retreat center which holds an annual marijuana bud-growing contest in the heart of Northern California's pot-growing country.

Politicians, he says, are "going to see the economic benefits, they're going to see the health benefits and they're going to jump on the bandwagon."

---

On a property flanked by vineyards, Mendocino County farmer Jim Hill grows marijuana for up to 20 patients, including himself and his wife. He believes passionately in marijuana's purported ability to treat the symptoms of diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's; he says his wife suffers from a serotonin imbalance, and he uses the drug to treat digestive problems and intestinal cramping.

Hill's plants enjoy careful nurturing in a temperature-controlled greenhouse. On a recent spring day, his college-age son spread bat guano to fertilize two dozen 6-foot-tall plants.

Hill is 45 years old; he says he spent $10,000 to set up the garden. Patients receive their drugs free in exchange for helping with his crop.

"It's kind of like living on an apple orchard," Hill said. "You don't pay for an apple."

Though marijuana is cultivated throughout California, the most prized crops come from the forested mountains and hidden valleys of Mendocino, Humboldt and Trinity counties - the Emerald Triangle.

The economic impact of so much pot is difficult to gauge. Authorities say the largest grows are run by Mexican drug cartels that simply funnel money from forest-raised crops back into their own bank accounts.

Still, marijuana money from outdoor and indoor plots inevitably flows into local coffers. Marijuana increases residents' retail buying power by about $58 million countywide, according to a Mendocino County report. The county ranks 48th out of 58 counties in median income but, by counting pot proceeds, could jump as high as 18th.

Businesses benefit from mom-and-pop growers who cultivate pot to supplement their incomes and from marijuana plantation workers who descend on the Emerald Triangle from all over the country for the fall harvest. Pot "trimmers" can earn more than $40 per hour.

In Ukiah, the county's largest city, business owners say the extra cash is crucial. "I really don't think we would exist without it," says Nicole Martensen, 37, whose wine and garden shop is stocked with bottles from county vintners.

The skunk-like smell of marijuana hangs over the town of about 11,000 during the October harvest, when cash registers brim with $100 bills. Sometimes the wads of cash spent in Martensen's shop come dusted with pot.

But Ukiah banker Marty Lombardi says existing businesses cannot compete with pot industry wages for workers. Lombardi's bank does not make loans to anyone suspected of trying to fund a pot operation, but he said most growers do not need them.

"I don't think you or I have any sense for how much money is generated," he said.

Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman says medical marijuana operations that follow state and county laws will face no hassles from his department. His deputies left intact 154 marijuana grows they visited last year, he said

"If you're living in the boundaries, I'm not going to mess with you," Allman said.

Which is not to say that there is no legal risk to growing, selling or buying marijuana. Federal laws still apply, and pot dealings not deemed medicinal are considered criminal by the state.

Local, state and federal authorities pulled up 364,000 plants across Mendocino last year. And the state Department of Justice reported more than 16,000 felony arrests and nearly 58,000 misdemeanor arrests for marijuana offenses in 2007 - the highest numbers in a decade.

Sparky Rose sits in the federal prison in Lompoc, serving a 37-month term. Law enforcement officials insist he is one of many sellers who have used the medical marijuana law as a guise for old-time drug dealing. Rose does not disagree, although he would like to think he helped some legitimate pot patients in the process.

A one-time Web designer, he started out in 2001 making $15 an hour as a "bud tender" working the counter at an Oakland club. Four years later, he was overseeing a dispensary chain with stores in seven cities, 283 employees and sales reaching $5 million a month.

That's not as much as it seems, he says. Much of the money went to pay salaries, to purchase equipment and to buy 200 pounds of marijuana each week.

Rose says he was making $500,000 a year before his 2006 arrest, a sum he considers fair given the chain's volume and the risk he assumed as the company's public face. Before opening a new location, he would meet with local officials and police to get their implicit OK.

"We operated out in the open, and the feds knew who we were and they let us do it for four years, so as time goes on you get this comfortable feeling," he says.

"While I was still in the business, a lot people would ask me, 'I'm thinking about starting a club, what advice do you have?' "And I'd say, 'The biggest warning is sooner or later, you will start to think it's legal.'"

