Time To Think About the Future

As an educated American and proud veteren, it is not that hard to see that the future does not look too good for the average American.  The soveriegn debt crisis is about to explode in Europe,  all the while our national debt continues to rise because our politicians are worthless cowards and totally corrupt.  As I see it, the enemy isn’t a terrorist that has olive skin and shoots up people in the name of his religion, but the enemy is our own Federal government who continues to lie and decieve the public into believe their outlandish lies of doom and gloom at the hand of  Muslim terrorists.

Just like the last hurricane and all the hype that led up to it, the media and government collude to strike unneeded fear into the minds of the sheeple that they control.  It is real simple folks, when the government says that we will have a lone wolf style attack, they are correct.  Not because of intelligence agencies like the CIA or FBI, but because they are making it happen.  Let’s look at same of the most recent failed attacks and see just what is going on.
As an educated American and proud veteren, it is not that hard to see that the future does not look too good for the average American. The soveriegn debt crisis is about to explode in Europe, all the while our national debt continues to rise because our politicians are worthless cowards and totally corrupt. As I see it, the enemy isn’t a terrorist that has olive skin and shoots up people in the name of his religion, but the enemy is our own Federal government who continues to lie and decieve the public into believe their outlandish lies of doom and gloom at the hand of Muslim terrorists.

Just like the last hurricane and all the hype that led up to it, the media and government collude to strike unneeded fear into the minds of the sheeple that they control. It is real simple folks, when the government says that we will have a lone wolf style attack, they are correct. Not because of intelligence agencies like the CIA or FBI, but because they are making it happen. Let’s look at same of the most recent failed attacks and see just what is going on.

Respected lawyer and community leader, Kurt Haskell, has nothing to gain from pointing his finger at the federal government. He witnessed the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, being whisked past security and led onto NorthWest Airlines flight 253, by a well-dressed man with an American accent- all without the passenger’s proper visa and passport documentation. What the news piece doesn’t mention is that the State Dept did indeed put Mutallab on the plane, at the behest of “an unnamed US intelligence agency.” Undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy (Detroit news article was removed from web!). THIS is why we are being groped, molested, and body scanned at the airport by the TSA!

http://www.youtube.com/v/JoDqUyqsxgg&rel=0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&version=3″><param

Our own Federal Government and the main stream media are full of shit and cannot be trusted at all. Friends, they don’t care about you or I, they don’t care about your families, they don’t care, deal with that for once. They need shut down and replaced with a much better and less powerful version. This is obviously not an easy task, as most would say they have most of the guns and military, but that is not true at all.

By collectively saying no, they would have two choices, act with force or leave. I doubt they would leave so the deal is this, in the future, your going to live in a police state. That is, of course, you choose to cave in and give up your freedoms. Your life would then be ruled by others, not you, I hope that this thought scares the hell out of you, it should. There is more to see, just open your eyes and clear your mind of all the bullshit you see and hear on TV for awhile, it’s not that hard.

The 10th anniversary of the 9-11 terroist attacks has past. I feel for all the families who lost loved ones that fateful day, but it was all organized and allowed by your very own government. They are the terrorists, not some Muslim group living in a cave in the middle of nowhere. One only needs to look at the facts to see this. I can provide video after video of the events that day that show it was all intended, for money. It all provided a coverup for crimes most will never know about.

All of this is really not important now, it’s over wth. The problem is that very few people even see the impending economic destruction about to engulf them. It’s not going to just be the U.S. but everyone on this planet. The saddest part is that the very group the people will ask for help from those that caused the problem in the first place. Once that occurs, slavery has just become legal again in the United States, and no one can stop it once it takes hold. Everyone will be subject to it, fair or not, legal or not, and unconstitutional for sure.

But as this is already happening, the sheeple are silent. They are brainwashed by the pathetic MSM and our own government. Folks, government is not responsible for your safety! You are! Until the sheeple realize this and destroy the Liberal mindset, they will win. The very people promising your safety are the one’s causing the reason for those fears to begin with. It is really time for people to say NO MORE!

Throughout this summer, I have been avoiding writing on this blog, I was busy, but also needed a break to see what was happening. I saw the joke theatrics of the debt cieling, amung other things. The MSM and the government played their drama out like they are well trained by the best Hollywood producers in the business. It’s all theatrics and bullshit, but the sheeple fall for this crap day in and day out. Shameful that our nation has become a collective group of morons who don’t have a clue that many of them will die soon because they have believed the bullshit they see on TV.

Those of us who see and understand what is going on are realitively quiet. We don’t discuss it between us much, but we know a really big fight is coming, we don’t want it, but we will win it. There just comes a time when tyranny has become a daily word, then it’s time to change the thought process and prepare to do battle. sadly, it will begin against our own people who have been brainwashed into believing the crap they are fed everyday. These people piss me off, I won’t be helping them.

The time has come to decide where you stand in life. Do you stand for freedom or will you accept tyranny? This is not really hard to understand, but it’s best to decide before it all comes to your front door knocking one day. I made my decision along time ago. I’m prepared and have my family and friends prepared. If nothing happens, so what! If it does happen, well so what! Can you say that?

Live Free!

G!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    I hope today finds all of you healthy and happy!

  2. Ray Hawkins says:

    Good morning G-Man

    The YouTube link you provided didn’t work for me – I searched and found this one – hoping its the same thing:

    Now – to the matter of Kurt Haskell…..

    I’m having hard time buying this story – have we become so skeptical of our own government that we will believe almost anything that casts doubt on the same – all without applying our same level of skepticism therein?

    In other words – why should I believe a damn thing that Kurt Haskell says?

    He has nothing to gain? Fame, appearances (he is a lawyer – lawyers love to “appear”), speaking engagements, a book, …..

    Ask yourself this (and please correct me if I am wrong) – why can’t his story be corroborated by anyone? Doesn’t that trouble you? Surely there were other people in the airport no? He states in other videos that he has tried to contact other passengers but no one returns his calls anymore, phone numbers have been changed, blah blah blah – sounds intriguing – but why should I believe him?

    Also – put yourself in his shoes – you see a mysterious man escort an undocumented passenger onto your plane. I can assure you of one thing – my ass would have found a different flight.

    Haskell’s story only has credibility if you already believe the narrative he is trying to support – then any proof or evidence becomes unnecessary.

    I’m not saying I believe the Feds here. I’m saying Haskell’s story has zero credibility.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Ray,

      Best wishes to you and the family this fine day. Bow season is opening this saturday and we are ready to whack’em and stack’em, LOL. There is alot to this story that the Lame Stream media will not talk about. Trying to keep an open mind, the timeline of this event and the subsequent use of body scanners at airports was more than I could pass up. here is Haskell’s most recent article about the events as they are today: http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-colossal-deceit-known-as-the-underwear-bomber-case.html

      I think it’s clear that I have zero trust in our governement. From the events of 911, the shoe bomber, underwear bomber and the Seattle incident is all just to unbelievable . There are even stories and pictures that Oklahoma City was a govt false flag. I hate the thought that our own governemnet will kill it’s citizens for political reasons, but they wanted to in the past (Cuba) and have used fake events to take us to war in the past (Gulf of Tonkin). I put nothing past them at this point in time.

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    So the Buffalo Bills win big over the Patriots – where is a good Charlie Stella gloat when you need one?

    C’mon Chas!

    • I have absolutely no clue as to the identity of Charlie Stella; but I’m a big Bills fan and relished in the glory of their kicker, Mr. Lindell. If one’s memory is clear and I’m positive that it is, remember the precise time last year when the Bills were leading by two with less than a minute and the Pat’s had Brady at the helm. So typical of Brady the last minute drive up and over the top of Buffalo which incidentially I believe started the worst season the NFL has ever seen — of course not counting the Lions from Detroit.

      For what’s its worth I like the intensity and precision that the Bills are bringing on game day. I hope it continues!

      Btw, the article “Time To Think About the Future” was delightful; unless we go full stop paramilitary or a semblance of it America is in for a big change. However, I believe we will work our way out of this mess, yet the hardest battle will be against Washington. Just one more thing…G-Man use a spell checker prior to publishing.\

      Kindest regards,

      Jon-Paul Schilling, ESQ.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    WTC7 – remember also that several news outlets reported earlier that day that a car bomb had exploded at the State Department.

    In a frenzied event like this it is reasonable to believe that some reports that are made will be unconfirmed – and not necessarily a whopper of an oops that reveals an orchestration of death by folks we routinely refer to as colossally incompetent.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Ray, That building went straight to the ground. Metal framed buildings will not do that because of fire damage. That was demolition at it’s finest.

        • Come’on Bob, we all know they used a cable and a Honda Civic to PULL out that one column that was holding Building 7 up.

          Take off your blinders man!!!

        • Bob,
          Please review the information from the “Architects for 9-11 Truth” – they debunk debunkers – permanently.

          Remember WTC7!

          • Sorry Flag, I have read through the site before but whenever they start talking about thermite and nanothermite I start to grind my teeth.

            • Bob,

              Then please explain the appearance of such in the WTC dust.

              • You want me explain the appearance of the product of burning rust and aluminium powder together in a demolished building that was full of office equipment?

              • Bob,

                No, sir.
                The existence of the UNBURNED iron oxide (rust) and aluminum powder, in small spheres requires explanation, not the reaction of it.

                The consequence of this reaction is well know – iron – and has already been noted – and equally unexplained.

                But the first item in question is the important one – for such is very hard to manufacture, and harder to obtain.

      • Ray,

        Here is the position you must hold:

        (1) If WTC7 – a heavily reinforced building – fell due to a few fires, then every steel frame building on Earth is critically at risk
        Question: why isn’t there a global, immediate, change to building codes, and abandonment of steel frame buildings?
        Answer: steel frame buildings do not fall due to fire.

        (2) If steel frame buildings do not fall due to fire, yet, WTC7 fell – why did it fall?
        (3) If every scenario presented by the authorities cannot explain why WTC fell – then, the authorities are avoiding on purpose the truth.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Black Flag – you changed the argument

          My position was that simply because BBC & CNN reported that 7 had/was collapsing/collapsed before it actually/finally did does not validate that there was some conspiracy involved in bringing them down as has been alleged.

          Why isn’t there a global, immediate, change to building codes, and abandonment of steel frame buildings?

          We don’t mitigate outliers – we don’t assume all such buildings will be hit by passenger airplanes packed full of jet fuel.

          http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

          • Ray,

            My position was that simply because BBC & CNN reported that 7 had/was collapsing/collapsed before it actually/finally did does not validate that there was some conspiracy involved in bringing them down as has been alleged.

            Why, actually it does.

            Foreknowledge is a demonstration of DESIGN, not accident

            No steel frame building has ever -until 9/11- fallen due to fire.
            Therefore, from what basis could anyone declare this event to happen that day?
            Based on what historical event, when none existed?

            The only historical event from which to predict such a fall has only occurred by purpose – a demolition.

            Therefore, such a prediction must come from FOREKNOWLEDGE – that such an event was DESIGNED to take place, since never in history has it happened by accident and only by design

            Seeing is not believing, Not seeing is believing, right Ray?

            Why isn’t there a global, immediate, change to building codes, and abandonment of steel frame buildings?

            We don’t mitigate outliers – we don’t assume all such buildings will be hit by passenger airplanes packed full of jet fuel.

            WTC7 was not hit by any plane.
            There have been dozens of fires burning hotter, longer, over larger areas on other buildings and None repeat, none have fallen let alone inside their own footprint

            Nature is asymmetrical – this Law of Nature underpins such thing as “SETI” – if we here a symmetrical radio signals, it is a huge clue to design – that is, intelligence – emitting it.
            If something falls symmetrically, it can only be by design

            • “WTC7 was not hit by any plane”

              It was hit by chunks of a 110 storie building though.

              • Bob,

                First, the damage was slight as WTC7 was a couple of blocks from the towers.

                Further, the damage was all on one side – which is asymmetrical – and if your suggestion was accurate, would have caused the building to fall over, not down.

