"President Clinton had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. President Bush had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. I know how to do it and I'll do it," he told ABC's "World News" in an interview.

This was said yesterday September 3rd, 2008; a whopping 139 days before inauguration day (1/20/09). So, McCain claims he knows how to capture the man responsible for 9/11 and other attacks on the US (and other countries as well).

Of course this is utter bullshit. But! Taking him at his word, this means that even in the unlikeliest case that only yesterday he figured out how to capture Public Enemy numero uno, that's still choosing to not do a thing about it for at least 139 days, and this is of course assuming he gets elected, otherwise he's happy to let Osama bin Laden run free. As punishment to the american people for being so dumb to not elect him, I guess.

How ridiculous, petty, selfish, and just plain retarded to say this. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he spoke without thinking (so it's only stupidly reckless and not sociopathic) and didn't think of the very clear implications of what he was uttering. I mean, it's not as if he's part of the party who's been in control of government for the past eight years. He's also not a "foreign policy expert" who has any weight on his party's foreign policy. Clearly he hasn't used his super duper triple secret knowledge because he just hasn't been able.

Really? You know (or have known) how to capture him, but you refuse to do what's best for the country (if not the world) unless people vote for you? You are not going running to the White House to tell Bush how to capture bin Laden, which would no doubt immediately boost the GOP on the polls, and by extension, your chances in the election? Man, what a hero. Putting his country first! Acting always for a cause greater than himself!

That's maverickism we can believe in!

Het blijft een lachertje dat Amerika. Waarom willen mensen nog steeds naar Amerika toe? Het land van de vele mogelijkheden wordt er gezegd, maar het is ook een land die economisch aan de afgrond staat. Mensen romantiseren Amerika nog steeds als een geweldig land. Dat zou nu zo zachtjes aan toch wel duidelijk zijn dat het eigenlijk helemaal niet zo'n geweldig land is? Ongetwijfeld zullen daar meer mogelijkheden zijn, maar dat is volgens mij alleen weggelegd voor de mensen die geld hebben.

Het is natuurlijk wel fijn dat ze proberen Bin Laden en andere terroristen proberen op te sporen, maar ze hebben al zo veel geld aan mogelijk opsporingsmethodes uit gegeven en nog steeds geen resultaat. Bin Laden zit waarschijnlijk ergens te genieten van zijn vrijheid en Amerika gaat ten onder, omdat er zoveel geld wordt uit gegeven aan het leger, NASA, CIA, FBI en weet ik veel wat voor meer geheime missies. En dan nog het feit dat je voor schaduw, de zon nodig hebt. Wat als er regenachtige dagen zijn of als een terrorist een jurk draagt? Ook dit idee lijkt een sprookje! Weg miljoenen!

Het is allemaal wel ver van ons bed, maar toch ook dichtbij. Want wie weet wat er met de rest van de wereld  gebeurt als McCain president wordt en daadwerkelijk achter Bin Laden aan gaat. Nog meer oorlog en terrorisme? Wie worden daar dan weer de dupe van? Waarom is oorlog voeren tegen terrorisme belangrijker dan de armoede in je eigen land? Daar zal ik waarschijnlijk pas antwoord op gaan krijgen als McCain president wordt. Wat ik nog steeds niet hoop.

Barack Obama mag dan ook niet echt een rolmodel zijn. Maar wie is dat wel? Uiteindelijk willen we allemaal het zelfde wereldvrede en geen armoede. Dus Obama for president en niet McCain die de wapenhandel wil blijven spekken.  Reacties zijn welkom, maar hou het wel netjes.

Liefs Belle

Hij kan zich beter druk maken om de economie van Amerika. Het bestrijden van armoede en misdaad enz.. enz... Nee hij wil oorlogje spelen net als een kleine jongen de hele dag met zijn Lego wilt spelen en verder nergens anders naar om kijkt. Het is gewoon te erg voor woorden.

Natuurlijk zie ik ook graag dat Bin Laden wordt bestraft voor zijn daden, maar als er zoveel problemen zijn in je eigen land ga je daar toch eerst aan werken. Dan zou dat toch de eerste prioriteit moeten zijn van een nieuwe president. En dan de belachelijke vertoning van Pitbull Palin met haar zwangere zeventien jarige dochter. Op deze manier lijken ze juist tienermeisjes te stimuleren dat ze al vroeg zwanger moeten worden.

Is dit nu het goede voorbeeld voor de Amerikanen?  Jonge meisjes zien hoe blij het gezin Palin is met de zwangerschap en romantiseren dat het bij hun ook zo zou kunnen gaan. Ze beseffen alleen niet dat Palin de mogelijkheid heeft om haar dochter financieel bij te staan en dat de meeste ouders dat niet kunnen. Heel veel tienermoeders hebben het financieel niet makkelijk en vaak moeten ze ook stoppen met school omdat familie niet kunnen of willen  bijspringen. Kijk, ik ben in een zekere zin ook tegen abortus, maar als een jong meisje ongewenst zwanger wordt of een baby blijkt na nader onderzoek niet gezond ter wereld te komen vind ik dat een heel ander verhaal.

Nee, dit is in mijn ogen niet het goede voorbeeld wat McCain nu laat zien aan de Amerikanen. Helaas denken daar een hoop Amerikanen anders over. Ik blijf hopen dat Obama president wordt en dat McCain achter de geraniums kruipt met zijn speelgoedsoldaatjes. Obama for president! Yeah!

Oh and another thing, if we're going to keep the kids out of the campaign, let's not parade them in front of America like a badge of honor of some sort.  We all have kids.  The 4 month old should not have been subjected to that level of noise and lights. 

By the way, Palin views on the war in Iraq scare me.  Any time you believe violence against others is God's will, I think you can end up with a zealot.  It was sort of a Bin-Ladenesque kind of thing to say, doncha think? Different religions, same way of thinking.  Madam Bin-Palin?  (sorry - that's sort of a low blow but I couldn't help it).

Alright, I'm through - no more political rants from me.  I tend to speak from emotion rather than intelligence on these things and I think we need more intelligent articulation of problems and less knee jerk reactions on both sides.

Recebemos a informação de que hoje [02/09/08], terça-feira, tropas paquistanesas estiveram perto de capturar o comparsa de Bin Laden (o número 2 da rede Al-Qaeda), o Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, mas deixaram escapar a oportunidade, segundo contou um porta-voz do Ministério do Interior paquistanês.

O principal conselheiro do órgão, Rehman Malik, informou que operações foram realizadas na área tribal de Mohmand, próxima à fronteira com o Afeganistão, depois que a mulher de Al-Zawahiri foi vista na área.

"Tivemos informação de que a mulher de Zawahiri estava na área tribal de Mohmand. Realizamos batidas e os rastros estavam lá", declarou Malik, em uma entrevista coletiva em Islamabad.