---

Even people accustomed to buying marijuana over the counter are impressed when they visit the Farmacy, a dispensary-cum-New Age apothecary with three locations in Los Angeles. Decorated in soft beige and staffed by workers in lab coats, the Venice store sells organic toiletries, essential oils and incense along with 25 types of pot stored in glass jars, including strains such as Beverly Bubba and Third Eye.

Anyone can shop there, but to buy the cannabis-infused gelato, olive oil, soft drinks and other "edibles," customers must show a doctor's recommendation, have the information verified by the doctor's office and obtain a patient identification number for future visits.

During a two-hour span, the dozen or so customers who made a purchase all bought pot products and paid the 9.25 percent state sales tax on top of their purchases. The clubs, which are not supposed to turn a profit, call their transactions "donations."

Allen Siegel is 74; he is dying of cancer and wants to try smoking marijuana to ease his pain without knocking him out like prescription drugs do. So his wife Ina brought him to the Farmacy for his first visit as a legal pot patient.

"You go in there and they have so many choices," she says.

California's "green rush" was spurred by a voter-approved law 13 years ago that authorized patients with a doctor's recommendation to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal use. Although a dozen other states have adopted similar laws, California is the only one where privately owned pot shops have flourished.

Los Angeles County alone has at least 400 pot dispensaries and delivery services, nearly twice as many outlets as Amsterdam, the Netherlands capital whose coffee shops have for decades been synonymous with free-market marijuana.

Promoted as a way to shield people with AIDS, cancer and anorexia who use marijuana from prosecution, the 1996 Compassionate Use Act also permitted limited possession for "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

The broad language opened the door to doctors willing to recommend pot for nearly any ailment. In a survey of nearly 2,500 patients, longtime Berkeley medical marijuana advocate Dr. Tod Mikuriya found that more than three-quarters of the patients used the drug for pain relief or mental health issues.

Dispensaries began selling marijuana, although they were risking federal charges. Some operators have become less fearful since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said this year that the Justice Department would not target pot operations following state laws, reducing the risk of random federal raids that existed under the Bush administration.

California's pot dispensaries now have more in common with a corner grocery than a speakeasy. They advertise freely, offering discount coupons and daily specials.

Justin Hartfield, a 25-year-old Web designer and business student, founded WeedMaps.com, where pot clubs and doctors who write medi-pot recommendations list their services and users post reviews. Hartfield says the site has brought in nearly $250,000 in its first year.

Hartfield exhibited at THC Expo, a two-day trade show at the Los Angeles Convention Center that attracted an estimated 35,000 attendees in June. There was hydroponic gardening equipment and bong vendors and bikini-clad models wearing leis made of fake marijuana leaves.

Like just about everyone else connected to the cannabis trade, Hartfield has a letter from a doctor that entitles him to buy medical marijuana from a dispensary. But he sees no point in pretending he is treating anything more than his taste for smoking weed.

"It is a joke. It's a legal way for me to get what I used to get on the street," he said.

He recalls telling the doctor who provided the referral that he suffered from insomnia and anxiety, though neither was true. As he signed the paperwork, the doctor "congratulated me like I was getting my degree from Harvard."

---

What would happen if marijuana was legal - not just for medical uses, but for all uses?

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, wants to tax and regulate all pot as it does alcohol. State Board of Equalization chairwoman Betty Yee, a supporter, projects the law would generate $990 million annually through a $50-per-ounce fee for retailers and $349 million in sales taxes. (The state now collects $18 million each year in taxes on medical marijuana.)

The state would not start collecting taxes on marijuana under Ammiano's bill until the federal government lifts its restrictions on the drug.

That's not enough for pro-pot activists who want Californians to vote next year on a proposal that would allow adults to legally possess up to one ounce of pot and allow cities to sell and tax the drug.

"Local governments are malnourished and in need of revenue badly," said Aaron Smith, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates legalization. "There's this multibillion-dollar industry that's the elephant in the room that they're not able to tap into."

Lintott, the Mendocino prosecutor, is not convinced that legalization would put an end to the underworld's marijuana operations. She argues that big-time growers would never bother filing tax returns. "Legalizing it isn't going to touch the big money," she says.

But others predict the black-market business model would fall apart.