                Note, that WTC3, 4, 5 were all in the way of WTC 7, were all hit more severely by debris, were all wholly engulfed in flame, and none fell down.

                Most importantly, not one of the official explanations relies on this damage, so your complaint here is even further beyond that speculation.

                Thus, Bob, your claim is wholly speculative, depends on massive causation of minor damage, a refutation of the laws of physics and motion.

                But you hold on to believing it.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              You cannot prove foreknowledge Black Flag – its an empty pot you are trying to stir.

              To my other example (bomb explosion at State Department) – it is clear that in an extreme crisis there can be inaccurate reporting – even when the facts or mere observation should prove otherwise.

              As to the “link” – I’d be interested in actual rebuttal – not your instance that it is merely wrong. There is no reason to consider you authoritative in the matters at hand.

          • PS:
            Your link has already been disputed and dismissed.
            A failure of one column would cause the building to fall sideways, which it did not.

            To believe this theory you present must require the laws of physics to be disputed.

            Pick one, Ray

            (1) The laws of physics hold even on 9/11
            or
            (2) The laws of physics were dismissed temporarily on 9/11

            • To believe this theory you present must require the laws of physics to be disputed. Turns out neutrinos can travel faster than light*.. so all of physics is up for grabs.

              *I’ll believe this once independent studies confirm. Until then, I’ll assume some systematic element in the experiment design is flawed.

              • Mathius,

                We already know of the probability that a particle can travel faster than light – that does not dispute Einstein – called Tachyons.

                Further, there is nothing about Einstein that makes him immune to new understanding – heck, Newton was displaced eventually too.

                The laws of the Universe are immutable – human understanding of these laws is not.

              • human understanding of these laws is not.

                So how can you be so sure that “a failure of one column would cause the building to fall sideways, which it did not”? Maybe you simply do not have a complete enough understanding of physics?

                Smile. I’m just having some fun with you.

              • Mathius,

                Yes, I know you are.

                “Anything” is possible, however, since no such building in all history has collapsed “down” whilst suffering asymmetrical damage, we can safely throw such an hypothesis of such an occurrence in this case away with the garbage, pending some spectacular, provable, theory.

                But at this time, the score is thousands to zero against Bob and JAC – and there was “nothing” spectacular in this case. Yes, the event was politically spectacular, but buildings have been hit by planes before, caught on fire before, wholly engulfed in flames before, and nothing of the sort has happened before.

                As stated, the causation to effect of Bob’s story is unsubstantiated in the face of direct and demonstrable proof of the more obvious – demolition – which WTC7 exhibits each and every aspect consistent with past demolitions.

                That cannot be said for Bob’s theory whatsoever. His relies on fantasy and bizarre physics.

                But “Seeing is not believing, not seeing is believing”.

        • BF

          Typical misdirect.

          “If WTC7 – a heavily reinforced building – fell due to a few fires, then every steel frame building on Earth is critically at risk”

          1. YOU assume and try to make me believe that WTC 7 was “a heavily reinforced building”, which means absolutely nothing in terms of engineering.

          2. “Due to a few fires”, which is a number of fires and does not address intensity.

          3. “every steel frame building on earth” ignores the fact that all steel frame building are not engineered the same. Or that this building may NOT have been such a “steel frame building”. Framing means nothing in tall structures. It is the Columns that support the building, primarily.

          And for the record, ALL TALL buildings are at tremendous risk, when compared to short buildings.

          Your #2. Because WTC 7 was not constructed in the same manner as “other steel frame buildings”.

          Your #3. They have explained it, folks like you just won’t accept any explanation that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.

          • JAC

            1. YOU assume and try to make me believe that WTC 7 was “a heavily reinforced building”, which means absolutely nothing in terms of engineering.

            No, it is a fact, and documented.

            2. “Due to a few fires”, which is a number of fires and does not address intensity.

            No, it is a fact that the intensity was not severe. We know this due to physical law of heat and light. The facts: black smoke and orange flame is a low heat fire, which was all that was observed.

            3. “every steel frame building on earth” ignores the fact that all steel frame building are not engineered the same.

            Actually, they are all based on the same theories – nothing new here.

            No “new” design is implemented without massive understanding and over engineering.

            Or that this building may NOT have been such a “steel frame building”. Framing means nothing in tall structures. It is the Columns that support the building, primarily.

            …WTC7 was NOT a tower, JAC.

            And for the record, ALL TALL buildings are at tremendous risk, when compared to short buildings.

            Nonsense.

            Your #2. Because WTC 7 was not constructed in the same manner as “other steel frame buildings”.

            Yes, it was – and reinforced to boot.

            Your #3. They have explained it, folks like you just won’t accept any explanation that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions.

            Laws of physics do not change, JAC and any explanation that depends on the laws of Physics to change will not fit my notions.

  5. The only thing that worries me, G, is getting the timing right. Start the fight too early and you make no impact, start too late and you let those who are trying to get started twist in the wind.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Jon, Very true. Interesting times to come, thats for sure.

    • The other problem is posting on the internet that you have to ‘fight’ to earn back our rights, so when/if the government moves towards tyranny, they already know who to take out KGB style before they can become the ‘terrorists’ that the founding fathers were to England.

  6. Short HiJack.

    Many of you probably are wondering why gold/silver/platinum all made dramatic downward moves.
    The key is: why did all the commodities move?

    On Friday, September 23, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) hiked margins on gold, silver, and copper.
    Then the metals crashed.

    This is standard practice.

    When a commodity gets “hot,” the CME hikes margin requirements.
    This usually causes rapid, large sell-offs.

    BUT…these sell-offs are brief because they do not represent fundamental change in the economy.

    The spot price is a short run view of future price.

    But I repeat: there has been no change to any fundamentals in the marketplace

    Long-term forces of supply and demand will re-establish themselves.

    Yesterday’s price moves were not a shift in fundamentals, IMO.
    They were specific reactions to new rules in the futures market.

    Fundamentals drive long-run prices.
    Futures market (short term) reacts to more than fundamentals. It reacts to changes in the rules.

    If you do not have 10% to 20% of your net worth (not home) in gold coins (80%) and silver coins (20%), buy. Buy NOW!
    Buy coins, use cash, take delivery.

    This event is an opportunity to buy more if have some, and to buy some if you have none.

    And, fittingly in a Gman post, do not dismiss this ploy as purposeful – to drive the prices down so that “smart” money can buy at a bargain, while at the same time panic those who bought at the high to sell at a massive loss (vampire strategy).

    Other, short term, drivers to consider:
    There will be a recession.
    This can drive down commodities.

    In a recession, people do not buy – they store cash and pay off debt.
    Remember, supply and demand is the primary driver of the economy, so as supplies accumulate, prices will fall. – even as the Central Banks inflate the money supply (see latest recession).

    But remember this: gold is a crisis hedge.

    There will be plenty of crises.

    • Regardless of all else, Flag is generally correct here. Nothing has changed in the fundamentals – if anything they’ve gotten worse. So if the price still had upward pressure (probably true), then the price will recover. If the price did not (probably not the case), then the price will stay down.

      The emerging markets are, to put it nicely, shitting the bed. The US is shaky at best. Treasuries, theoretically the safest bet out there, are so close to zero that there’s no point in “investing” since the return doesn’t exist. The only safe harbors in this economy are commodities. Sure, long term, I think they’ll drop back down as markets stabilize (though, of course, Flag does not think they will stabilize in the long-term). But if you have extra money, you can bury it in the mayonnaise jar out back or invest it – and there’s no where else to invest right now than commodities.

      So says Mathius.

      • Mathius

        I think they’ll drop back down as markets stabilize (though, of course, Flag does not think they will stabilize in the long-term)

        Depends on what “long term” means to you.

        The markets can stabilize in a year – if allowed to clear.
        The market might take decades to stabilize – if government interferes.

        The question remains: how much energy is left in government to interfere in the market?

        Therefore, the task is not to predicate when the market will stabilize but to remain aware of the fundamentals – when they change, then the strategy changes.

        I will let SUFA know when I see the necessity of a strategy change.

        I do, however, think this will not happen for a decade.

        • Okaaay, if you say so BF! I’m pretending not to see that dramatic downward strike on both charts. I also don’t see that silver is less than a dollar more than when I got it and that at one time gold was $700 more than when I bought and its now just a few hundred more.. What’s a person like me supposed to do when the numbers go below what I paid? Wait it out? How’s that working out for the homeowners? (not yelling).

          • Anita,

            Unless you were about to sell tomorrow, it does not matter what price the commodity rests at today.

            If you bought gold as a speculator, and you borrowed money to do that, the immediate price is important to you as may be forced to sell if your loan is called.

            If you bought gold as a hedge against economic disaster, the immediate price is important to you only as matter of the price you will pay to buy more if it.

            If you are buying, today is a good day.

            If you are selling today, you are a speculator going bust.

  7. Apologies for the early hijack, but I had to get this off my chest. I’ve been crazy busy at work and haven’t had much time to play with you lunatics lately, and I miss it. But here is something I couldn’t pass up posting here. I know what our resident pirate will say (and I look forward to reading it), but I’d like to see how anyone defends this.. anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

    Link

    • It cannot be defended as it is government action.

      • OK.. not quite where I thought you were going to go with that. Yes, it is a government action. But insofar as it is a government action (and all government actions are inherently evil, blah blah blah), what are you other thoughts?

    • No defense but I have no problem with it as the core word is choosing one thing over another. Also notice most of the court cases are traffic offenses. If I had a spending ticket I would choose to set in church every Sunday for a year (I and the majority of the people in the deep south already do this) to get the ticket off my record. They don’t call the south the Bible Belt for nothing. This is a local city program and if the community is for it let them do it. But I will say now that it has gone out on the mainstream media the program will probably get canceled because of what non residents say.

    • Ms. Bueller here. While it’s probably not technically correct, I don’t have a problem with it. Sounds like win/win all the way around. No one is forced to go, they are given a choice. Take it or leave it. Far less cost for the state, the person can still be ‘free’ , and taken with an open mind it may be a learning tool for the offender. What’s your take? Does this harm you or cost you anything, personally?

      • And why should Christians have an option that is not open to atheists? (I’ll go out on a limb and assume Jews can go to synagogue instead, etc)

        • The atheist has the same option. Check this out..As a Christian I may choose to attend the synagogue..how do you like them apples?

          • Did you hear that popping sound? That was my aneurysm.

            Why should I be forced to attend religious services in a faith I do not believe in in order to avoid being sent to jail?

            Put another way, let’s try some role-reversal. You are convicted of speeding. A Muslim judge tells you that you can go to weekly services at a mosque for the next few months, or you can go to jail. How do you feel about this? Is this an example of creeping Sharia law? Are you being discriminated against? Is it fair? Does this seem “American” to you?

            • You’re taking it too far. The question is do you want to stay out of jail or not? I don’t drink. But if the choice was to go to AA meetings for a year or go to jail, I’m going to AA. What do you want the choice to be? Community service is already on the table.

              • This isn’t AA. This is a religious service.

                Where you sit there and listen as a preacher reads from the New Testament and tells you what the will of God is. And if you don’t go to service, you go to jail.

                How is it that you can lament the war against Christians and Christianity in this country while simultaneously being blind to the obvious favoritism being shown to it? You gloss over my counter-example and replace Muslim services with (judeo-christian AA) and then react as if that’s ok. Of course it’s ok to you – it’s still your religion! Answer my question – if it was a Mosque, how would you feel about the “choice” being offered? To betray your religion (in many people’s views), to subject yourself to the proselytization of a faith you to not share, and the threat of incarceration as your only alternative.

              • Sorry bro!. I’m guess I’m not as offended by it as you are. I’m going to do whatever I can to stay out of jail. Send me to the mosque, send me to clean the outhouse, I don’t care. The alternative is jail..everyday..I really don’t want to go there. Be lucky you’re getting a choice.