Entretanto, ele disse, as tropas não encontraram o casal. "Certamente tínhamos rastros em um lugar, mas perdemos a chance. Ele está se movimentando em Mohmand e (na província afegã de) Kunar, principalmente (nas províncias afegãs de) em Kunar e Patkia", declarou.

Malik não revelou quando o episódio ocorreu.

Bastião da Al-Qaeda

Autoridades paquistanesas e ocidentais dizem que as áreas tribais no noroeste do Paquistão são redutos de militantes islâmicos. Nas últimas semanas, tropas paquistanesas realizaram operações contra bases militantes em Mohmand e Bajaur, na fronteira com a província afegã de Kunar.

A região é apontada como o mais provável local de esconderijo para líderes da rede Al-Qaeda, incluindo o próprio Al-Zawahiri e Osama Bin Laden, desaparecidos desde os ataques às Torres Gêmeas, em Nova York, em 11 de setembro de 2001.

Al-Zawahiri, é um médico egípcio e um dos fundadores do grupo militante egípcio Jihad Islâmica (em 1998) aliando-se a Al-Qaeda de Bin Laden, é considerado o braço direito de Bin Laden e o "cérebro" por detrás dos atentados contra os Estados Unidos. Em 2006 ele conseguiu escapar de um ataque a míssil de tropas americanas com o objetivo de eliminá-lo.

O porta-voz do Ministério paquistanês do Interior disse ainda que existem fortes indícios de que a organização de grupos militantes paquistanesas, Tehrik-e Taleban Pakistan (TTP), é "uma extensão da Al-Qaeda".

Malik afirmou que, mesmo com a movimentação de grupos militantes na fronteira paquistanesa-afegã, o governo decidiu em princípio suspender por um mês as operações militares na região, para permitir que os deslocados pelos confrontos possam comemorar o mês sagrado do Ramadã.

_______________________________
A principal meta do Al-Qaeda é se fortalecer. Ela apenas consegue isso através do aumento de suas divisas, ou seja, aumentando suas 'unidades', seria como uma Universidade Estadual abrindo novos cursos em outras cidades. Eu sei que a comparação é triste, mas é a realidade árabe.

Here are a few torrents which don't have many seeders yet. You might want to give them a few days.

Once again...please BUY THE DVD to support Jason's work. Then you can make as many copies as you like.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&hl=en]

THE EVIDENCE:
One hole, 2 ½ yards in diameter... But no plane

Whatever hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 made a hole several meters wide in the front wall between the first and second floors. It emerged three blocks later, leaving behind a perfectly round hole of about 2 ½ yards in diameter. But whatever it was, is no-where to be found.

The exit hole

The three photographs below show the hole through which the device or craft exited the building. The photograph's caption is clear on this point: "The exit hole where American Airlines Flight 77 finally stopped after penetrating the Pentagon". The second photograph shows the same hole after debris was removed. The words "Punch out" have been added. The hole is quite circular and is about 2 ½ yards in diameter.

The position of the hole

The two photographs below and their enlargements show the location of this hole on the inside wall of the third ring. The condition of the windows and the inscriptions on the right can be compared to the photographs above. High definition enlargements of these images may be downloaded here (photo 1) (photo 2):

Photo 1:

Photo 2:

What kind of aircraft caused this damage ?

POSSIBLE THEORIES:
Aircraft nose or warhead ?

The Pentagon states that the round hole visible on the third building was caused by the nose of a Boeing 757. This hypothesis is however not technically possible.

The device entered the first floor of the building, producing a huge fireball, before penetrating two highly resistant buildings leaving an exit hole 2 ½ yards wide. What kind of device is capable of doing this?

According to the official version, the hole was produced by an airliner – a Boeing 757-200.

Lee Evey, head of the Pentagon renovation project, explained how this happened at a press conference on September 15. "The rings are E, D, C, B and A. Between B and C is a driveway that goes around the Pentagon. It's called A-E Drive. The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. […] The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft."

Contradictions

The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully.

To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon.
To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes).
To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes).
To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings.

The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling.

The nose of an aircraft ?

Let us imagine for a moment that we had not been told that the aircraft had disintegrated, melted and evaporated. The question then is: Is it possible for the nose of an airliner to penetrate three buildings and, as it leaves the third, produce a perfectly circular hole, 2 ½ yards wide ?

The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it.

It is not actually possible to find the nose of an aircraft after such an impact. So it is not an aircraft nose that could have produced the hole visible in the third ring of the building.

Traversing three buildings

Some kind of craft did indeed penetrate the three buildings. The upper floors of the outer ring collapsed over a block of about 20 yards, half an hour after the attack. The two inner rings seemed to have been damaged by the fire which subsequently broke out. They did not cave in. The device, which landed on the Pentagon, did not demolish it but penetrated it.

An aircraft would have demolished the building rather than penetrate the walls. The question is: What type of device would have been capable of producing such damage? One possible answer is a missile. Missiles have heads that are much stronger than aircraft noses. They are made from depleted uranium and are designed for penetration. Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that friction heats up, increasing its penetrative capacities. Such missiles are particularly used to enter bunkers. An aircraft crashes and breaks apart whereas a missile of this type will penetrate its target.

I say again:

How could Osama Bin Laden manoevre a missile? If not Osama, then why set Afghanistan on fire to find him?

Perhaps this explains the response of the United States Government to discredit this article.

Just in case readers are doubting whether these photos have somehow been doctored, do not ask the American Government - ask the construction companies whether this was in fact the damage caused:

CONTRACT AWARDED TO REBUILD PENTAGON

In addition to the still-to-be-determined total costs of repairing the damage from the terrorist attack, the contract has a potential value of up to $758 million total for renovation of the undamaged portions of the Pentagon, plus adjustments for inflation costs over the estimated 11-year renovation effort. The contract will result in renovation of approximately four million square feet of building space inside the Pentagon, if all options are ultimately exercised.

"With the award of this contract we can begin immediate repairs to the Pentagon and make the necessary improvements that will keep it operational for the next 50 years," said Lee Evey, Pentagon renovation program manager. "The design-build approach has already demonstrated that it can succeed within this environment."

Following an intense evaluation of three design-build teams that competed for the job, the Pentagon Renovation Program selected Hensel Phelps Construction Co. based on the company's superior technical management approach, past performance, and price.

In addition to Hensel Phelps, the design-build team includes Shalom Baranes Associates, HDR Architecture, MC Dean, Studio Architecture, and Southland Industries. The team will have the task of keeping fully operational the world's largest office building and headquarters for the U.S. military establishment. Working around 20,000 Pentagon employees, the contractor will remove approximately 350 million pounds of debris, demolish Pentagon sections down to the concrete columns and floor slabs, and then rebuild space equivalent to more than two Empire State Buildings as part of the renovation activities.