Large-scale agri-businesses in California's Central Valley would dominate legal marijuana production as they already do bulk wine grapes, advocates argue. Pot prices would fall dramatically, forcing growers to abandon costly clandestine operations that authorities say trash the land and steal scarce water.

And legalization, supporters insist, would save state and local governments billions on police, court and prison costs.

But others survey California in 2009 and say the cannabis future is now. Richard Lee has parlayed a pair of Oakland dispensaries into a mini-empire that includes a marijuana lifestyle magazine and a three-campus marijuana trade school. Oaksterdam University's main campus is a prominent fixture in revitalized downtown Oakland.

All without legalization.

"It's like here's reality, and here's the law," Lee says. "The culture has gone so far beyond the law, people have gotten used to being able to get quality product. They are not going to go back."

http://www.physorg.com/news167162173.htmlű

Sunday, July 19, 2009

"Audit the Fed" bill shot down in the senate...

Not as if it had a chance of passing anyways... this bill is good for nothing else than to raise attention to matter.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

unanswered questions from different points of view

If the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court?

If Bush needed 9/11 to attack Iraq, why didn't he put an Iraqi on the plane or say there was an Iraqi on the plane so he could make his case easier.

If Bush was in control and had the power to plant explosives in the towers, why didn't he have the power to plant WMD's in Iraq and capture Bin Laden to look like a hero?

If the government controls the media, why was the media so anti Bush, and pro Obama? Why don't they silence people like Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs when they try to educate us about the federal reserve, and silence all of the actors that voice their anti-government opinions?

Is Bin Laden a made up character? Why do some people (like Immortal Technique) say that Bin Laden was a CIA tactician, and others say he was just some guy living in a cave that couldn't have possibly pulled off an attack like 9/11?

If Bin Laden wasn't able to set up explosives in the tower without help from the US, then why were terrorists able to do it in 1993?

If, say, the US government is running a global conspiracy, why haven't the Iranian, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States? If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected? Why have none of them leaked the story? If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?

To those who believe that the WTC towers (1, 2 and 7) were destroyed by controlled demolitions: this programme, broadcast last July, shows how complicated and time consuming the process of a controlled demolition is (see 27:24 minutes in to 32:11). An empty building marked for destruction by specialists takes weeks if not months of preparation, during which the entire structure is gutted while the explosives are placed. How exactly were the WTC towers rigged for demolition in such a manner that no one working in the offices within these buildings noticed anything unusual?


To those who believe that the WTC towers (1, 2 and 7) were destroyed by controlled demolitions: this programme, broadcast last July, shows how complicated and time consuming the process of a controlled demolition is (see 27:24 minutes in to 32:11). An empty building marked for destruction by specialists takes weeks if not months of preparation, during which the entire structure is gutted while the explosives are placed. How exactly were the WTC towers rigged for demolition in such a manner that no one working in the offices within these buildings noticed anything unusual?
As a follow-up question, if these calls were fake, what happened to the passengers? Were they complicit in the 9/11 cover-up? Are they still alive?

to those who say there no hijackers: what’s your explanation for this?

On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?

Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?

Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358). Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?

In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?

We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?

Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?

Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?

Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?

Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?

If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?

Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?

We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?

If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?

If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?

Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?

Friday, July 3, 2009

Does Anyone Still Question 9/11 Was An Inside Job?





Our old buddy Albert Einstein said


CONDEMNATION WITHOUT INVESTIGATION IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF IGNORANCE.


So let's investigate shall we?

Too many people people gobble up the government's story, don't research anything about it and are quick to attack someone who challenges it with an arsenal of information.

I know I'll get a lot of backlash for this, but there seems to be way too much ignorance still about 9/11 and you know I have to speak on it. I typed this up in 10 minutes, real quick like and it's jam packed with, a lot of questions I think everyone has and a few you probably haven't even thought of yet, as well as substantiated evidence backed by numerous sources, to give credence to my point. I don't claim to know everything about what happened, not by any means. I've always thought the whole thing was bogus.

I've been curious about the details since it happened and I've read enough to know we've been lied to, big time!

I'm not trying to start a new conspiracy theory. I'm rejecting the official conspiracy theory given to us by the government.