              • Interesting repost from a friend in discussing this:

                Christians who feel persecuted feel that way because things they
                enjoyed for centuries is being wrestled away from them. Namely, the
                assumption of their de facto moral, political, and social authority.
                On some level, they feel they have a right to that assumption, and
                thus they feel violated when it comes under scrutiny, let alone when
                it’s denied to them.

                By the same token, I think a lot of us secularists who see stuff like
                this crap in Alabama probably tend to react a bit more strongly than
                necessary. Yes, people are wiping their asses with the Establishment
                Clause, and very often getting away with it (see Rick Perry). But if
                you compare where we are as a society to where we were just a
                generation or two ago, the trend is upward. Our strong reactions are
                partly due to the fact that we are only just now opening our eyes and
                seeing this stuff, and because it’s on the list of hot topics today,
                it’s being reported on a lot. But is it actually *happening* more
                than it used to? I doubt it.

              • Short version…Chill Out. 🙂

    • I Wanted to point out a Different View on this. If you are a regular Churchgoer, then this Judge is offering you a “get out of jail free”Card. Yes, you have to go to church, but you were going to anyway. No Punishment here! So, is this discrimination against people who do not go to Church??

  8. Almost every adult American has seen the videos of the collapse of the North & South towers. On September 11, 2001, the videos were shown over and over on the networks, all day long.

    Only a handful of experts have ever publicly argued that the cause of the buildings’ collapse was a system of controlled demolition.
    Anyone who dares to mention the pancake collapse of the third tower is rejected derisively as a conspiracy theorist.

    If the critic then goes on to point out that there were no plane debris at the alleged crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania — the parts were scattered for miles, indicating that the plane exploded in mid-air — he is dismissed as a nut case.
    Why?

    Because such a scenario raises an obvious question: Did the military shoot it down? This in turn questions the “Let’s roll” scenario of heroes on board Flight 93 who stormed the cabin.

    Millions of believers in the government’s “Let’s roll” version of the crash look at the small empty hole and do not see what is missing: debris. They see an empty hole and conclude that a plane crashed there.

    Not seeing is believing – seeing is not believing is the mantra around 9/11.

    This is why conspiracies have been successful in history.

    Roosevelt knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming.

    In1947, George Morgenstern’s book, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War, revealed a great deal of the truth.
    It was published by an obscure right-wing publishing house.

    He wrote it first as a series of articles in 1946 because he was employed by the Chicago Tribune, owned by Col. McCormick, who hated Roosevelt.

    Yet, this book is still unknown.

    Find more than a handful of lettered historians who will say this publicly. Any who do will find their tenure or teaching contracts terminated.

    Not seeing is believing, seeing is not believing.

    The point is simple:
    The Elite rules in terms of lies, spin, and cover-ups.
    The paradox: the People are somewhat aware of lies on minor matters – Clinton screwing around; nobody believed him; everyone piled up on him and forced him to admit – but, so what? What does Clinton’s penis have to do with anyone’s life?

    But on big lies, the People do not buck the regime.

    To do admit otherwise is to debate their own “wisdom” of consent. The People can make a mistake on an individual, that is merely a human fault – but on the matter of broad consent – the People simply can’t be wrong, right?

    It would undermine the religion of democracy.

    It would mean that patriotism is based on widespread gullibility.

    So, once the masses have adopted the Official Party Line, to abandon it means abandoning your old self and your old world of political legitimacy. It means that you are now on your own — an outlaw, a pariah – a Black Flag.

    To do this, you must re-think a great deal of the past.
    No one has the time to do this.

    Most people interested in public affairs sense the cost of abandoning the publicly held view of Big Events.
    The cost is very high.
    There is almost no positive payoff, other than being right.
    The other payoffs are very negative. Being right is often very expensive.

    So, for most Americans, seeing is not believing, seeing is not believing.

    Americans do not remember WTC7 – ask around your friends and colleagues, the general response will be: What building?

    The media do not mention it. They never did.
    The 9-11 Commission report did not mention Building 7.

    Building 7 was dropped down the memory hole.

    For those few people who have seen the videos of its collapse, this can be somehow explained, they insist.
    They cannot say how the collapse made sense physically, any more than NIST could, even after 6 years of investigating, beginning in 2002.

    NIST blamed Building 7’s fires on debris from the other two buildings, yet those buildings both collapsed without warning — no signs of burning debris. The debris is assumed to have caused the fires. There is no cause-and-effect evidence. It is assumed to have been the cause.

    NIST wanted to avoid the elephant in the living room: Building 7.

    NIST got away with it.

    Only the DVD of the 1,500 architects and engineers has offered a frontal assault by experts.

    This will have no effect on the general public. After a decade, no one cares.

    And so it goes, case by case.

    This is why the Official Party Line works, decade after decade.
    The cost of pursuing the truth is too high.
    The payoff is too low.

    But the future:
    The Web is undermining the Establishment’s control over information.
    The number of conspiracy theories is constantly increasing.

    This is undermining confidence in the state and its official explanations.

    But with respect to any one conspiracy theory, none gains the widespread acceptance of the official explanation.
    Conspiracy theories are more like rot than controlled demolitions.

    The day will come when the building will collapse by the slow rot of its foundations.

    I can guess what will trigger this.
    Government checks will bounce, or the money will not buy anything.
    That will be the day when the government sustained by lies, comes crashing down.
    Then, when all is lost, there is nothing left to lose.

    Then the People will cry: “They lied! They lied!”

    Then the question will be asked:
    “I wonder what else they lied about?”

    The Black Flag’s will be very old men by then.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      But Flag 🙂

      If the government said it, it must be true. They wouldn’t lie to the people 🙄

  9. Interesting comment from Blogworld of mine:

    With the forced low rates by the FED, pension funds are reeling – the investment return is near-zero, and no pension fund was organized with this in mind.

    Further, insurance companies are now at severe risk. They, too, are not organized to face a near-zero return on their investments – they need a good rate of return to be able to fund the insurance claims.

    His warning:
    pension funds will fail – find out if your is at risk – and get out of it now.
    Insurance companies will begin to fail – be warned, you may not get your claim filled if there is a systemic claim, such as a disaster.

    • Yes, I get it that the Chinese and Indians are snatching up gold for reasons more than I want to consider. It would settle my nerves if the deck wasn’t rigged (computer buying and selling and other ways of money manipulating). I’m to cheap to gamble so this game is hard for me to play. I won’t even buy lottery tickets.. I’m sticking with it though, nothing else seems safe..

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The gold/silver ratio has been interesting lately. At its closest recent point a few months ago, the ratio was 1:30 or so (one ounce of gold would buy you 30 ounces of silver). At silver’s low this morning, the ratio was 1:56 (one ounce of gold would buy you 56 ounces of silver). To me, this meant that silver was taken to the woodshed. Early this morning I traded 2 ounces of gold for 110 ounces of silver. I still have a decent stash of gold, but this increased my silver holdings tremendously. I doubt that the gold:silver ratio will stay this out-of-whack for very long.

      • Anita,

        Do not worry about motives – move to consequences.

        The government of China is actively promoting gold purchases by the common Chinese. Though most Chinese are desperately poor, even a small percentage of their “wealthy” individuals partaking even in a small increase of their purchases will have a profound effect on the open supply.

        Further, this is delivered gold, not paper certificates.

        India is the master of gold supply and demand and are sensitive to the prices – and an increase of 66% of purchases by Indians is a sign that the price of gold is not too high.

        As far as silver vs. gold – silver will always suffer larger moves, up and down.

        But keep this in mind:

        The rich do not buy silver, they buy gold.
        The Central banks do not buy and store silver, they buy and store gold.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Senor Flag, por favor (sorry, I was in the Bronx today). If you get a chance could you comment on the question I posed to you about Japan and its real estate market in “Lack of Content”: over the weekend.

          I must admit that I am leaning more and more towards the theory that the manipulation going on in the private sector is some joint venture with the government. Perhaps it did not start that way but it sure looks like its necessary to cover some asses.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Oh I agree BF, gold is superior to silver in many ways. However, any time the gold to silver ratio is > 1:50 something is out of whack, and silver is undervalued. 1:40 is probably even a bit high for the ratio. As such, dumping 2 ounces of gold this morning to pick up 110 ounces of silver seemed like a pretty good bet, especially since I have quite a bit more gold still in reserve. I suspect that before the end of the year, the ratio will be back around the 1:37.5 range and I can buy my two ounces of gold back and have 30-35 ounces of silver left over which I got “for nothing” (so to speak).

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  11. gmanfortruth says:

    It is a crying shame that the American people have basically given up their 4th Amendment rights as a result of all government sponsored events such as the underwear bomber. It’s bad enough that people believe this bullshit the govt and MSM spew, but they allow their rights to be trampled day in and day out. The fear mongoring BS is being extended to NFL games, and likely all pro and college sports in time. My guess is that there will be an event to pretext this. I will also guess it will be a national tv event. Careful, the boogieman with a towel on his head is coming.

    • Hey, at least they’ve left the Third Amendment alone 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        That’s funny. So, you must like being groped and treated like a criminal when you fly, are you coming out of the closet per se? 🙂

        • Not particularly. But I’m just glad the government is only groping me at the airport instead of my house.

  12. 😐

  13. Here is the story Bob and JAC (and others) want to believe:

    “The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

    In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

    The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

    In other words, a script for a James Bond film.

    Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is called, in irony, a conspiracy theorist nut

    Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

    If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

    A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future.”

    • Aren’t you the one who always talks about how incompetent the government is? How do you justify flipping between that argument and using it as evidence that it’s a conspiracy?

      Adding, a conspiracy by whom? The government? If they’re so incompetent, how did they orchestrate all of this?

      I guess the government could fool the government, especially is one is more incompetent than the other.. but bending the laws general guidelines of physics seems beyond the realm of a highly inept organization, no?

      So, it seems to me that you must either admit government competence or abandon half your argument.

      Which is it, sir!

      • Mathius,

        Aren’t you the one who always talks about how incompetent the government is? How do you justify flipping between that argument and using it as evidence that it’s a conspiracy?

        Mind your peas and carrots, sir! 🙂

        Government is incompetent in determining how people should live.
        Government is very competent in killing people. It is very competent in creating fear. It is very competent in destruction.
        One merely needs to look at war.

        Adding, a conspiracy by whom?

        By anyone or group who:
        (1) Benefits from a fully engaged US military in the Middle East
        (2) Benefits from an increase in the centralization of government force.
        (3) Benefits from an increase in the expansion of government force, policy and effort.

        The government? If they’re so incompetent, how did they orchestrate all of this?

        It takes but less than a handful.
        Ever watch “Jericho” 2nd season?

    • BF

      Here is a prime example of how you try to cram your logic, or conclusion, down somebody’s throat. In other words, how you project your views upon others without evidence, by using the trick of linking unrelated assumptions and then projecting them as the views or opinions of others.

      “If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks,” YES, that is what I believe.

      ” then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe.” NO, that is not what I believe nor do I support it. And in fact it is not necessary to address the first point.

      “The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.” NOT AT ALL. But that goes back to you projecting your conclusion upon me. Wrong again.

      • JAC receives 10 Mathius point!

      • JAC,

        “If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks,” YES, that is what I believe

        ” then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe.” NO, that is not what I believe nor do I support it. And in fact it is not necessary to address the first point..

        That may be true of what you believe – but it is NOT what the People nor the government believe.

        “The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.” NOT AT ALL. But that goes back to you projecting your conclusion upon me. Wrong again.

        Perhaps.
        However, that is the argument and the consequence of that argument you suffer under today.

        If you agree -as you have- that the US was attacked by Muslim terrorists, it matters not one wit about what you agree or do not agree regarding the response to that attack.

        The Government says “You agree we were attack by X?”
        You answer: “Yes”
        Government: “That is enough to give us the legitimacy to act in any manner we see fit” and your complaints about that are pointless. I merely point to SK and others regarding Japan or any “war” – “do whatever it takes to who ever we want to win the thing

        This is way it was so important for the attacks to be “muslim terrorists” – which easily led to attacking any muslim nation as the government saw fit – regardless of the lack of involvement in such a plot or with such terrorists.