In addition, the contractor, along with AMEC, the contractor currently accomplishing renovation of areas in Wedge 1, will undertake associated tasks now made necessary by the terrorist attack. For instance, rebuilding floor slabs, rebuilding columns, replicating the historical limestone faade, and rebuilding the roof in the damaged area.

The contractor is expected to begin design work at the end of this month (September 2001). Overall completion of the entire renovation project is expected in December 2012.

QUOTE:

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

-- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956)

Posthistoric Islam - After the dinosaurs

Extinction Event - The ummah

The dinosaurs were wiped out by a single extinction event. But after the cataclysm, some still staggered and roamed and tore at the earth and its life. 9/11 was the extinction event of a religion that was held wrongly in the consciousness’s of millions and millions as Islam. It was the extinction event of a religion ruled and dictated by men in beards and costumes who claimed and took and held authority over the willfully ignorant who in turn committed a great sin and taught their children as foolishly as they had been taught, who in fact abrogated their authority and responsibility to teach their children what was true and what was nonsense. Who failed to put the truth and the means of understanding and gaining truth in front of their children but instead sat them in front of men in beards and robes who sought to control them with fear and fairy tales. Who lied to them.

You may think that the dinosaurs I speak of are Bin-Laden and his cohorts. But they are not. They are the mere chains of lost and brainwashed and crazed souls and minds and hearts fashioned and thrown into the world by the real dinosaurs of Islam who always hold the other end of the chain tight in their evil prideful grip. The dinosaurs of Islam are the self-appointed more than half-ignorant priests, so called scholars and Mullahs whose words and dictates are accepted without question, without thought. From the Wahabi priest to the Al-Azhar scholar and dispenser of Fatwas to the Shia cleric, all who go unquestioned and blindly followed. Just as when the Prophet came to the world and the Jewish and Christian communities had “taken beside Allah their rabbis and their monks” (9,31) so have Muslims done the same. What do you think? That because you are a Muslim you are immune from human folly?

How can it be for instance that when the Qur’an says again and again that we can call on no-one in prayer but Allah, that to do that is plain and clear wrong, that millions of Shias do exactly that? I saw a program recently and the answer to this question posed to a Shia was the same stupid brainless answer it ever is ‘That they say it is right’….’they’ being their own particular version of the robed and bearded ones. You know, even as the guy said it, his voice trailed off. He knew it was nonsense. But he lacked the courage to even let himself think otherwise for more than a moment. It is no use knowing what is right if you do not have the courage to act on it. And where we need courage is where we do not know our future, where every moment of our lives are not hand held brainwashed steps down down into the zombies' entrance gates of hell and perdition.

Do not think I am singling out the Shia. I am singling out every foolish Muslim. You want a Sunni example? How about one from the so called scholars who are nearly always nothing more than apologists for Islam? Easy, there are 100’s. I’ll give you a good one. An important one. In the next post I will explain how in the Qur’an that the 5 prayers of a Muslim are listed and detailed. And yet these prominent (I will name some examples in tomorrow's post) scholars and apologists will give you a fairy tale or proclaim it a mystery as to why there are 5 prayers proscribed to Muslims every day. The 5 prayers are a central belief in Islam so I will detail this particular instance in tomorrow's 1 post. But I will give you some examples now from my own personal experience.

Let me tell you a couple of stories about a ‘Sheikh’ and Imam I met in Andalucia. A man who told me that from his very early years, maybe 7 or maybe younger, had been taught and trained at Al-Azhar, the famous Muslim University of Cairo. It happened that I was able to engage in a dialogue with this man over a few.weeks Let us be clear first as to the nature of this man.. He had been trained as a kind of Islamic Missionary at Al-Azhar. His years were spent moving between the Egypt and the world, spreading his message as he was taught. So, you would think that he was  amongst the most well versed in what Islam really is. After all, he was a man supposed to impart Islam to those who had no knowledge at all of it, as well as deepening the faith and understanding of those who already did.

One day the sheikh said to me we should be proud to be Muslims. I said, ‘Really? Proud?’

            ‘Yes, of course!’ he said, and then told me all the reasons for which I should be and he was proud. I listened, as I had got used to listening to him for some days. I heard him out. I tried to see if there was anything in what he was saying that would counter what was in my mind to say when he would stop. There was nothing.

            ‘But, sheikh.’ I said,  ‘Pride is a sin. It tells us in the Qur’an in fact that vanity is a type of idolatory, and is not pride a type vanity? A vanity in the self?’ (In fact in many places the Qur’an speaks against pride explicitly.)

            The Sheikh was silent, abashed. ‘Well... maybe I used the wrong word….’ No he didn’t. He used exactly the word he wanted. His being practically expanded as he spoke of his pride and its causes. As I continued that surely as a Muslim we are taught that we should be grateful always rather than prideful, that we should give thanks to Allah that he gave us Islam for our religion and the chance to be Muslims he was more and more lost for a response. There are many other points I could make following this short episode. But the real point is that, had the man read and understood the Qur’an? Had he understood anything of its real philosophy, of the humility and gratefulness to Allah it urges and urges? The point is he taught more than wrongly. He taught badly.

In the days I talked with him as I lost the slight deference I initially had towards his position, though we never raised voices, and in fact became friends of a sort, time and again I would take him up on some point of faith or text he had quoted and time and again I would find him at a loss. The worst of all though was on an occasion when he gave his ‘sermon’ before a Friday prayer. After the prayers a group of us waited behind to hear the sermon again in English. As Allah is my witness, as Allah allows me to recall, he told us a story that he said was in the Qur’an. Now, I have had the fortune to read the Qur’an in English in a number of translations and know that there can be significant variation between them, but what he was telling us, a story to do with rewards in heaven as I recall, was not in any way in the Qur’an. So I asked him his source and he quoted a section of the Qur’an. I looked it up immediately in the version I had with me and pointed out that it was not. He said, well, if you knew Hadith you would be able to expand it somehow to the meaning he was imparting. But honestly, I could not see how it could and it took it up with him further. But, what is really important is that he said at first it was something in the Qur’an, and of course because of his beard and his robes and his position, everyone accepted his word that it was. But, it was not in the Qur'an.  And he spoke as if it was. He was corrupting the faith and spreading these corruptions.

Do you know, perhaps you do, that amongst the Hadith, the purported though not entirely verifiable sayings of the Prophet, the Sheikh told me there is a sub-division that even if the scholars think are of dubious validity they will quote because, in their opinion, it makes better Muslims….in their opinion!!! They are prepared to potentially quote false words to us as if they are from the Prophet because they think it will make us better Muslims???  This from among the crowds of priests and scholars from whom you can be sure are some that believe for instance in the practice of female circumcision. Am I going to chance listening to some fool like that telling me a story even he is not sure is true about our Prophet’s words and sayings because in his opinion it will make me a better Muslim??? No way, no how. No.

Just as Barack Obama said recently, clearly, responsibly in his convention speech to America of the Bush years "Enough!", so we Muslims must say "Enough!" to the subtle or otherwise peddlers of lies, fear and fairy tales that have been like a fungus on our religion.