Let me start with this

If you believe the official fable the government handed out, according to these polls you are part of the minority.



In a 2004 CNN poll on Anderson Cooper, 89% of the people believe there was a government cover up.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041111195501242

In an MSNBC poll, 67% of the people believe the government was involved
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720

In a New York Times and CBS poll, only 16% of the people believe Bush was telling the truth
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

In a 2004 Zogby poll, half of New Yorkers believe US leaders had forehand knowledge
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=855

Radio Poll: 85% Of Canadians Believe 9/11 Inside Job
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm

Too many people simply do not know what happened because they just haven't been exposed to the information. Too many people also think they already know everything and have a set belief system, that when challenged they have a tendency to say things like "Ohhh that can't be, our government would never do that!", "That only happens in third world countries!", "That's impossible, I would of heard it by now!" Bla blabiddy bla bla. The biggest personal disservice one can do is not keeping an open mind. I know for some it's difficult to imagine our government played a hand in this, but false flag operations and government sponsored terror are not new concepts and have been done in the past. False flag operations have been used to get us into every major war since our country's inception. This is no different! For those of you who do not know what a false flag operation is...

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

Some examples

The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane, sinking a U.S. ship, burning crops and blaming such actions on Cuba. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Examples_of_false_flag_attacks_as_pretexts_for_war
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

This document, titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba" was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," including "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)," faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a "Remember the Maine" incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ http://911review.com/precedent/century/northwoods.html





WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A DECLASSIFIED FALSE FLAG OPERATION OF A GOVERNMENT APPROVED PLAN TO MURDER ITS OWN CITIZENS, TO JUSTIFY THE INVASION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY!

This can't be any clearer. If our government was going to go through with this, why is it so damn hard for people to imagine that 9/11 is any different?

More excellent examples:

Hitler and the Nazi's were involved in burning down the German parliament, The Reichstag. Hitler in turn immediately blamed the Communists while The Reichstag was still burning. Shortly thereafter he went to war. We blamed Osama and Al Qaeda, shortly thereafter we went to war. A decree entitled, "For the Protection of the People and the State." Justified as a "defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state," the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties in Germany and enabled the government to spy on its people and take away their rights. It stated:

"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." Looks kinda like the Patriot Act, huh?

Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Then "Enabling Act" made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", George Bush (now Obama) can become what is best described as "a dictator": "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security".

Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history - that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for "security." The government and special interests then have a green light to carry out their agendas. And that's exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis and our terrorist crisis 9/11. Consider the similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/03/the-reichstag-fire-and-the-enabling-act/
http://www.oilempire.us/reichstag-fire.html

Have we forgotten about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

The NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports to make it look like we got attacked, so we could start the war in Vietnam. This is now declassified and it is a known fact.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/gulf_of_tonkin/index.shtml








What about WWII?

Well we all know by now that Pearl Harbor was provoked and known well in advance. Roosevelt's policy toward Japan was one of systematic pressure to force the Japanese imperialists to commit the overt act which would touch off a war explosion. Roosevelt was obliged to pursue this strategy in order to be able to brand Japan as the aggressor and stampede the people of the United States into a war to which a majority of the nation had been steadfastly opposed. The peace-loving President had assured the American people that their sons would not be sent to fight in foreign wars. This made it necessary that the United States should be attacked so that the drive of American imperialism for mastery of the Pacific could be presented in the guise of a war of national defense and survival.

Admiral Robert Theobald, the Commander of all destroyers at Pearl Harbor, wrote a book entitled 'The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor', in which he detailed his conclusions about the "surprise attack." He wrote:
1.President Roosevelt forced Japan to war and enticed them to initiate hostilities by holding the
Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack;
2.The plans to use Pearl Harbor as the bait started in June, 1940;
3.War with Japan meant war with Germany; and
4.Roosevelt, Marshall and Stark knew about Pearl Harbor 21 hours before the attack.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/001.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate





What about WWI?

International bankers wanted in on WWI for profit and the Lucitainia was deliberately sent into German waters. Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating:
"We must educate the public gradually - draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war."

Even though Wilson proclaimed America's neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book 'The Intimate Papers of Colonel House', written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:

Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?

House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.