        You played right into the government’s hands.

        • BF

          “You played right into the government’s hands.”

          I did no such thing.

          I am not responsible for Govt’s rationalization of its own actions.

          Your argument is that because I accept a truth I somehow authorize or am indirectly responsible for all of the Govt’s actions that follow.

          Yet you have in the past been very clear that the Japanese and German citizens bear no responsibility for their Govt’s actions during WWII and were thus “innocent victims” of American aggression.

          Seems your applying a double standard.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            JAC,

            You are a very wise person who knows that the average citizen has no idea what is really going on in DC or the world. I would bet that over 75% of our legal citizens don’t even know what the Patriot Act is!!! Ignorant citizens of the past cannot be blamed at this point, idiots who refuse to see that history is repeating itself, well, that’s another article. You not one of them, but to blindly believe their bullshit is rather silly. Spending to much time in the NW I am afraid.

            • gman

              You should know by now that I DO NOT “blindly believe” anybody’s claims about anything. Even my own.

              I suggest you look at the testimony by the hundreds of eye witnesses and participants to the series of events that led to 9/11. You will find the usual story of how individual decisions accumulate and cascade towards a single failure. Just as we find with all major accidents or incidents.

              But here is the most important thing to consider, no matter how much it may stick in your craw.

              IT DOES NOT MATTER.

              We have what we have TODAY. A majority of Americans do not trust Govt and agree it must be changed. Many of us have general ideas of what it should look like. We need to FOCUS on making that change and preventing the “OTHERS” from implementing their view of change.

              If we succeed then issues of conspiracy will no longer be relevant.

    • Heres the beauty of it BF, why do you think there is so much secrecy from the US government about this? Why, it is the same thing that several members of this site constantly state, the government is incompetent. The government that likes to project itself as the most powerful and wise throughout the world got caught with their figurative pants down. I would not be surprised if they feed snippets of information out to fuel conspiracy theories.
      Since then they have capitalised on the event, military budgets up, insane money to contractors, rich getting richer etc. I will not submit to the idea that it was an overarching plot by the government though. Too many eye witnesses, too much evidence to disprove the conspiracy theories. As time has gone on the conspiracy theorists have ended up clutching a few straws as their theories have been debunked.

      It is exciting to think of the government as a shadowy puppet master, but I think all it points to a colossal screw up by several agencies.

  14. Mathius

    Re your friends comments about Christians and perceived persecution.

    I think the same holds true for any group that feels its status quo threatened, regardless of what that position is.

    The absolutely rabid response of the Progressives to the Tea Party movement is another example. This country has been moving left for a hundred years. The reactions we are seeing are in response to a perceived threat to that status quo.

    In other words, this is the stuff of general human relations and interactions. Nothing new or unusual. It is only earth moving to those of us who happen to live during the “changing” times.

    • Fair enough.

      But I still contend that it’s the complete antithesis of the “American Way” for church attendance to be a permitted substitute for jail time, and that this is very unfair to those of us who don’t happen to be Christian. I also think, Anita’s statements notwithstanding, that she would be screaming to the rafters if her choice was jail time or mosque attendance.

      • I think you’re wrong 8)

      • Even for some of us who are Christian, it is wrong to be compelled to attend a religious service of any kind in order to avoid spending time in jail.

        I would not accept – as a Christian – being told I had to attend a Mormon church service anymore more than I would a Catholic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Mosque.

        Send me to jail and while I sit there I’ll start the lawsuit against the judge.

      • Mathius

        While I also do not like the choices provided, two evils do not make moral right, you certainly can not claim it is not the American way.

        Local officials, judges, have been giving people these types of choices for centuries. During my youth the most egregious was “join the Army or go to prison”. If you chose the Army you could find yourself in Viet Nam.

      • OH yea, If a judge said I had to go to a mosque or jail-I would be furious.

  15. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    I swear to God almighty that I am not going to get dragged into this damned thing again. So, no matter how provocative the answers, may be, I probably won’t respond. I do want the truthers out there to tell me just how many people you think, (A real number please) were involved in the plot, from inception at the highest levels of our government (but don’t forget Great Britain who had to be in on it too). Through the organization, the planting of the explosives, the pirating and disappearance of the airplanes, the setting off of the explosives and the covering up of the evidence. Obviously, the NYPD, Guiliani, the FDNY etc had to all be in on it too.

    Being as devious and deceitful as I am, I could probably keep the number below a few thousand but, what say you?

  16. Sorry, I was so horrified, I had to post this!!!!!

    New EPA regulations would require 230,000 new bureaucrats to administer
    Share21
    posted at 8:37 pm on September 26, 2011 by Tina Korbe
    printer-friendly

    The president has found a way to add jobs, after all — 230,000 of ‘em, all within the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s the number of new bureaucrats the federal government will need to hire to implement new proposed greenhouse gas regulations, according to a report by The Daily Caller:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be “absurd” in application and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.

    The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn’t give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency’s authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

    The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously — from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

    Keep in mind that the $21 billion figure doesn’t include the economic cost of the regulations themselves.

    Is it fair to criticize the president for the type of job these bureaucratic open positions would offer? Well, sure — the left constantly says Texas’ McJobs don’t count. These paper-pushing jobs grow the administrative state and come at a high cost to taxpayers. They burden the economy rather than add value to it.

    But public-sector jobs seem to be the only kind of jobs the president knows how to create. From the beginning of the recession in January 2008 to the middle of 2010, for example, the private sector lost some 7.9 million jobs, while the public sector gained 590,000 jobs. From the passage of the stimulus bill in February 2009 to the middle of 2010, the private sector lost more than 2.6 million jobs, while the government workforce grew by 400,000.

    In case the president does care to create more private-sector jobs (and my fingers are almost numb from typing this solution repeatedly), he might consider opening up the Gulf. According to the Consumer Energy Alliance, increasing the pace of permit approvals for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico would create 23,000 new jobs in virtually every state in the country, bolster GDP by $44 billion and generate nearly $12 billion in revenue to state and federal treasuries. From drilling products producers to truck drivers, from tug boat operators to farmers, Americans across the country stand to benefit from this ever-so-simple solution.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/26/new-epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-bureaucrats-to-administer/

    • Sorry G-I’m done now – But have you ever heard such crap!! Geithner would do better just to shut up-as say this crap!

      $200K Per Job? Timothy Geithner Says White House Jobs Plan Is Still a Bargain

      By BEN FORER
      Sept. 26, 2011

      Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t dispute a Harvard economist’s estimate that each job in the White House’s jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the pricetag is the wrong way to measure the bill’s worth.

      And he also pointed out, in an interview today with ABC News’ David Muir, that there is no other option on the table for getting the economy moving and putting more people back to work.

      “You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,” Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.

      “If government does nothing, it does nothing now because they’re scared by politics or they want to debate what’s perfect, then there will be fewer Americans back to work, the economy will be weaker,” he said.

      “We can borrow money for 10 years as the government of the United States because people have confidence in this country at less than 2 percent,” he said. “The responsible path now is to take advantage of the unique position we’re in as a country. People have a lot of confidence in us. Let’s take advantage of that now to do things that help growth in the short-term.”

      Geithner told Muir he believes there is a “very good chance” the Jobs Act will pass because the proposals have seen bipartisan support in the past and the cost of inaction is far too high.

      “If the alternative plan is for Washington to do nothing, that’s unacceptable,” Geithner said. “If the alternative plan is to sit there and say we’re going to cut our way out of this by just cutting spending, that would make the economy weaker. Or we’re going to sit here and just complain about regulation. … That will not do anything to help the average family now still suffering so much from the crisis.”

      At the same time as Geithner is trying to help spur the U.S. economy, he is pushing European leaders to act quickly in the face of a looming crisis.

      After a generation of high government spending, Greece is on the brink of bankruptcy and if it collapses it could take down other European economies and leave American banks with $41 billion in losses.

      In the last week, the average American’s 401k has lost $7,000 because of Europe’s instability.

      “It hurts people very directly and very quickly when stock prices fall and the value of their pensions fall,” Geithner said. “[Greece] borrowed a lot and they spent too much. … [I]t’s going to take them years and years to dig their way out of that. … I think they have time. But not very much time.”

      Even in the face of a stagnant economy at home, Geithner said there are signs that things are turning around.

      “If you talk to companies around the country like I do, you’ll see that something — something very promising is starting to happen right now,” he said. “Companies are starting to relook at where they produce, American companies, companies that moved things to Mexico and China decades and years ago are starting to rethink it.

      “With all our challenges as a country, most companies that have the opportunity to produce or to compete around the world, they’ll still say it’s better to be in a company headquartered in America and we still have the strongest fundamentals,” he said.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/geithner-good-chance-jobs-act-pass/story?id=14609951

      • gmanfortruth says:

        No need to be sorry VH 🙂 It’s called Thinking about the future for a reason. This is all important.

  17. SK,

    I do want the truthers out there to tell me just how many people you think, (A real number please) were involved in the plot, from inception at the highest levels of our government

    A study already demonstrated that no more than 5 is necessary.

    (but don’t forget Great Britain who had to be in on it too).

    Not necessary.

    Through the organization,

    No more than 5 – everyone else is merely following orders.

    the planting of the explosives,

    Done years in advance.

    the pirating and disappearance of the airplanes

    No one necessarily suggests this.
    Planes can hit buildings – but that is different then planes knocking down buildings.

    , the setting off of the explosives

    One button.

    and the covering up of the evidence.

    Shipped off within weeks to be melted in China and Japan.

    Obviously, the NYPD, Guiliani, the FDNY etc had to all be in on it too.

    Only doing what they were told to do.

    Being as devious and deceitful as I am, I could probably keep the number below a few thousand but, what say you?

    5

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I rest my case……

    • Can you name them? Not specific names but something like Director of CIA, etc.

      • Anita,

        Do not assume they are necessarily part of the US government.

        • SK TrynoskySr says:

          Here we go…..

        • Not assuming. I think you and GMan are on different tracks though. I remember going through this before and you seemed to think the owner of the towers is in on it. I think G is all over govt guys though. Juuuust curious.

          • Anita,

            What do you mean “in on it”?

            There is a difference of being the “director behind the play”, and an actor in the play.

            • Understood. But I don’t think you’re going to answer me anyway :). I’ll try again. Who directed the events of 9/11?

              • Anita,

                Anything I give is speculation and conjecture and pointless.

                What does exist however are these questions:
                (1) What really happened?
                (2) Why did it happen?
                (3) Who benefited from it?
                (4) Who is responsible for it?
                (5) Who is accountable for it?

                None of these have been answered.
                After these answers, I can answer your question.

  18. Mr Flaggie,
    So it’s 9/11 again. Let’s start with a few of your “facts”:

    If WTC7 – a heavily reinforced building

    WTC-7 was not “a heavily reinforced building”. It was built over a sub-station that was designed to support a building, but not a building as big as WTC-7. Therefore, WTC-7 required special engineering to support the load – braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders. This is not “a heavily reinforced building”, but special engineering to support the building.

    And this special engineering actually makes the building more vulnerable – because if these special components fail, the entire building will collapse.

    fell due to a few fires

    A few fires? Once again you try to mitigate things that do not fit your theory. Several floors, including those with the braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders, were engulfed in fires that were not fought for many hours.

    then every steel frame building on Earth is critically at risk

    Yes, every steel frame building on Earth is critically at risk from a 9/11 type event. Or an asteroid strike, or a nuclear weapon, or a 18.9 magnitude earthquake. But these are all rare events, and therefore we do not design buildings to withstand them.

    Question: why isn’t there a global, immediate, change to building codes, and abandonment of steel frame buildings?

    Because 9/11 was a rare event, and we do not design buildings to withstand that type of event.

    Answer: steel frame buildings do not fall due to fire.

    Wrong. Under the right conditions, they do.