Simply, we must say to this generation, goodbye. No need for harsh words, ok. Just goodbye. We deny you the oxygen and food of your young minds and souls. Stagger and fall and fade and disappear like the dinosaurs you are. We no longer listen to or hear you. Yours and the generations before yours are those that lost our honour and our standing. Yours are the generations, long after the original Muslims and their noble early leaders, who forgot the real search for knowledge, who turned in yourselves, who came to believe in fairy tales and accepted the chains of mental slavery as if they were garments of green and gold. Your generations will answer for themselves. Yours is the old Ummah, fractured beyond repair and lost in ignorance, beyond your salvation.

So, let there be a new Ummah now of Muslims who will actually take the time and gain the reward of reading and understanding the Qur’an for themselves in a language they can actually understand; in particular of course Arabic. And wheresoever something is not clear, then look at (other) translations, or just leave it until your knowledge grows or your curiosity has the resource to find the answer, or sit with others and discuss it without raised voices in the spirit of mutual understanding and knowledge, but never for your personal gain, never to make your understanding hold sway for your benefit, your pride, your needs and never seeking to convert the other to you own point of view. Allah does not need your help by any means necessary. Allah does not need your help at all. And if still you cannot understand, it is ok. Do not think you must know the meaning of every sentence right now or ever. If someone else purports to know a meaning that is beyond you, let that be for him or her if you cannot grasp it and also especially if it does not seem clear and right to you. There is enough in the Qur’an that you will understand for you to be a good Muslim. The Qur’an tells us some passages are not of clear meaning and they are deliberately so those who wish to in their hearts may fall into dispute. But the parts that are clear are parts those of true belief hold dear to, knowing as well that it is all true and that with the Grace of Allah, the passing of time and growth of knowledge and experience more will become clear to them.

I am a Posthistoric Muslim. 

Jason Bermas contrasts signficantly with the producer of the film, Alex Jones. Alex Jones is the red-tie patriot. He makes a scene. He yells at people. He demands attention. Jason Bermas is more of a soft-spoken, blue-tie patriot. He listens politely to everyone on the air. He delivers bold statements with modesty.

Alex Jones has an aggressive personality of someone like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Jason Bermas on the other hand has the personality of consumer rights advocate radio talk show host in Atlanta, Clark Howard--a soft-spoken, intelligent, respected nice guy who gets along with the girls.

While the film doesn't paint a smoking gun or dive into conspiracy theories, it does piece together known facts as reported in the media. It gives the film an added depth of truth. It either gives a soothing reassurance of someone who already believes 9/11 was an inside job or opens up the eyes that it may have been an inside job for the skeptic.

The opening and closing scenes are dramatic. The opening scenes are the best edited series of clips I've seen regarding 9/11. The music is probably not as good as Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, but it plays almost unnoticed in the background to set a horror film mood. 

The film uses a lot of horizontal scan line and channel-changing effects. These effects are popular right now so they may be viewed as becoming trite. However, they are used conservatively. The film also uses the type-writer effect. My only complaint is that some of the news clips cut off the graphics at the bottom and top in a distracting way.

In conclusion, Jason Bermas sticks with his personality by calmly not calling for a revolution but for a simple restoration of our Consitutional rights and to bring the tyrants to justice.

It is a well-produced, highly-consumable, must-see documentary for the masses. Jason Bermas has made a big splash. He is a great asset to the movement and a great patriot.

As with all InfoWars.com films feel free to download it for free and distribute it freely. You may also order a higher quality version on DVD or download from PrisonPlanet.tv to help support the cause.

Free formats are made available for torrent download from The Pirate Bay. You may also view on Google video.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407] 

--jeepndesert

What a lovely country, I said. It is now September 1st 2008. Nearly 7 years ago was that fateful day. But what happened on September 11 - to this dear country that I got to love over a brief 3 week visit? What have the people been subjected to? what are the implications? On ALL of us, not just precious Americans?

The photos are revealing - did a plane really hit the Pentagon on September 11, or have the people of this precious county been lied to?

How could Osama Bin Laden manoevre a missile? If not Osama, then why set Afghanistan on fire to find him?

Notice the building only collapsed later. So the damage on impact was even smaller.

I will be continuing this series on September 11th as we approach the day. These will be common photos that most people have seen.

Does anyone have a better picture of how the plane (or a depth charge missile) went through three of the outer rings of the Pentagon at a 45 degree angle and then came out of the hole at the end?

There was no fire involved here, at the inner court, just a sudden change of pressure (check out windows). This is normally caused by an explosive device, not a fuel fire.

Missiles are built for penetration. This is to get through underground bunkers.

Have the forensic reporters checked this out?

Premesse

1) McCain è la marca leader nelle patatine fritte;

2) Gli USA sono il paese delle patatine fritte;

3) La pratica più diffusa tra gli americani è fare i "couch-potatoes" (patate da sofà);

Conclusione

McCain sarà il prossimo presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America

E a nulla varrano tutti i discorsi kennediani di Obama: cosa può un nero dal cognome binladesco contro una bianca patata anglosassone?

My congrats to McCain, who had experience as a POW, for catching up to the main theme for what Americans want. Yes, things need to change.

With Palin on the ticket, McCain has guaranteed that something will change with this election. New ground will be crossed, be it in the form of Obama or Palin. This was a masterful political move on his part. Truly, it was. Now both sides are running for history. And for change.

So then the next obvious question, which won't really ever be addressed on corporate TV, as it would take too long to go beyond one word analysis....what is the change offered?

1. Freedom

Obama/Biden Change: Appoint Supreme Court Justices that will outlaw torture, once and for all (except on black ops).

McCain/Palin Change: Appoint Supreme Court Justices that outlaw abortion, once and for all (except on back alleys).

2. Economy

Obama/Biden Change: Spend 8 of the next 10 years working hard to replace oil and create a post-carbon economy with renewable fuels. This will save our limited natural resources for future generations.

McCain/Palin Change: Spend 8 of the next 10 years drilling as hard as possible to prop up oil companies and extend our carbon economy. This will steal our limited natural resources from future generations.

3. Education

Obama/Biden Change: Spend the money necessary to give every child in every school every chance to succeed.

McCain/Palin Change: Spend only the money necessary to teach every child in every school that evolution is evil and God did it.

4. Foreign Policy

Obama/Biden Change: End the war in Iraq, Get Bin Laden. Work together with the world to face threats.

McCain/Palin Change: Start the war in Iran. Get Obama. Work together to make threats to the world.

5. Tax Policy

Obama/Biden Change: Move the tax policy back to the one that helped build the largest and most powerful middle class in the world, with the most wealth and the most people.

McCain/Palin Change(?): Extend the Bush tax policy that helped build the smallest and most distinct upper class in history, with the most wealth and the fewest people.