Colonel House convinced President Wilson that the United States should enter World War I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House
http://books.google.com/books?id=-3EShjGGNpUC&dq=The+Intimate+Papers+of+Colonel+House,&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=g3knM-8p4g&sig=qIH0o1gogwuHlw2zgYcWq4z4_ac&hl=en&ei=ENdKSpvEFIrZlAeM0-DfDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4





Now comes the fun part

FACT: NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY HAS A STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING FALLEN DUE TO FIRE!

ON SEPTEMER 11TH 3 BUILDINGS FELL DUE TO FIRE IN A MATTER OF HOURS

What are the odds of that happening?

Here are some examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in the WTC buildings. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

"THE BUILDINGS COULD SUSTAIN MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS"

Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management, Frank DeMartini





WHAT ABOUT BUILDING 7?

It didn't get hit with any planes at and it is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Larry Silverstein (then owner) admitted having the building "pulled" or demolished.





John Kerry confirmed that





The thing is he said they did it because it posed a danger. It takes weeks to wire a building like that...hmmm.....here's the light bulb moment!





Why did Larry Silverstein take out a lease for 99 years in July of 2001 on the WTC, two months before the attack? Larry upped the insurance at that time to $3.5 billion and (presciently) to cover potential hits by airliners flown by "terrorist hijackers"

HE INCLUDED TERRORIST HIJACKERS FLYING A PLANE INTO THE BUILDING AS A POSSIBLE PERIL TO BE COVERED!

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/374254.shtml http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

That is highly unusual. I've worked for over 20 insurance companies and I've never seen a policy with specific coverage for this.

WHY DID BBC REPORT BUILDING 7 COLLAPSED 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT DID?

The transmission conveniently gets cut moments before the building does "collapse". This video demonstrates that there were people in the know about the controlled demolition that was to take place and the story was leaked early.








The question whether explosives were used or not has already been answered. We now know that planes did not bring down the towers. It's not a question anymore. Nano-thermite explosives were discovered in the dust. 8 scientists from premier universities around the world wrote a paper on it, here:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm










YOU WANT SOME MORE SCIENCE?

How about over 700 architects and structural engineers giving you the latest evidence of controlled demolition with the use of explosives? No conspiracy theories here, just pure physics for all you scientists out there.


YOU WANT SOME MORE SCIENCE?

How about over 700 architects and structural engineers giving you the latest evidence of controlled demolition with the use of explosives? No conspiracy theories here, just pure physics for all you scientists out there.









http://www.ae911truth.org/

So now we now explosives were used and we were lied to by our government. What's the next step? Logically, we need to find out who planted them. I doubt crazy terrorists with long beards, wearing robes and turbines, just waltzed in there and dropped them off. That kind of logic would suite some people, but not me. Even if they were undercover, they would have had to enter the building and plant the explosives strategically many times, over and over again throughout the building, to demolish it. It takes weeks maybe months, as commercial architect Richard Gage founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) said in his documentary.
The people who planted them had to have access to every area of the building that is required for controlled demolition. If they needed access, they needed to get by security. Who was in charge of security?

MARVIN BUSH!

Well wooptie-do, what a coinkidink!

Bush served on the board of Securacom (since renamed Stratesec). The chairman of the board of Stratesec is Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of Marvin and George W. Bush. Securacom had contracts to provide security for Dulles International Airport (the airport from which American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, originated) and the World Trade Center in New York. Securacom's backers include a number of Kuwaitis through a company called KuwAm Corp (Kuwaiti-American Corp.). Stratesec also has Saudi investors.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securacom http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

POWER WAS DOWN ON THE WEEKEND PRIOR TO 9/11

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html



"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."

SURVEILLANCE TAPES AND MAINTENANCE LOGS ARE AMONG THE MISSING EVIDENCE!

http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/WTC-Surveillance-Tapes-Feared-Missing-/46$1561
Isn't that convenient?

WHY WAS ALL EVIDENCE CONTAINING DEBRIS AND WRECKAGE SHIPPED TO CHINA IMMEDIATELY?