    If steel frame buildings do not fall due to fire, yet, WTC7 fell – why did it fall?

    But it did fall due to fire. And it’s design made it susceptible to such an event.

    If every scenario presented by the authorities cannot explain why WTC fell – then, the authorities are avoiding on purpose the truth.

    The scenario presented in Ray’s link explains why WTC-7 fell.

    Foreknowledge is a demonstration of DESIGN, not accident

    No steel frame building has ever -until 9/11- fallen due to fire.
    Therefore, from what basis could anyone declare this event to happen that day?
    Based on what historical event, when none existed?

    As Ray said, there was a lot of confusion on 9/11. Based on the damage to WTC-7, the fire department predicted it would fall and PULLED fire crews out of the building. BBC & CNN simply confused the report.

    Therefore, such a prediction must come from FOREKNOWLEDGE

    No, the prediction does not necessarily mean FOREKNOWLEDGE. The prediction could have been wrong. But you focus on this to try to create “evidence” that does not exist.

    How predictions have you made? If some of your predictions have been right, does that mean that such a prediction must come from FOREKNOWLEDGE?

    There have been dozens of fires burning hotter, longer, over larger areas on other buildings and None repeat, none have fallen let alone inside their own footprint

    Show me one example with similar construction to WTC-7.

    Nature is asymmetrical – this Law of Nature underpins such thing as “SETI” – if we here a symmetrical radio signals, it is a huge clue to design – that is, intelligence – emitting it.
    If something falls symmetrically, it can only be by design

    WTC-7 was not designed by nature. It was designed by man. And it’s design allowed it to fall symmetrically.

    First, the damage was slight as WTC7 was a couple of blocks from the towers.

    Not a couple blocks, but one block. And WTC-1 was over 1000 feet tall. If you look at the picture in Ray’s link (and many video’s) WTC-1 debris easily reached WTC-7.

    And the damage being slight is your opinion, not a fact.

    Further, the damage was all on one side – which is asymmetrical – and if your suggestion was accurate, would have caused the building to fall over, not down.

    Please provide PROOF that it would have caused the building to fall over, not down.

    Note, that WTC3, 4, 5 were all in the way of WTC 7, were all hit more severely by debris, were all wholly engulfed in flame, and none fell down.

    WTC-3-4-5 were much smaller buildings and did not have the special construction of WTC-7.

    Most importantly, not one of the official explanations relies on this damage, so your complaint here is even further beyond that speculation.

    The official reports rely on the fire caused by the falling debris.

    Your link has already been disputed and dismissed.

    Please provide a detailed analysis that dismisses Ray’s link.

    A failure of one column would cause the building to fall sideways, which it did not.

    Please prove this and provide examples.

    To believe this theory you present must require the laws of physics to be disputed.

    Only in your mind to support your theory. Ray’s link provides a perfect explanation.

    “Anything” is possible, however, since no such building in all history has collapsed “down” whilst suffering asymmetrical damage, we can safely throw such an hypothesis of such an occurrence in this case away with the garbage, pending some spectacular, provable, theory.

    Just because it has never happened before doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Ever type of event has to occur for the first time at some point. Your dismissal shows your desire to find a conspiracy where one may or may not exist.

    there was “nothing” spectacular in this case

    What? Jets hit skyscrapers. Skyscrapers collapse. And you see nothing spectacular? How often have you seen these events occur during human history? Examples?

    No, it is a fact, and documented.

    WTC-7 was not reinforced. It had special engineering to transfer and support the load. Not reinforced.

    No, it is a fact that the intensity was not severe. We know this due to physical law of heat and light. The facts: black smoke and orange flame is a low heat fire, which was all that was observed.

    This is what could be observed. It does not tell you what was happening inside the building.

    Actually, they are all based on the same theories – nothing new here.

    Theory is different than actually engineering done for each building.

    No “new” design is implemented without massive understanding and over engineering.

    You have stated in the past that buildings are not “over engineered”. That is too expensive. A building is “engineered” to some standard, not “over engineered”.

    WTC7 was NOT a tower, JAC.

    JAC did not say “tower”, he said tall building. 47 stories is not “TALL” by your definition?

    Yes, it was – and reinforced to boot.

    WTC-7 was not constructed like other buildings, and it was not reinforced. It had special engineering to transfer and support the load. Not reinforced.

    Laws of physics do not change, JAC and any explanation that depends on the laws of Physics to change will not fit my notions.

    The official explanations does not require the laws of physics to change. It just requires you to understand what happened.

    The laws of the Universe are immutable – human understanding of these laws is not.

    This is the only valid statement you’ve posted here. Our understanding of what was going on inside WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 is very limited. Your constant statement of “absolutes” is nothing more than trying to justify your theory.

  19. Todd,

    Let’s take your points one at a time until brain matter oozes out of your ears.

    The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed.

    A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[8] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building’s structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames

    Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space…

    In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

    ”We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,” said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ”Sure enough, Salomon had that need…

    MORE than 375 tons of steel – requiring 12 miles of welding – will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon’s extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower’s fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

    • So we are done here, right?

      It was built stronger than necessary, agreed?

      • No, it was built to support the load.

        • Todd,

          *What*???
          All the documentation provided has stated -with no question- that it was designed to support a larger building then what was eventually built

          Now you are utterly ignoring written, documented fact.

          You are getting nuttier by the minute.

    • Black Flag,

      The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed.

      A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[8] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building’s structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames

      This is exactly what I said – WTC-7 was built over a sub-station that was designed to support a building, but not a building as big as WTC-7. See the words transfer loads to the smaller foundation?

      ”We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,” said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ”Sure enough, Salomon had that need…

      Yes, Salomon took advantage of the engineering of the original building. But that is not “a heavily reinforced building”. That’s a building engineered to support the load.

      MORE than 375 tons of steel – requiring 12 miles of welding – will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon’s extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower’s fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

      Again, they reinforced the building to meet Salomon’s needs. But that is still not “a heavily reinforced building”.

      • Todd,
        *cough*

        So a stronger build, to you, is weakening it.

        You are nuts.

        COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
        By MARK McCAIN
        Published: February 19, 1989

        BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.
        http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html

        You are grasping at straws here. You cannot win this one – your efforts in this debate better served elsewhere.

        As one pundit quipped:
        They built the structure so well that it free fell from a small fire and structural damage.
        There were too many reinfocements holding it together than when one part feel it took everything with it which is why it all collapsed in one piece.
        😉

  20. Todd

    A few fires? Once again you try to mitigate things that do not fit your theory. Several floors, including those with the braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders, were engulfed in fires that were not fought for many hours.

    Engulfed?
    You jest.

    ..next lie you want to present.

  21. Black Flag,
    I asked the last time we had this discussion, and I’ll ask again. What’s your theory on what happened on 9/11 and why?

    And you provided even better questions – Thanks!

    The “Official” answers are (at least close to this):
    (1) What really happened? – jets, fire, collapse.
    (2) Why did it happen? – al-Qaeda doesn’t like us
    (3) Who benefited from it? – No one
    (4) Who is responsible for it? – al-Qaeda
    (5) Who is accountable for it? – al-Qaeda (and of course Bush/Cheney!!)

    Since you do not accept the official explanation, what are you answers to your questions:
    (1) What really happened?
    (2) Why did it happen?
    (3) Who benefited from it?
    (4) Who is responsible for it?
    (5) Who is accountable for it?

    • Don’t mean to interrupt-but Todd-why do you blame 9/11 on Bush/Cheney-Bush only became president in 2001-How is it his or Cheney’s fault?

      • V.H.,
        Please – Please – interrupt!!! Stop me from going down this rabbit hole AGAIN!!

        The Bush/Cheney thing was just a joke!!

        Are you trying to blame Clinton?? 😉

    • Todd

      (1) The jets, fuel CANNOT cause the problem, they cannot burn hot enough – this is physics and chemistry.
      Your attempt to manufacture fantasy is amusing, however.

      (2) You claim that a bunch of “rag heads” can defeat every western intelligence agency. You are insane.

      (3) You do not see the involvement and benefit of US forces in the Middle East. You are geo-politically naive.

      (4) See (2)
      (5) See (2)

      I don’t know, which is why I posted the questions.

  22. Todd

    Yes, every steel frame building on Earth is critically at risk from a 9/11 type event. Or an asteroid strike, or a nuclear weapon, or a 18.9 magnitude earthquake. But these are all rare events, and therefore we do not design buildings to withstand them.

    But Todd, building have been hit by planes and not collapsed.

    The consequence of this strike is fire.

    There was no structural consequence or else the buildings would have fallen at the strike – which they did not.

  23. Todd,

    Because 9/11 was a rare event, and we do not design buildings to withstand that type of event.

    This is blatantly untrue.

    The buildings were designed to withstand multiple aircraft strikes.

    Do you now need to out-and-out lie about this?

  24. Todd,

    Not a couple blocks, but one block. And WTC-1 was over 1000 feet tall. If you look at the picture in Ray’s link (and many video’s) WTC-1 debris easily reached WTC-7.

    And the damage being slight is your opinion, not a fact.

    I said no different.
    “Slight” means the impact did not collapse the building, nor did it weaken it.

  25. Todd,

    Please provide PROOF that it would have caused the building to fall over, not down.

    …ah, PHYSICS and MOMENTUM.
    Grade 12 stuff, Todd.

    • Hold on Black Flag. To claim momentum as a reason as to why something falls over instead of down you have to make a pretty big assumption. First at the intial start of the collapse and during a good portion of it you have to assume that the building is acting as a rigid body. Most buildings are not designed to act like rigid bodies. They are designed to sway and bend and some even to collapse in on themselves when destroyed. Without knowing the stucture of the building itself one cannot make any assumptions about its rigidity thefore cannot determine whether or not to treat it as a rigid or a flexible body. This is definatly not 12 grade stuff unless you treat the building like a block of wood. But that would be like those stupid physics questions that say your suppose to assume there is no friction ( when is ther never any friction).

      This is higher level college material, that would require extensive static and dynamic analysis with a great deal of stuctural material understanding.

      • Agreed. I do not have any suprise that the building went down not over, especially since, as BF mentions, WCT7 was not a tower. However, it should still have been a less symmetrical fall, and certainly not so fast or a perfect implosion. If it was that easy, then there would be no need to have special engineeringexperts setting explosives for building demolishion.

  26. Todd,

    Only in your mind to support your theory. Ray’s link provides a perfect explanation

    As stated to Todd, his “link” has been wholly discredited, and hardly “perfect” as it violates the laws of physics.

  27. Todd,

    WTC-3-4-5 were much smaller buildings and did not have the special construction of WTC-7.

    So your theory is:
    The stronger the reinforcement the weaker the building.

    Hmmm…..

  28. Todd,

    Just because it has never happened before doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

    ..yep, and right up there with visitations by aliens….

    I guess that is part of your theory too, right? Anything utterly improbable, never happened before must be your first answer and thus discard the obvious one immediately

    Yet, that is irrational.

    The probable is first tested, and then if found not applicable you move to more improbable circumstance. But this is not what was done.

    In fact NIST says this

    “The buildings did not collapse due to explosives because we did not test for the markers of explosives”

    You can take that to the bank.

    Ever type of event has to occur for the first time at some point. Your dismissal shows your desire to find a conspiracy where one may or may not exist.

    Odds a billion to one can occur on the next event.
    But you are married to that

    You have not tested at all for the more probable – and those that have tested such have found it … but such facts are immune to your necessary psychosis.

  29. Todd,

    What type of construction was used for these buildings

    Steel Frame

  30. Todd,

    “Several floors, including those with the braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders, were engulfed in fires that were not fought for many hours

    Let’s take this backwards.

    Do an experiment, Todd.

    Take a spoon
    Set it on the stove, and crank the burn to max.
    Let it sit for 1 hour – test the spoon
    Let it sit for 14 hours – test the spoon.

    Tell me the difference.