----

Please, feel free to add your own and/or cop/paste for email.

In a statement Johansen said "I pinpointed to Dagsavisen that I didn't think Osama bin Laden and ... al-Qaida want any dialogue. It's therefore wrong to say that Norway has a desire for dialogue with bin Laden."

The Swiss have also amended their statements about a dialogue with bin Laden saying Micheline Calmy-Rey "did not state that she would promote such a dialogue, nor has she proposed such a dialogue."

Source

Today I emailed a letter to Congressman Ryan and I thought I'd share it with you. Writing your representatives is a great idea. You can find your representatives by searching at the US House website, or the US Senate website.

Congressman Ryan:

While I am at odds with you on some issues, I see a genuineness in you that seems to be rare in the federal government and I have the utmost faith that you truly care about people. I lived in your district for a few years and I have seen you in action. That is why I write to appeal to you, to address the issue of the 9/11 investigation.

Several of your colleagues, including Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, have publicly stated that they would support a new, independent investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Much information has come to light in the last seven years to suggest that things did not occur the way it was portrayed to the American people.

There is a large and growing grassroots movement for 9/11 truth, started by the victim's family members and first responders, which is being portrayed in the media as an "anarchist group" by Geraldo Rivera. Morning Joe's Willie Geist said of a 9/11 truth protester, "the man [was] led away in handcuffs and hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in Eastern Europe, never to be heard from again... I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists."

Michael Reagan said of Mark Dice's organization, which sends 9/11 truth information to the troops in theater, "we ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out, and shoot them... You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and you shoot them... But anybody who would do that doesn't deserve to live... I'll pay for the bullet... How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of the firing range, tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."

All of this for simply petitioning our government for a redress of grievances. The US Government has done a total of ten investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the mere idea of asking for a second investigation into this attack on our country makes us traitors who deserve to be shot. I thought this was America. I thought it was patriotic for the people, who supposedly are the government, to ask questions and exercise oversight over our elected representatives. Is this not still a republic?

The notion that the official story, asserted by the 9/11 Commission, is not the full truth is certainly not a patent absurdity, nor is the theory that perhaps members of our own government had prior knowledge or involvement in the attacks of 9/11. US Government involvement in false flag attacks is, of course, nothing new. We have a history of staging attacks to start wars. A declassified NSA report confirms that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a staged attack and that Vietnamese boats weren't even present on the 4th of August. In March of 1963, a plan was submitted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, which describes plans to stage false flag terror attacks as a pretext to illegally invade Cuba. These plans 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. The United States was condemned by the World Court for international terrorism in Nicaragua. Even recently, Seymour Hersh exposed an idea by Vice President Cheney which he described in the following words: "Why don't we build, we, in our shipyard, build four or five Iranian boats, that look like Iranian PT boats, put Navy Seals on them, with a lot of arms, and the next time one of our boats goes through the Strait of Hormuz, start a shoot-up." This is all eerily reminiscent of Hitler's Reichstag fire.

So there is plenty of precedent for this alternate theory, but is there any evidence? It turns out that there is a plethora of evidence to disprove the official 9/11 Commission conclusion.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, retired professor of Physics at BYU, examined metal samples from the World Trade Center towers and found evidence of sulfur (which would indicate that thermate, a military grade steel cutting material, was present) and performed a study of the collapse of the towers and WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, and was completely omitted from the 9/11 Commission report. Jones helped establish an organization dedicated to independent, expert research of the 9/11 attacks using the scientific method. The organization now has over 500 members with backgrounds ranging from engineering to physics to aviation and has a wealth of information available to the public.

Simple common sense would indicate many problems with the official story. The 9/11 Commission claims that the jet fuel burnt long and hot enough to melt enough core columns in both towers to cause the floors to "pancake" down. This is obviously not true, as we would have seen a stack of pancaked concrete floor slabs after the collapse. The Law of Conservation of Momentum tells us that the collapse would slow as it progressed, as each successive floor would absorb more and more momentum, but in all videos, all three WTC buildings collapse at near free-fall speed. This would indicate that support, i.e. resistance, had been removed from under the collapsing floors. In a pancaking collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete into the enormous clouds of dust we all witnessed. A pancaking collapse could not explain the embedding of a large chunk of one of the towers into WTC7, over 300 feet away. There is evidence of first responders, time and again, reporting secondary and tertiary explosions, explosions in the ground floor lobby, explosions in the elevator, explosions in the basement. NIST's recent report on the collapse of WTC7 admits that these three buildings, all on one day, became the only tall, steel-frame buildings in history to collapse as a result of fire. In October 2005, New Civil Engineer called into question NIST's computer models for the collapse of the Twin Towers.

A tape was released of firefighters just seven minutes before the collapse on the 78th floor, saying there were only two pockets of fire, and Chief Orio Palmer said, "we should be able to knock it down with two [hose] lines". Firefighter Brian Becker, Engine 28, stated, "So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were - like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like - it was like that - like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there." Firefighter Ed Cachia, Engine 53: "It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

An FBI document, 199-Eye W.F. 213 589, stifled the FBI's investigation of two of bin Laden's relatives and their ties to terrorist organizations. In fact, the FBI's own website, on Usama bin Laden's Most Wanted Terrorist page, does not even claim he is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. BBC reported in September 2001, "Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

Congressman, I could continue on with more and more evidence, and if you are interested in other leads and other facts, I will be happy to collate and provide them. However, I assume you have greater resources than I to gather such information. I will conclude this by simply requesting that you investigate this issue and imploring you to help fight so the victims of 9/11 can learn the truth and justice can be served.

I also hope the Congress will very soon embrace the idea of impeachment, not necessarily to pursue removal from office, but at least as a duty to history to get the lies and crimes of this administration in the Congressional record with an official inquiry. President Clinton was impeached for far less than what this President has done.

As a final thought, I have a question about your party's nominee for President in the 2008 election. Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to President Carter. During Brzezinski's term, we saw the transition of Iran to an anti-Western Islamic state and the arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He admitted that it was a lie when he claimed we started helping the mujaheddin after the Soviet invasion, and that it was designed to provoke such an invasion to cause a Vietnam-style war for them. Brzezinski is very hawkish, especially with Russia. How can we reconcile our want for the War in Iraq to end with voting for someone who has this guy as a Foreign Policy Advisor? Senator Obama has also called for sending troops into Pakistan. Obama also proposed a "civilian national security force", larger and more well-funded than the military. That sounds like an admission that the plan is a larger economic black hole than the War in Iraq. On top of this, he has voted to renew the Patriot Act, voted for FISA domestic surveillance, and voted to fund the war in Iraq. How can we trust and support such a candidate, a candidate from the party that campaigned two years ago on ending the War in Iraq, lowering gas prices at the pump, and holding the administration accountable, none of which has happened. I see you stand up continuously and admonish the administration, but as a whole the entire Congress has failed the American people in all these regards. We got a minimum wage increase, but with the dollar being debased by the Fed and the resulting economic downturn and price increases, we are generally in a much worse position than in 2006. Obviously we cannot support John McCain, a continuation of the abhorrent Neo-Conservative movement (who, ironically, lists Zbigniew Brzezinski's son as a campaign worker) that has been the Bush administration. I think the two party system has failed to produce a worthy candidate and it is time for those stand-up members of Congress, of which I count you as a member, to break with their party affiliations and become independent voices. What are your views on this stance and also on Chuck Baldwin as a presidential candidate?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your reply.