Instead of being taken to the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted, it was driven directly to the independently-owned scrapyards and then sold and shipped to China.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-tons-of-scrap-stolen-from-ruins.html



WHY WERE THERE ABNORMALLY HIGH AMOUNTS OF PUT OPTIONS (BETS THAT A STOCK WILL FALL) PLACED ON UNITED AIRLINES, BOEING, AND AMERICAN AIRLINES WEEKS BEFORE THE ATTACK?

On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September 11th, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both Airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks.
Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.

Tthe Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options? Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;? Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115292514221107632.html

WHY WAS DICK CHENEY IN CHARGE OF NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (NORAD) ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11TH?

For the first time in US history a President or Vice President took charge of this military agency. Generals were always in charge and had the authority to shoot down hijacked aircraft. They were able to police the skies, like the police does our streets.

NORAD Stand down order

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf

WHY DID NORAD CONDUCT DRILLS AND EXERCISES 2 YEARS BEFORE THE ATTACK AND ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11TH , OF HIJACKED PLANES BEING USED AS WEAPONS? SPECIFICALLY BEING FLOWN INTO THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS AND THE PENTAGON?

WHY DID OUR TRILLION DOLLAR DEFENSE SYSTEM FAIL MISERABLY?

We have the most advanced radar and defense system known to man?

WHERE WAS THE $130 BILLION DOLLAR PENTAGON STAR WARS MISSILE DEFENSE?

These sophisticated military systems were designed to detect missiles fired from unknown locations at over 13,000 mph and shoot them down in mere minutes, why on 9/11 could they not detect any one of the four large airliners traveling at a mere 600 mph, especially when two of them were known to be lost for over 40 minutes before they crashed?

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/20/opinion/ed-missiles20

WHY DID FLIGHT 77 FLY TOWARD THE PENTAGON UNDETECTED FOR 40 MINUTES? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THAT IS ABSURD!

Any plane flying toward the Pentagon would have been detected and intercepted long before it got close.

By the way
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program, Dr. Robert M. Bowman, says that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney. He said that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and

Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm

Simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.

"The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they didn't they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise," said Bowman

"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the ones that should be the object of investigation."

Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks,
Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."

Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. He agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what we've seen lately from this government."

Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined."

He trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash."

"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk," said Bowman.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman

WHY DID CHENEY TELL NORAD TOLD TO STAND DOWN ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11TH?





Americas Air Force can scramble jets to intercept anything unusual within about 10 minutes. It took over a half an hour to scramble jets from the FURTHEST airports! 4 commercial jets were supposedly hijacked and cruising all over the map for over 1 1/2 hours, and we're supposed to believe they couldn't get even one jet out??

The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission - John Farmer - says that the government agreed to lie. HE'S ADMITTING THEY LIED!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/89754

He's writing a book on it now where he's going to expose the whole shebang.

http://www.amazon.ca/Ground-Truth-Behind-Americas-Defense/dp/0151013764

Why is Osama Bin Laden not officially charged for 9/11? He's not even wanted on the FBI list for 9/11. He's wanted for an embassy bombing, but not 9/11. The FBI's response to that was, "We could find enough evidence to convict him." AND WE WENT TO WAR?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Here's what Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, Mayor and Governor says about it, as he speaks at a Ron Paul Rally (9/2/08)





Why did the Bush administrations neo-con think-tank, Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) 2000 document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", call for a New Pearl Harbor.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22

It reads in their Statement of Principles
1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs
2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN's role of preserving and extending international order

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan - at least four years in the making - and that, from reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

On September 10th, President George W. Bush recorded in his diary that

"the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today".

http://www.wmin.ac.uk/sshl/page-2485



WHY DID BUSH AND CHENEY INSIST ON MEETING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN FRONT OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION?














More and more people question every day.

190+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

660+ Engineers and Architects
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

400+ Professors Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html

Firefighers for 911 Truth
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/


One final question

IF ALL OUR MAJOR WARS WERE CATEGORICALLY PROVEN TO BE FALSE FLAG TYPE INCIDENTS, THEN HOW IS 9/11 ANY DIFFERENT?


Here's your light bulb moment!