    Next, there is that “engulfed” again. There is absolutely no evidence of such – none.
    Further, if such an event did happen, it was asymmetrical which means one side would have failed before another – causing a tilt over not a fall down.

    This is the whole problem with your theories, Todd.
    To have it your way means the consequences cannot be what was seen.

    To have the consequences as seen means it could not have been your way.

    But you want the impossible – your way plus the impossible consequences.

    That is why WTC7 is the smoking gun – it simply could not happen the way the “official” story claims … impossible

  31. Bottom Line says:

    I can go on and on and on picking apart the official story, but I’ll be leaving for work very soon, so I don’t have time to do so, or debate until later tonight…maybe.

    Here’s a good place to start.

    Exhibit A – WTC7 fell at or near free fall speed, which tells us that there was no resistance, nothing holding it up, no structural integrity whatsoever. This means that hundreds of support mechanisms had to all fail COMPLETELY.

    Exhibit B – Duration of the collapse. In about 5 seconds, the building went from a standing structure to literally dropping from the sky. This tells us that hundreds of structural support mechanism had to fail almost simultaneously.

    Exhibit C – The symmetrical nature of the collapse. This tells us that there was order, organization, and thus preparation involved.

    For hundreds of support mechanism to fail symmetrically, simultaneously, and completely, means that there is no way in hell that fire brought it down.

    Steel structures will burn, and collapse. But nothing like that under those conditions, and never before with that type of building.

    Fire is a natural chaotic process. It is not orderly and/or organized.

    So, can someone tell me how McQuaeda snuck into such a secure building housing all kinds of govt offices, banks, insurance corps, etc… and rigged it throughout with explosives without getting caught?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      So, can someone tell me how McQuaeda snuck into such a secure building housing all kinds of govt offices, banks, insurance corps, etc… and rigged it throughout with explosives without getting caught?

      The terrorists did no such thing. Actually, there are no terrorists, just a figment of the MSM’s and governements imagination passed on to the sheeple to cause fear. Follow the money and all the answers are there. Silverstein had these buildings that were full of asbestes, so paying to have them fixed would have been very expensive. Much cheaper to have some govt paid ragheads hit them with a plane and fake the demolition. Collect the insurance and finish the job at minimal expense. Nice and neat!

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Your turn, how many people involved? Top to bottom, start to finish.

        • “three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead” – Ben Franklin

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            Totally agreed, and my point.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings*
            http://www.prisonplanet.com/governments-admit-that-they-carry-out-false-flag-terror.html

            • gmanfortruth says:

              It really doesn’t appear that keeping a secret is that hard for governments. After all, you talk you die.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Sounds like a replay of “War Plan Orange”. This is what happens when you elect a 42 year old president whose favorite author was Ian Fleming. Note that the “plan” to take down an airliner omits any mention of follow up with the friends, families or relatives of the deceased. I must admit that as a minor civil servant I was constantly tasked to prepare “what if” wishful thinking blueprints for the future as well as worst case scenarios. F-86’s painted or not do not readily pass for Mig 15’s, 17’s or 19’s except in Hollywood. Any ten year old boy at the time could tell the difference. How about we actually use a real one that the North Korean defector brought to us? Hell, then we could have an F-102 shoot it down after it made a “firing pass” and have gun camera footage. We could then “capture” the pilot or recover his body.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          SK, Good Morning Sir 🙂

          I’m guessing, but I would say maybe 10 high ranking govt people, and a few very wealthy civilians. Those lower are already dead, so they don’t matter.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            If I have a chance timewise, I will concoct a recipe to cover the eventualities of 9-11 from your perspective and do a headcount. I will be on the bus-train today and should have some time to think about how I would have orchestrated it. In the interim, how does the Pentagon fit in? Cover only?

            PS, the asbestos went only to the 70th floor before the ban took effect. Then it was that spray on paper mache stuff. Most NY buildings are covered with the stuff. Issues usually arise at demolition and substantial rehabilitation in most other cases, if intact it can be left alone. If working around it, encapsulation is approved. I’ve done it.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              The Pentagon issue is a joke. It is interesting that the place hit just happened to be investigating a large amount of missing money. The investigation ended that day and the money was never accounted for.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            This is a highly complex issue and would take significantly more than the 5 people BF sees behind the plan. First and foremost in my mind is the fact that there are a great number of very angry firemen out there in NY and elsewhere. Some of these people are skilled explosive and arson technicians. Do you, for one moment think that they would be willing to shove it, and their brothers corpses under the rug FOR ANY REASON? This, if you happen to know any firemen, is a very REAL question and not easily dismissed. My old Pappy used to say that what one man can put together, another man can take apart.

            Now ideally the best way to put this together would have involved a non-US intelligence agency like the Mossad. If the job had been contracted out to them, they could have assembled a team to plant the explosives, easily smuggled the explosives in diplomatically and used their henchmen within Muslim terrorist organizations to recruit the hijackers. BF stated above that to believe it was only terrorists then one would have to believe that that rag tag bunch was capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire US intelligence apparatus. The Mossad could. They are pretty sharp on keeping secrets.

            Then we get to the why? Larry Silverstein’s connections and asbestos? How about dragging the US into a real shooting war in the Mideast? That certainly would seem to be to Mossad’s benefit cementing the relationship between Israel and the US. Offhand, those are the only two that seem to make sense. The US government would not have contracted with the Mossad since then again you get into the number of people in this country who would know something. Who else then, would benefit?

            US planning would involve thousands of Americans. Some brighter than others. All subject, even if following obscure orders to deliver X cargo at midnight to Y loading dock at WTC 1, 2 or 7, to asking embarrassing questions or shooting their mouths off. Here we have people procuring explosives in quantity, transporting them, installing them in the right spots. We have people recruiting Muslim terrorists, getting them into flight schools, arranging their convenient boarding of airliners that morning. Air traffic controllers would have to be involved. There would have to be approval from the top and just based on what we know of LBJ, JFK, The Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon, Watergate, Reagan, Iran-Contra, we know people will sometimes just follow orders but rarely keep their mouths shut in the aftermath. There is the issue of either recruiting the hijackers, or of making them disappear along with the real planes and passengers. People had to do that and those people will talk.

            Mathius’ Franklin quote is appropriate, Sometimes, Occam s razor is the only way to go. Despite the fact that the Mossad scenario would at least be more plausible than any other and my old idea of having the explosives installed by workmen disguised as telephone company installers, I still cannot, in my wildest imaginings see it being deliberate. Somebody, somewhere would talk and somebody somewhere, probably many somebodies would have seen something way out of the ordinary. Couple that with the previously mentioned PO’ed firemen and the current ineptness of the goons behind “Fast and Furious”, there is just no way.

            • AMEN, SK. Very well said.

              I like a good conspiracy theory as well as the next guy. But it just isn’t plausible.

            • One thing I have learned from 911, what I thought was unthinkable, became reality. I would have never thought that a bunch of cavedwellars could concoct and acheive such a scheme, with nobody ever findinig out about it beforehand. Wait, just how many people knew about it and how come it was kept secret till it happened. Oh, at least 20 knew of it plus those that funded them, which makes the number much higher than 30. But yet the whole thing was kept secret till it happened. But yet, few will believe that it could be something other than a terrorist attack, cuz no one else could possibly keep a secret as good as they apparently did for years.

              But wait, it’s impossible to keep it secret the way some folks have proclaimed when more than one person is involved. Oops, wrong again.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Under the best case scenario for a conspiracy, it was done by non US professionals who lack some of our scruples and are capable of keeping their mouths shut. They can also work in a smaller environment doing most of what they do “in house”. In any event best case or worst case, CIA for example, the number of people involved will be huge, far larger than double digits.

                Also the issue of professional firefighters, professional explosive and fire investigators must be addressed. They have not all miraculously disappeared from the planet over the past ten years and are, as a rule, an angry group. They would not allow this to be shoved under the rug, period.

            • Sorry, SK and USW, but the idea that a non-US group would have to be used depends on the idea that US citizens would never do such a thing. It depends on the idea that they would either be questioning or too stupid to keep a secret or too loyal to the US or too caring of people. I would love to believe that. But I dont.

              Look at the time involved and the number of people involved in the progressive movement. Look at how long it has been operating and how deeply it has entrenched into so much. USW you have mentioned this yourself. Is it the same thing? No, but it is not as different as you imagine. Very wealthy persons hiring the right people, citizens or not, is not implausible. And those types of people keep secrets just fine, they have no interest in fame.

              Now I admit it certainly is a stretch, but so is the idea that the entire body of US intelligence missed this. Sure, incompetence does not surprise me either, but a collaborative effort would not surprise me. Sometimes the neatest explaination from a standpoint of not having to involve “our people” or leaders or whatever is not the truest one. If, in fact, it was not anyone in our government and they just happened to use the windfall to their advantage, then why are they lying about what all really happened? Would not the revealing of how serious it really was only lead to even more power? I just dont think the neat explanation is good enough for me anymore, not in light of all the other lies. Heck, I have reached the point where I assume the official story is false by default. It is by far the exception that the truth is told by our leaders. They tell so many lies already, why is it so hard to believe they could pull off more lies and keep it under wraps?

  32. 9/11

    Who cares who the guilty party/parties are really? Whether it was terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim terrorist cell or terrorism by the US Government – it’s still terrorism against the people of the USA.

    It’s the fallout from the acts that are the long term concerns.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Very true. The U.S. has lost more lives engaged in perpetual war in countries that had nothing to do with 911. Yet the sheeple just trudge along as if eveything is OK.

      • G…I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that you are dismissing the muslim extremist/terrorist angle completely. Are you saying there is no such thing as Al Queda or Hamas or Hezbollah and that there have been no attacks on anyone by this figment of my imagination?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Anita, Al Queida is a organization invented and funded by the CIA. The Muslum brotherhood was brought together by MI6 (British intell). Al Queida is confirmed to be leading the Libya rebels, which of course we are helping. When someone can explain why we are fighting them in Afghanistan while helping them in Libya, then I will understand that we have a problem. So far, all we have to go on is what the government and the MSM tells us, If you choose to believe them, then you will fear the boogieman. Actually, I’m considered by our government to be a racist domestic terrorist, so I’m your new boogieman. The terrorist scam is coming unglued and they need a new angle to promote their fear so that the sheeple will rely on them to protect them.

          The fear of Communism came unglued, the terrorists became the next in line. That is coming unglued so now it must be a disgruntled vet who believes in the 2nd Amendment and Constitution. Their fear mongering is getting old and I’m not buying it anymore.

          • Assume there is no US Government. Does Al Queda go away and we live happily ever after?

            • Within 10 years or less, absolutely. Without funding and organization they will collapse. What funding they can muster on their own would come from oil. Without US government in the way, the US would consume its own oil, and its withdrawal from the global oil market would cut OPEC’s profits in half, at least. Muslim extremists will continue to exist, but as an organized threat? Not so much.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Yes, by elliminating the source, the problem goes away.

      • Gman,

        Yet the sheeple just trudge along as if eveything is OK.

        I assume the “sheeple” you are referring too are the conservatives that support the wars, not the liberals who oppose them, right?

        • absolutely. Both sides are sheeple, but, at least in that case, the conservatives drank the koolaid far more readily than the liberals.

        • Good Morning Todd,

          Your assumption is incorrect. My reference to “sheeple” has nothing to do with political views. I do not support the wars and I’m far from liberal. I would like to see a poll as to who supports the wars based on that though, I don’t know anyone around here that supports them, although they support the troops stuck in the middle.

          • Hey Gman,
            Polls have shown that a majority of Americans do not support the wars now – from both sides of the political spectrum. But that wasn’t the case in 2003 and 2004 when the wars were just getting started.

            Speaking of supporting the troops, what your opinion of the audience at the last GOP debate booing an active duty soldier serving in Iraq, when asked a question about DADT?

            • Todd

              I would like to comment on this one. Now given I did not hear it live but on tape. However I did hear the whole question and audience reaction.

              First, I wasn’t sure they were booing the person as much as the question and the elimination of DADT.