From The New York Times

DENVER — Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Party presidential nomination on Thursday, declaring that the “American promise has been threatened” by eight years under President Bush and that John McCain represented a continuation of policies that undermined the nation’s economy and imperiled its standing around the world.

The speech by Senator Obama, in front of an audience of nearly 80,000 people on a warm night in a football stadium refashioned into a vast political stage for television viewers, left little doubt how he intended to press his campaign against Mr. McCain this fall.

In cutting language, and to cheers that echoed across the stadium, he linked Mr. McCain to what he described as the “failed presidency of George W. Bush” and — reflecting what has been a central theme of his campaign since he entered the race — “the broken politics in Washington.”

“America, we are better than these last eight years,” he said. “We are a better country than this.”

But Mr. Obama went beyond attacking Mr. McCain by linking him to Mr. Bush and his policies. In the course of a 42-minute speech that ended with a booming display of fireworks and a shower of confetti, he offered searing and far-reaching attacks on his presumptive Republican opponent, repeatedly portraying him as the face of the old way of politics and failed Republican policies.

He said Mr. McCain was out of touch with the problems of everyday Americans. “It’s not because John McCain doesn’t care,” he said. “It’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.”

And he went so far as to attack the presumed strength of Mr. McCain’s campaign, national security. “You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives,” he said.

The speech loomed as arguably Mr. Obama’s most important of the campaign to date. It was an opportunity to present himself to Americans just now beginning to tune in on this campaign, to make the case against Mr. McCain and to offer what many Democrats say he has failed to offer to date: an idea of what he stands for, beyond a promise of change.

To that end, he emphasized what he described as concrete steps he would take to address the anxieties of working-class Americans, promising tax cuts for the middle class and pledging to wean the country from dependence on Middle East oil within 10 years to address high fuel prices.

With the speech, Mr. Obama closed out his party’s convention here and prepared for a quick shift of public attention to the Republicans as Mr. McCain moved to name his running mate and his party got ready for its convention in St. Paul on Monday.

He delivered it in a most unconventional setting, becoming the third nominee of a major party in the nation’s history to leave the site of his convention to give his acceptance speech at a stadium. In this case, it was Invesco Field, set against the Rockies and about a mile from the arena where he had been nominated the night before. His aides chose the stadium to signal a break from typical politics and to permit thousands of his supporters from across the country to hear him speak.

And it came on a night that offered — by the coincidence of scheduling — a reminder of the historic nature of the Obama candidacy: 45 years to the day after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech on the Mall in Washington. Mr. Obama is the first African-American to be nominated for the White House by a major party, a fact that, for all its significance, has been barely mentioned over the course of this four-day gathering.

Even in invoking the anniversary of the King speech, Mr. Obama only alluded to race. But he quoted a famous phrase from Dr. King’s address to reinforce a central theme of his own speech. “America, we cannot turn back,” Mr. Obama said. “Not with so much work to be done.”

Mr. McCain marked the occasion of the speech by releasing a television advertisement in which, looking into the camera, he paid tribute to Mr. Obama and his accomplishment. “How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day,” Mr. McCain said. “Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it. But tonight, Senator, job well done.

The advertisement stood in stark contrast to a summer of slashing attacks on Mr. Obama by Mr. McCain that apparently contributed to the tightening of this race. And the softer tone did not last; Mr. Obama was still on the stage, watching the fireworks, when Mr. McCain’s campaign issued a statement attacking him.

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama,” said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain.

In his speech, Mr. Obama scored Mr. McCain for raising questions about his patriotism, and trying, he said, to turn a big election into a fight on small squabbles.

I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain,” Mr. Obama said, an American flag lapel affixed to his left lapel. “The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag.”

“So I’ve got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first,” he said, prompting the crowd to break into a chant of “U.S.A., U.S.A.”

Mr. Obama looked completely at ease and unintimidated by his task or the huge crowd that surrounded him. And he chastised Mr. McCain for trying to portray him as a celebrity, an attack aides say has been particularly damaging, offering a list of people who he said had inspired him, from his grandmother to an unemployed factory worker he met on the campaign trail.

“I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine,” he said. “These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on behalf of them that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States.”

Mr. Obama delivered his speech on a day of considerable political churn. Even as Mr. McCain was paying tribute to Mr. Obama on television, his aides disclosed that he made a choice for vice president and would announce it on Friday, timing intended to draw attention away from Mr. Obama on a day in which he and his running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., would be starting a joint campaign swing.

Mr. Obama’s audience began lining up to go through security and enter the stadium eight hours before he was to speak. As seats filled, they watched a series of musical performances, including by Stevie Wonder, who sang, “Signed, Sealed, Delivered I’m Yours.”

But the table for Mr. Obama was also set by speeches from some of the best-known Democratic leaders. They were led by Al Gore, the former vice president who confronted a question that has, fairly or not, hovered over Mr. Obama as he struggles in his contest with Mr. McCain.

“Why is this election so close?” Mr. Gore asked. “Well I know something about close elections, so let me offer you my opinion. I believe this election is close today mainly because the forces of the status quo are desperately afraid of the change Barack Obama represents.”

Mr. Obama used much of his speech to link Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush — a line of attack that his aides view as their strongest going into the fall — and signaled that he saw next week’s Republican convention, when Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush are to appear together, albeit briefly, as a way to press that line of attack.

“Next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third,” he said. “And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight. On Nov. 4, we must stand up and say: ‘Eight is enough.’ ”

Speaking in generally broad terms, Mr. Obama offered a contrast between Republican and Democratic views of the role of government.

“We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500,” he said, “but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job — an economy that honors the dignity of work.”

The outdoor acceptance speech was by any measure a risky gambit by a campaign that has shown a taste for taking chances and breaking with convention, as his aides acknowledged. Bad weather could have soaked the moment. Mr. Obama’s first question to aides when they proposed this was, “Will it rain?” It did not; the day was dry, if hot.

When John F. Kennedy held his outdoor rally at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in June 1960, half the seats were empty, as a dispatch in The New York Times noted in dismissively describing the event as a “fresh air vaudeville.” The stadium here was packed by 5:15 mountain time, three hours before Mr. Obama was to take the stage, after a week in which Democrats and Obama supporters had been hustling for tickets.