For more info

Loose Change Final Cut is the definitive 9/11 documentary
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

Fabled Enemies is another gret 9/11 movie with a different edge
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&ei=czczScLfCoSKqQOA5a3nDQ&q=fabled+enemies&hl=en

Terrorstorm is full of documented facts about government sponsored terrorism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183&ei=fCwzScrBM4b-qAPck4niDQ&q=terrorstorm+final+cut

Zeitgeist will put everything into perspective
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&ei=oLpNSu-lKIb2rQOxzLTDBg&q=zeitgeist&emb=1

War Made Easy is another documentary on wars and private interests
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8383084962209910782&ei=qDYzSf-NH5nWqAPYv5XzDQ&q=war+made+easy&hl=en

Endgame is a great documentary on who's really in charge of your global enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&ei=Yj8zSb3ZAoTyqAPtivD2BQ&q=endgame&hl=en

Zeitgeist Addendum gives a solution
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&ei=oLpNSu-lKIb2rQOxzLTDBg&q=zeitgeist&emb=1

And there's so much more...just research damn it wake the hell up!

What's gonna happen next?


Jon Stewart Blasts Glenn Beck & Michael Scheuer For Promoting Slaughter Of Americans

Michael Scheuer, former CIA Counterterorism Analyst:

"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

"Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary."


So let me get this straight....another 9/11 is needed, more Americans have to die and more of our rights have to be taken away in order for us to be saved. BULLSHIT!

And how could Glen Beck just sit back and agree with him?? I think I've lost all respect for him.
Speaking about rights, Scheuer confirms that the government wants to move against the 2nd Ammendement and take our guns away.





John Stewart Blasts Scheuer And Beck For Promoting The Slaughter Of Americans


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Osama bin Laden Needs to Attack America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorJason Jones in Iran

What Happened To Our Constitutional Rights?




Our civil rights have been raped after 9/11. Have you noticed that?



Let's start with the Patriot Act.


This unconstitutional document has completely violated our civil rights.

This document Violates -
The First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, right to peaceably assemble provision, and petition the government for redress of grievances provisionViolates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized."
The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house - and not even tell you about it.


Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.


Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.


Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).


Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).By law, they give the White


House a lot more power at the expense of Congress and the courts and undermine the structural checks and balances intended to safeguard our liberty.




Ron Paul said it so well...


He also said nobody in Congress read it


Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations




It's meant for terrorists, but according to the (accidentally leaked) Department of Homeland Security Rightwing Extremism Report
You might be a domestic terrorist if.....



*you are a U.S. military veteran returning from duty in Iraq or Afghanistan



*you believe in "end times" prophecies



*you believe in state or local authority



*you are against firearm restrictions and bans



*you are against illegal immigration



*you believe in the 2nd Amendment



*you criticize any of the free trade agreements the U.S. has made



*you are against same-sex marriage



*you believe that an economic collapse is happening



*you think that the U.S. may declare martial law someday



*you believe that the U.S. is creating detention camps



*you stockpile food, ammunition or weapons



*you believe that illegal immigrants are taking away American jobs



*you believe "New World Order" conspiracy theories



*Anyone who believes in gun rights



*Anyone who is pro-life



*Anyone who is concerned about "constitutional issues"



*Tax protesters



*"Anti-government groups"



*Anyone who is opposed to globalization



*Anyone who is opposed to world trade agreements



*Anyone who is opposed to U.S. military intervention around the world



*Anyone who considers themselves to be a "sovereign citizen"



*Religious "cults"*Anyone involved in large cash transactions



*Anyone opposing abortion



*Anyone opposing illegal immigration



*Anyone who believes that the New World Order is a threat



*Anyone who is against the North American Union



*Anyone who is against the income tax



*Anyone who has a negative view of the U.N.




These were pulled right out of the report, I'm not making it up.


Here it is:






Glenn Beck Reacts to the "RightWing Extremism" report issued from the DHS




FOX Judge Napolitano Government and Liberty - Right Wing Extremism






Next,NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 AND HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20




These directives would in effect make the President a dictator in case of a catastrophic event. The President will NOT work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but then it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort. Bush started this and passed it on to Obama




The government could NOT of gotten away with all this and much more, if it weren't for 9/11. Because of 9/11 we gave up our rights! They realize the threat posed by large grassroots movements who are against the left right paradigm, especially ones including veterans and patriots demanding less government intrusion in our lives and a return to a constitutionally limited Republic.