              Despite this, I thought it was disrespectful to boo any question asked by another citizen.

              Second, and perhaps what irks me the most, it was not “the audience” but some members of the audience. Just like the reactions widely reported from the previous debates.

              Seems to me there is a concerted effort to take these reactions of some/few and project them upon the “Tea Party” because the current Democratic Party strategy is to create Satan from the Tea Party and then link ALL Republicans to the Tea Party, aka Satan.

              I am hoping you see through this. I don’t expect you to change your political stripes but that you can at least admit when game playing is afoot.

              • JAC,
                I agree it’s getting blown out of proportion, but the bigger problem I see is the breakdown of common courtesy and respect for others. We can disagree and even have heated discussions, but when it becomes ok for audience members to shout out, and town hall meetings turn into shouting and pushing matches, what’s next?

                Does it really matter that it was only one or a few members of the audience? Or whether they were booing the person vs the question? I wouldn’t expect the entire audience to have the same reaction, but maybe they will the next time? At a previous debate, after a question about what to do about an indigent person in a coma, someone shouted out “let him die”. Now it’s booing someone who asks a question that “you” don’t like. Again, what’s next?

                My other thought is if someone booed an active duty service member serving in Iraq at an Obama/Democratic event, and no one on stage reacted to it or objected to it, the right would harp on that forever…

                I am hoping you’ll admit that the “game” is being played by both sides. 😉

            • Todd

              Absolutely agree it is being played by both sides. And I am disturbed by it as well.

              As I have said many times here at SUFA, a general loss of civility in our country is detrimental.

              This combined with the fact we now have “left” and “right” media outlets just fuels the flames.

    • Who cares who did it? Do you really think, if there was proof that our own government, or some private endeavor, or some collaboration, conspiracy, or coverup, that we would be where we are now? People need the truth to react to things properly.

      Still, I do question, if Al Quaeda was not involved, what did they have to gain by taking responsibility. And if they were involved in some conspiratorial way, what was their payoff and reason for being involved?

      • So Bush and company – and continuing with Obama and company – have reacted to things properly?

        It’s like continuing the argument over who “really” killed JFK. It’s done and ten years on it is the consequences of those acts that have us at the point we are at in this country now. Do you think that if the government was irrefutably and conclusively shown to be totally, 100%, responsible it’ll change anything at this point in time?

        The only “gain” from the attacks was by the government – just look to crap like the Patriot Act to support that understanding.

        • No, they have not, and that is my point. Their reaction was justified in the minds of the people/sheeple because there was someone to blame. Remove that blame and suddenly the support evaporates. We would have a VERY different political landscape. Would it change anything? Absolutely. Would it change the past? No, of course not, but it is like once on a path always on a path. It may be hard to turn a big ship once it is on a path, but you can abandon it or blow it up or sink it or any number of things, its not like everyone, if they found out 9/11 was an inside job, would just throw their hands up and go along for the ride. Some might, but most would not. Not to say their reaction would necessarily be good, but it would not likely be good for the government at least.

          The government did gain a lot, and the only chance of waking people up enough to take those gains away is to show them the man behind the curtain was both the cause and the one who benefitted.

          • The support evaporating will not change what has been done to “make the US and her people safer.” The sheeple will be outraged, oh yes – hear them scream! So what does the current government do? They’ll find those “responsible” in the Bush administration and bring them to justice (those that didn’t suddenly die from “heart attacks” or commit suicide, etc…), thus “reassuring” the public how this is being cleaned up – yada, yada, yada. (I think I’ve seen this movie somewhat before…………)

            In the end, enough will not wake up and jump ship. They’ll ride their Titanic all the way to the bottom. Until the inevitable implosion of this national experiment occurs the majority of the people will live with whichever man behind the curtain that they “elect.” Isn’t that why we call them sheeple?

  33. Ray,

    You cannot prove foreknowledge Black Flag

    *cough*

    Of course you can!

    You say that this building of here is going to fall down, and then it does.

    There were lots of buildings with fire, some very badly damaged – but they picked “this one” … and a few minutes later it does.

    • That is still conjecture/circumstancial. It is evidence, but not proof. Further, the reports were, even if you theory is right, information sent too early. The odds of foreknowledge by the BBC are ridiculously high. Conspiracies, as you have pointed out, require fewer people. It is a pretty big error to make on such a precise time table, unless the demolition was delayed and not all players knew.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      My point sir was that you have not proven it – my scenario is more likely, especially given how the CNN anchor presented it.

  34. “All of this is really not important now, it’s over wth. The problem is that very few people even see the impending economic destruction about to engulf them. It’s not going to just be the U.S. but everyone on this planet. The saddest part is that the very group the people will ask for help from those that caused the problem in the first place. Once that occurs, slavery has just become legal again in the United States, and no one can stop it once it takes hold. Everyone will be subject to it, fair or not, legal or not, and unconstitutional for sure.

    But as this is already happening, the sheeple are silent. They are brainwashed by the pathetic MSM and our own government. Folks, government is not responsible for your safety! You are! Until the sheeple realize this and destroy the Liberal mindset, they will win. The very people promising your safety are the one’s causing the reason for those fears to begin with. It is really time for people to say NO MORE!”

    OK, but the same government and media that informed us about 9/11` are our source for information on the economic issues. I should say governments, from Greece, China and the US. All are manipulating their currencies, causing instability. The US is also agitating the Middle East, announcing Pakistan is supporting terrorist groups while Turkey has said they would escort the next blockade runners into Israel.

    Weather you think 9/11 was a US gov. act or terrorist, has the direction the liberals have taken us made any part of our lives better?
    The economy?
    Security and foreign conflicts?

    If anything, this should be a wake-up call to everyone that we need to stop doing the same thing over and over. Both political parties have shown they are more interest in retaining power than resolving any issues.
    Possible game changers:
    Ron (end the Fed) Paul, a near WW1 isolationist.
    Herman Cain, fiscal conservative
    The TeaParty

    • Considering options other then a full economic collapse leading to the ‘end of the world as we know it’, the individual can only prepare for bettering themselves and their situation when the tax man cometh.

      – Do not count on social security to finance your future, save as much money as possible all your life. We can debate calling social security a ‘ponzi scheme’ or not, but the government admits that on its current pace the funding will run out. (this is trusting that the banks are still around and the government does not take all your money out of them, that would fall under ‘end of the world as we know it’)

      – Never live paycheck to paycheck. There are times when sacrifices must be made. Tax rates will go up. Maybe not this year, maybe not in the foreseeable future, however, with the debt the United States has, eventually there is no other option. (Fundamentally changing the way the government works is not an option in this scenario; that falls under ‘end of the world as we know it’) When tax rates skyrocket to European socialist levels, will you be able to afford your car/house/credit card payments. (except for people like D13 that pay 100% cash.)

      – Food, Fuel, every thing is starting to cost more, and inflation is causing us all to actually make less then a few years ago. Other then stockpiling tons of gold, cutting back on luxuries to make room for necessities must be considered before it is too late. Can you get to work or the store without driving? Can you start your own garden?

      – Get to know your neighbors. Not everyone has Mr. Rogers as a neighbor. When times get tough for everyone, knowing and being able to count on the people that live closest to you could help the most. Is it just me or does it feel like your community is shrinking as the years go by, from knowing most everyone in town, to knowing people that are on your street, to knowing only the people next door, to recognizing what your neighbors look like.

      • Naten

        Good points all.

        We just need to remember that the Govt has three ways to resolve the Debt.

        1. Raise Taxes
        2. Inflation
        3. Cut Spending

        I have been preparing for two of these. If they suddenly go after “cuts” I could be in real trouble.

  35. One thing I’ve never understood in this theory, that the government did all this evil-is why WTC-7 -If they used planes to destroy the towers -why would they risk putting explosives in a building that wasn’t gonna be hit by planes?

  36. Ray Hawkins says:

    Nightmare in Libya: 20,000 Surface-to-Air Missiles Missing

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199

    Gee – wonder where they went?

  37. Ok, so here are some thoughts on the theory that it was not the planes that caused the fall, I will hit other aspects of some of the theories in a bit.

    1) WTC7 could have, concievably, fallen straight in rather than over due to the way in which is was reinforced, constructed, etc. All of the WTC buildings, especially the towers, were designed with a core structure so that they would be more likely to fall in than over. HOWEVER, in no way could the building have collapsed at the rate that it did without sudden collapse of the entire central structure. Demolitions of buildings require careful planning and have to be set in specific places in order to create a controlled and quick demolition. That is what all three buildings looked like, for the most part. The free fall would have required a simultaneous loss of integrity over most if not all of the floors that happened all at once. Even a naturally occurring thermite reaction, caused by a mix of iron oxide and aluminum under enough eat to initiate the necessary chemical reaction, would not have been able to collapse the whole building at once. Like any other fire or chemical reacition, it would radiate out from its initial point, and the structural integrity would have failed in one area before it failed in areas farther from the initiation point. A free fall collapse in not possible with a naturally occurring fire, and not enough fire could have dropped down into the building to ignite thermite reactions among all of the floors at once.

    2) Even the main towers would not have been able to fall as rapidly as they did without a similar distribution of thermite initiation. Certainly, thermite reactions could have been initiation within the existing materials in the WTC towers, but it is not at all likely that such a perfect distribution of those material would have existed along the entire length of the central structural core of the building.

    3) The existence of UNBURNED thermite in tiny speres belies the idea that it could have been random or that the thermite reaction was among existing materials within the towers. The chemical reaction does not initiate little balls of material before reacting. The fact that there was thermite material that did not means it had to have been there, and in a form that could not have been part of construction.

    • jonsmith

      I think the unburned thermite was placed at the site after the fact. Probably by operatives of the Anarchy movement.

      • Ok, so that explains traces of explosive. It does not explain the actual collapse of the buildings. I am not sure if you have ever worked with thermite chemical reactions, but solid pieces do not initiate easily, and I am not certain such reactions could have occurred at all at jet fuel heat levels. More importantly, it would not have been so evenly or widely spread. This is particularly the case with WTC7. Now I know that if something happens, then the odds, no matter how long they may seem, are 100 because it happened, but when you dont know what happened, you still have to look at the likelyhood of a scenario. And the likelihood of such a scenario, where all of the destruction was due to progression of flame and the building materials without any other orchestraction and started by the impat of two large airplanes, is so very remote as to make the whole theory practically implausible.

  38. A little something for all those who believe what they are told about how the Bush Tax cuts ONLY FAVORED THE RICH.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/tax_demagogues_are_lying_liars_in_one_graph.html

    • Alright Charlie! This commenter is talking to YOU…..

      theBuckWheatYesterday 07:48 AM

      There is a basic problem in any comparison that includes the “top x percent” because the top is open ended. We live in an age unlike any in human history, where a single person can create something very unique and valuable and thus to earn (not steal) wealth from others. In all previous history, people were only able to do so by being heads of governments and using the military to expropriate the property of others. Who would have imagined a time when the intellectual tools would become so powerful that, for example, two college students working in their dorm room could develop an idea that created more wealth that the GDP of most nations? This company today employs over 28,000 people and has made the founders amongst the wealthiest people on earth. And yet in the process, how much wealth have these two brought to others? Or what do we do with author J.K. Rowling, who was a single mom camping out in coffee houses while scribbling the first Harry Potter novel? From whom did she steal or exploit that created a billion dollars of wealth for her? We suffer from the infectious thinking that somehow these people really should not be able to enjoy the wealth they created. Shame on us for our coveting what we did not earn. We are suffering from the infection of socialism, the idea that we can live at the expense of others, that is until there are no others to exploit.

  39. We’ve been given great lessons from our economics gurus here at SUFA. What else should we be doing?

    http://nation.foxnews.com/stock-market/2011/09/27/trader-i-dream-stock-market-crash

    • Kathy

      If you have sufficient funds and are in fact prepared, then go ahead and profit from the gyrations in the market. Look for weekly or monthly cycles with as much leverage as you can get for the risk you are willing to take.