El entramado militar gringo no puede considerar que resultó beneficioso el haber dejado que la Unión Soviética se disolviera como un azucarillo, quizá en un principio creyeron que les podría reportar alguna medalla, dejando aparte que las chapas no suelen dar de comer. Pronto se dieron cuenta del error, y ahora que llegan las vacas flacas, urge el tomar medidas. Peligran los puestos de trabajo de mucha gente y llega el momento de rectificar. Cultivar bonsáis puede ser una ocupación propia para un mindundi como Felipe González, pero nada acorde con los méritos de los rostros pálidos, expertos en combatir el siempre peligroso comunismo, como son los analistas del Pentágono, la CIA y los generales estrellados. Así que no quedó más remedio que volver al camino recto y seguro, que garantizase sin sobresaltos el poder seguir esquilmando como antaño, las arcas de los generosos y memos contribuyentes gringos, por y a mayor gloria de la invicta y a menudo cacareada, Dios salve América. Y en esas están y seguirán.

Verdaderamente echando la vista atrás, aquellos soviéticos fueron unos desconsiderados de tomo y lomo, mira que pretender llevar a la ruina a unos modélicos empresarios y nobles familias gringas –que vivían de siempre, de la jugosa industria de la Guerra Fría- Dejándose derrumbar sin previo aviso y sin tener en cuenta los cuantiosos perjuicios que reportarían a tan buenas y consideradas gentes. Y no crean que la cosa no marchó por dejadez, o por pasar de intentarlo, en principio se sacaron de la chistera la guerra contra la droga –no en vano eran y son todo unos expertos en la materia, como cabría esperar de los máximos consumidores de polvillos blancos- Con la disculpa se llevaron por delante unos cuantos miles de inocentes panameños –sin importancia- y de paso vaciaron los arsenales de bombas a punto de caducar, pero… ¡hay carajo! la malo es que la cosa del Noriega no dio para más.

Andando los años lograron engañar y enredar a su aliado Sadam, lo que les dio disculpa para volver a vaciar arsenales sobre las arenas del desierto, pero solo significó más muertos de desarrapados iraquies y pan para hoy y hambre para mañana. Lo siguieron intentando en el Salvador, Somalia. De intermedio atendieron acciones de apoyo y suministro de armas a Bin Laden -cuando fungía como peón de hostigamiento, en Afganistán, contra los rusos-. Atentados por medio de la mafia de Miami contra hoteles de Cuba, varios bombardeos menores hasta llegar, terminando el siglo –con la inestimable ayuda del socialisto Solana- al televisivo bombardeo indiscriminado de Yugoslavia, que les supuso un alivio de sus arsenales, que en nada amenazaban con caducar, sin haber logrado matar a nadie.

Le siguieron el Plan Colombia y la siembra de bases en América Latina. El 11 S les dio pie para invadir Afganistán y poco tiempo después Iraq, donde siguen empantanados ¡y pa seguir! Pero amigos la Princesa está triste ¿que tendrá la princesa? Y es que en la Guerra Fría nadie cuestionaba los gastos y despilfarros en armamento –eso sí, simulando una buena causa, el socorrido atender la defensa de las democracias- pero ahora cuando hay que apretarse los cinturones, puede venir cualquier Obama y darle por reducir el chocolate del loro, y eso bien puede representar la ruina para añejos y prósperos negocios, alrededor de las bombas y la muerte. Por ello no queda más remedio que resucitar otra especie de Guerra Fría cuyo primer acto fue puesto en escena, hace unos días en Georgia. Ya no se trata del clásico capitalismo contra comunismo, sino que ahora los actores son el poder militar-imperialista –representado por Gringolandia-Europa- contra un poder regional que representa Rusia y que mañana bien pudiera acompañarles la comunista-capitalista China.

Convendrán conmigo que a estas alturas de la película, es una locura el embarcarse en una nueva carrera armamentista, o enzarzarse en guerras xeladas con Rusia y China, con los correspondientes gastos militares adicionales de billones de euros en las próximas décadas. Es una imperdonable y desquiciada locura: que no conduce –como casi siempre- a nada de provecho, aparte que el gasto no garantizará el acceso a más fuentes de energía, ni abaratará el precio de los gasóleos y sus derivados a los consumidores, ni desanimará a Rusia y China en su búsqueda de nuevas fuentes de energía. Lo que de seguro hará será reducir el dinero que necesitamos para desarrollar fuentes de energía alternativas con las que conjurar los peores efectos del cambio climático.

Cuando lo verdaderamente racional sería aunar esfuerzos, y tratar de cooperar con Pekín y Moscú en el desarrollo de fuentes de energía alternativas y sistemas de transporte más eficaces, y al mismo tiempo disponer de liquidez para poder encarar inversiones en proyectos sociales, económicos y medioambientales que merezcan realmente la pena. Por ende renunciar a absurdas competiciones del tipo guerrerista y trabajar juntos en el desarrollo de alternativas al petróleo, con vehículos mucho más eficientes y otras innovaciones energéticas. Tienen todas las de ganar -con su incuestionable poderío económico- para hacer las cosas de manera correcta, respetando y siendo respetados. El verdadero problema es que no se conforman. Son felices quedando tuertos, con tal que el competidor quede ciego. Está visto que donde no hay cabeza, no hay nada que rascar.

El libro de hoy es todo un clásico:

La Metamorfosis.- Franz Kafka

Maku

[caption id="attachment_2589" align="aligncenter" width="900" caption="Cumbre de Yalta"][/caption]

]]> http://ebfromga.wordpress.com/?p=293 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:58:40 +0000 Earl http://ebfromga.wordpress.com/?p=293 After a rousing and protracted round of applause, Bill Clinton gave an enthusiastic endorsement for Barack Obama apparently laying aside all of the animosity that attracted so much attention during the Democratic primary campaigns. In doing so, Bill Clinton requested that the nation return to the prosperity of the 1990's under the Clinton administration.

One of his last points was that like he, Bill Clinton, in 1992 was young and accused of being too young and inexperienced to be president, Barack Obama is also being accused of being too young and inexperienced to be president. Clinton claimed that, as his presidency was successful, Obama's presidency will also be successful.

Bill Clinton did leave out any reference to John Kennedy who was also a very young president.

What Clinton also failed to point out were the differences in the world situation today compared to the beginning of his presidency, situations like the current Iraq War, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the resurgence of Russia as a threat to peace and stability in Europe, problems and threats that Bill Clinton didn't have to face. A young and relatively inexperienced John F. Kennedy did have similar problems and his inexperience was exhibited by an ineffective meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, resulting in the construction of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis which nearly led to World War III and the guarantee of Cuba remaining a communist state by selling out the Cuban exiles in the United States and elsewhere. Clinton, in contrast, was inaugurated president in a time of relative peace. The immediate threat created by Iraq following its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait had been eliminated by the first Iraq War under the Bush administration and the Soviet Union had already been dissolved through the efforts of Ronald Reagan. Neither did Clinton mention his failed policy and withdrawal from Somalia, his failure to neutralize bin Laden when an opportunity arose, his failure to recognize the Al Quaeda threat that existed after the first bombing of the World Trade Center which led to the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center or his failed negotiations with North Korea, to name a few. He also failed to mention it was his policy and administration which began the process of globilization or the American economy which, as claimed by many, has led to the loss of many high paying American jobs manufacturing jobs as well as jobs in the technology sector. During his administration the process of outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries began in full force.

Clinton did take credit for a period of prosperity during the 1990's. He failed to mention that the economy was already recovering from a mild downturn in economic growth in the first part of the 1990's prior to his inauguaration nor did he mention that many of his expensive and socialistic plans were curbed by the election of a Republican controlled Congress two years after his election which led to the moderation of many of his policies and plans.

Clinton stated that Barack Obama would be a staunch defender and supporter of the Constitution failing to recognizie Obama's equivocation of the Second Amendment and his ardent support for a judiciary which is prone to legislate from the bench and not follow the Constitution, effectively bypassing the elected legislative branch of government.

Clinton attacked to Bush administration for "cronyism" following the Katrina disaster in New Orleans several years ago, again failing to admit to the political cronyism exhibited by the then Democratic governor of Louisiana and the re-elected Democratic mayor of New Orleans resulting in billions of dollars of waste and fraud in Lousiana following Katrina. He also failed to mention that the citizens of Louisiana have since partially corrected that problem by electing a Republican governor for that state.

He did mention that Barack Obama has the background to deal with the changing population of the United States and the growing interdependence of the United States with the rest of the world. I suppose he was referring to Obama's suggestion that all Americans should learn Spanish and that Obama with his history of multiculturalism would be more inclined to help Americans adjust to a position of more dependence on the rest of the world rather than achieving a degree of independence and security from world threats.

I suppose like those politicians of old, like the one that I heard many years ago,Once Upon a Time at a County Democratic Party Meeting …,Bill Clinton is one of those who put party first over all else. Bill Clinton is a great speaker. Everyone knows that the true sign of a great speaker is their ability to inspire as much by what they conveniently fail to say as what they actually do say.

By Rich Trzupek

It is often said, by opponents of America’s intervention in Iraq, that if we weren’t there, then Al Qaeda would not be fighting us. These critics are close to right, although they get the “there” part wrong. The answer, not surprisingly, can be traced back to Muhammed and the Quran.

As Robert Spencer points out in his book, “The Truth About Muhammed”, the prophet of Islam considered the Arabian peninsula God’s special place, the holiest of holies. He instructed his followers to expel non-believers (i.e., pagans, Hindus, Bhuddists – everyone who was not “of the book”) and to allow Christians and Jews to stay, but only if they agreed to be subjugated and pay a special tax to their Muslim masters.

Having spent some time in the desert kingdom, your humble correspondent can personally attest to the fact that westerners (along with Filipinos, Pakistanis, Indians, Africans – basically all non-Arabs) are looked down upon by many (but not all) Saudis in a way that would shock the sensibilities of genteel America.

What infuriated bin Laden, and his cronies in Al Qaeda, was the fact American soldiers, including shamelessly unveiled women for crying out loud, were hanging out in the holy kingdom, as part of the first war with Iraq. This was, according to the Quran, a sacrilege. This is why it became necessary to attack America. This is why airliners had to be flown into the World Trade Center. Because God said so. Because Muhammed told Muslims that God said so.

If one strictly interprets the Quran and Muhammed’s message, there is really no arguing with bin Laden’s point. From that point of view, it was justified. If the Quran is the word of God, then God unquestionably told Muslims to keep the Arabian peninsula “pure”, and America had unquestionably defiled it, according to the prophet’s definition.

If the Quran is the word of God, then God unquestionably told Muslims to fight and kill those who would defile Islam or question the words of its prophet. The plain truth is that bin Laden was not being unfaithful to Muhammed’s vision of Islam – he was following it, to the letter.

So no, Al Qaeda would not be fighting us – in Iraq – if we had not invaded that country. But they would be fighting us – somewhere – so long as we maintained a presence in Saudi Arabia. The question that critics of the Second Iraqi War find uncomfortable is a simple one: if they (Al Qaeda) are determined to fight us, would you rather have that fight in Iraq, or somewhere else?

Those of the Jewish faith are particularly reviled in the Quran, as the Prophet appeared to grow more and more frustrated with his inability to convert them. He enjoined his followers to fight with the Jews, to kill Jewish leaders who had insulted him, and cosign them to hell.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that Muslims in the Middle East are so violently anti-Semitic? Their founder set the stage. His is a unique, “divinely inspired” level of hatred and mistrust that is without parallel in the history of mainstream theology. When Hamas carries terror into the heart of Israel, they are not defying the Quran or Muhammed, they are rather being faithful to the teachings of God, as they believe those teachings to be.

Few, if any, of our leaders understand this. Few, if any, of our leaders have the courage to ask Muslims – be they “mainstream” or “maniacs” – whether or not they are willing to repudiate the most chilling parts of their holy book. They prefer not to discuss the issue, and it’s difficult not to believe that the reason why is that the answers would be too troubling.

The reason most often given for not answering such questions is something akin to “we don’t want to fan any flames”. This, Spencer asserts, is a policy at once dishonest and counter-productive. The flames already exist. By ignoring them, by pretending the key issues are not related to the core of the religion, we cast reform-minded Muslims adrift.

It is true that there are many Muslims who renounce terror privately, and even some who renounce it publicly. But how many Muslims dare renounce those portions of Islam that are - to western eyes - violent, bigoted, intolerant and sexist?

There is a significant difference, Spencer says, between a religion that challenges he who is without sin to cast the first stone, and one that calls for stoning as a punishment for adultery. (Stoning, as a punishment for adultery, is not proscribed in the Quran itself – which calls for whipping instead – but it is part of one of the most important hadiths).

Along with the “cowboy tradition” of American culture, there is another more humanistic, empathetic element of our culture that suggests, even demands, tolerance of other beliefs and systems of values. I would not decry this tradition. Indeed, I celebrate it. It is one of our strengths.

We have, historically and today, bent over backwards to extend this olive branch to a religion (Islam) that is, at its fundamental core, substantially (at best) and violently (at worst) opposed to the democratic, libertarian principles upon which this country was founded. We can not continue to ignore this simple, undeniable, truth.

Spencer’s book is not, as his critics assert, a call to arms. It may come to that, but it must not be so. Spencer’s book is an appeal for an honest discussion of what is necessary to make the peace that we all desire, with a religion that – at its core – demands surrender before peace is possible.

The sooner we come to grips with this simple truth, the better we all will be.

(For more information on this topic, may we suggest: www.jihadwatch.org, and, if you wish to support Muslims trying to break free of the fundamentalists and extremists: www.freemuslims.org).