      If not, then you should simply increase cash and put it where you can reach it. Like FDIC protected savings or in a safe deposit box in a local bank.

      One specific idea, if you are inclined. Look for rental properties, apartment buildings are better but single family houses are OK, where the gross rents less 30% can make the payments or better after your down payment. Ideally you would want the net rental income to return 10% on your down payment AND cover the PITI costs.

      Demand for rentals will increase I believe. Especially single family homes. We are not at the bottom but close enough that if you can find deals with a 10% Cap Rate and cover costs you will be way ahead when inflation raises its ugly head. And you will have income in the future.

      Ironically, your worst enemy in this scenario is the Tea Party. A flat tax with Zero deductions would eliminate the additional “after tax” revenue you get from applying the “depreciation” deduction to your regular income.

      • I think we are OK in most areas, but my biggest concern is my husbands 401K. It’s “his” and our views differ on if it is safe. I have considered the rental property scenario and appreciate the numbers as a guideline.

        • Kathy

          The 401 K is NOT safe, at least in absolute terms. I do not expect the Govt to confiscate the money, but they could push to have it rolled into govt investments or mess with eligibility. If you have other “safety net” goals met then maybe it is not a big worry and you can let it mature.

          Re rental real estate, consider this. The 401 K could be used to pay down the rental real estate once it matures. You just need to run numbers to see what trade offs might occur in retirement income stream.

          But remember, inflation is real today and will be real tomorrow. This means that most of us can only stay even by INCREASING our income stream. We can not do it by cutting costs alone. Historically, rentals were considered an inflation hedge. I am not sure that will hold true in the future as inflation could actually decrease our ability to pay as the population gets older. That is why you need to make sure and do the deal on the purchase and not hope for future rent increases to make the deal. If they do come then it is icing on the cake.

  40. On who done it:
    1) If it is established that more was involved than just a couple planes, there remain five possibilities that I can think of.
    A) Terrorists infiltrated, not only pilot schools, but engineering ones as well, and then, posing as maintenance persons or some such, they planted thermite with the intention of initiating the reaction in an extravagant way, using airplanes. (extremely unlikely)
    B) Some organization that stood to gain planted the explosives with the intention of destroying the buildings. They either staged the hijackings/pretended to assist real terrorists to intiate the destruction of the buildings, or they got lucky when terrorists hit that they didnt have to find a better way to excuse the explosion. (unlikely but possible, except for the last part)
    C) Elements in our government or involved with our government that stood to gain from the destruction and/or the implication of terrorists set explosives and staged or helped set up the hijackings. In the process their infiltration of the terrorist organizations also had the organizations taking credit for the attacks, or if they were only working with cells, they talked the leaders into taking credit. (most likely scenario)
    D) Elements in our government, upon learning of the terrorist plot, chose to allow it to proceed and to expand the impact of the attack for their own purposes, be it power gain to financial gain for some involved. (almost as likely as scenario C, but requires more persons to be involved than a totally orchestrated version)
    E) Thermite is put in for some other reason or purpose, and the planes ignited it, creating a very unfortunate conflation of events. (laughable)

    2) The idea that buildings were taken down at great loss of life due to the cost of removing asbestos is not likely. I will grant that personal gain does not have to be huge for government action if you know the right people and rub the right palms, but reducing the costs of renovation is a little too small to be the sole motivator. Other things than just money for some devlopers would have to have been involved.

    3) The idea of making a new enemy in the vacuum left by communism is very likely. Tyranny cannot last without an enemy to redirect anger towards and initiate fear of in order to expand or maintain control. Without an enemy, people will rise against tyranny. The ability to manipulate news and reporting is well known and established, there is a lot of precendent for it, so the odds of the terrorist threat being overstated is good. So, too, are the odds of terrorists being made a greater real threat through direct funding AND through policies such as continuing dependence on foreign oil/energy.

    4) Terrorists would have gained a lot, at least in the eyes of some, by striking this blow, but they stood to gain less than the government did, and they DID gain less, by far. Sure, they got a lot more of a boost on spreading terror, but that is nothing compared to the power gained by our government and the loose chunks of revenue thrown about in emergencies and wars.

    5) The odds of there being secrets or evidence that needed destruction at the WTC complex is quite likely. The odds of that including stuff the government themselves would want destroyed is also great.

    6) The whole concept is hard to get your head around. It would still require some very careful work, planning, and a lot of secrecy. That is difficult stuff. The idea that this was wholly a terrosist plot is easier to believe from the standpoint of execution, secrecy, etc. But from the standpoint of what happened, the results of the attack, it is VERY unlikely, since the hijacking might be possible, but the explosives are not. Either way, there was more to it than the official story, no matter what the real truth is, I can say with confidence that what we have been told is not it.

  41. Well, I expected this to happen, I wrote about it and now the left wing idiots are talking about it.

    Democratic Governor Calls For “Suspending Elections”

    News Observer
    Tuesday, September 27, 2011

    Speaking to a Cary Rotary Club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

    “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that,” Perdue said. “You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

    The comment — which came during a discussion of the economy — perked more than a few ears. It’s unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious — but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea. http://www.prisonplanet.com/democratic-governor-calls-for-suspending-elections.html

  42. Bottom Line says:

    I’m not really satisfied with my 5 minute articulation earlier. It was abbreviated a bit as I was about to leave for work. Consider this a slight expansion, but still an abbreviation…

    I’ve done a lot of 9/11 research. And there are a lot of interesting coincidences and contradictions about the official narrative that are suggestive and/or conclusive, that we are all being told a bunch of BS, that there are elements within the system that had to have been at least involved in it’s planning and execution(no pun intended). But nothing so far that I’ve heard or seen trumps the physics argument.

    Building 7 is a good place to start as it was not hit by a plane. This makes things a bit simpler.

    If you care to watch just about any video of WTC7 collapse, you will notice that the first outward signs of collapse begin with the damaged section of the building shedding a few pieces(0.0 sec./start). Next the penthouse starts to cave in. The center of the building crimps…

    Then, at around the 5 sec. mark, in one single moment, the whole entire building literally drops out of the sky at or near free-fall speed.

    What is happening in those 5+ seconds is cutter charges rapidly and progressively disintegrating the structural integrity of the building. It is hundreds of supports being blown out in perfect timing and order.

    It is a building being cut into pieces, and falling from the sky.

    The falling from the sky part is key as it is based upon a definitive point of reference.

    32 ft./sec/sec. is the default rate of acceleration of Earth’s gravity. It is the fastest anything can fall(and must be done in a vacuum/no resistance). The more resistance an object encounters, the slower it will accelerate.

    If you stand at the top of a 47 story building and drop something with a relatively low drag coefficient like an apple/rock/ball,rain, etc., with nothing in it’s way besides air, it’s going to accelerate pretty damn close to 32ft/sec/sec.

    This is what WTC7 did. When measured, It is observed as having a fluctuating rate of acceleration that was at or near free-fall speed. This can only be possible with virtually no resistance. The only resistance it encountered(other than air) was the compacting of broken up pieces of itself as it fell.

    It was, at around five seconds into the “collapse”, INSTANTLY AND COMPLETELY DEVOID OF ANY AND ALL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HOLDING IT IN THE AIR.

    The whole entire building drops…SYMMETRICALLY AND NEATLY STRAIGHT DOWN..

    Everything about it’s collapse spells ORDER.

    Fire is CHAOTIC in nature.

    A natural low temp class A(office fire) or B(fuels) fire cannot almost instantly, symmetrically, and completely break an entire building into little pieces. It just doesn’t do that. <—-period

    This means you are being lied to.

    Why would they lie?

    So what does almost instantly break a building into little pieces? What is the only thing[s] that mankind knows of that can do that?

    And what would explosives be doing rigged all throughout a building, especially one such as that one with so many important government and corporate offices? How did they get there? Because I ain't buyin' it that a bunch of Saudi/Afghan terrorists did it.

    The only even remotely legitimate explanation that I can possible think of is that it was rigged long ago as a contingency against enemy infiltration. (i.e. – If we were ever invaded and they captured WTC7).

  43. Bottom Line says:

  44. Black Flag,
    In your typical style, you present all your arguments as fact and opposing arguments as false without providing any evidence.

    You claim Ray’s link has been discredited, but so have all of yours.

    You call “my theory” utterly improbable and irrational, while ignoring that your theory is even more improbable and irrational.

    You cling to the modifications made by the Salomon Brothers, but ignoring the fact that these modifications were made to support the increased load the Salomon Brothers would place on the building. It was not “a heavily reinforced building”, but a “a heavily modified building” that had to be reinforced to support the additional load.

    You claim other buildings have been hit by planes or engulfed in flames and not collapsed, but ignore that they were concrete encased steel or typical ‘post & frame steel’ buildings – very different construction from the WTC buildings.

    You discredit everyone else’s theory, but never provide a theory of your own, because you know if you had to lay out all the details it would collapse like a house of cards – at free-fall no less.

    • Todd,
      While I do not agree with all of BF’s statements on this issue, since some are indeed not verified/verifiable and others are conjecture, etc., The fact remains that your theories are unsound. I am not an engineer, at least not officially, but I have a solid understanding of mechanical properties of structural materials and design. Much if this I learned from my dad, who is, in fact, a mechanical engineer with a specialization in builsing structures and codes.

      A free fall of a structure is NOT something a fire can accomplish. Not with ANY steel framed building. Such a catastrophic and widespread collapse would require the start of an immensely hot fire, or an explosive force, all at once over a VERY wide area.

      So, the theory is that some exposives were set, on purpose, and with purpose. You resist this idea, but you have no ability to explain away the reality of the structural failure of WTC7.

      • Ok Jon,
        You don’t like “my theory” (it’s not really my theory, it’s the one accepted by the majority), then please:

        1. Explain, in detail, the errors in this report on WTC-7:
        http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

        2. Present your evidence that explosives were used on WTC-7.

        3. Present your theory – in detail – that explains everything the happened on 9/11.

        If you can’t do this, then you have no ability to explain away the reality of the structural failure of WTC7.

        • Science can’t explain everything, it is never truly “settled”. On thermite, isn’t it usually iron oxide and aluminum oxide? When dissimilar metals contact over time, they react, causing corrosion. Could the thermite traces not be “natural”?

          • LOI
            Re; Thermite

            Thermite is Iron oxide + aluminum ->1800F flame, like a magnesium sparkler -> iron + aluminum oxide+4500F heat.
            Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3

            A wholly exothermic reaction and is unstoppable until the exhaustion of fuel.

            And no, the mixture is perfectly stable – in fact, you can put thermite in a fire and it will do nothing.

            And no, iron oxide is NOT a reactive – it has already oxidized (hence “rust”) and is inert.
            Aluminum does not oxidize naturally.

            There is no such thing as “natural” thermite.

            • LOI
              PS to the thermite post

              The components must be finely ground – a hunk of rust on top of a beer can will do absolutely nothing, ever.

              You have to grind them together (1/3 iron 2/3 aluminum) into a fine grind, like coffee.

              • I think, if I remember correctly, that the mix is 2 parts powdered iron oxide to 1 part powdered aluminum. To make a thermal explosive that will ignite via wick, etc., one would then mix in 10% or so of a slow burning black poweder. The formula is 8/3 iron oxide to aluminum. It is not a true explosive, but it burns immensley hot. A beer can full of the stuff will burn a hole through a big block V-10. Setting it on your annoying neighbors pickup would be a bit more than a prank.

                Sustained heat is typically required to ignite thermite, jet fuel fires may not reach the necessary heat levels. Regardless of whether they do or not, sustained fire could have initiated a thermite reaction if the proper mixture was in place. So, if, as has been theorized, there was some sort of preset demolition to make certain the towers could never fall over, it could have been accidentally initiated. Tho, if that theory is viable, the heat of the fires would be irrelevant since proper detonators would be in place as well, and you would only have to have fires compromise the initiation of the reaction.

                To my knowledge, such a mixture would not have been possible “naturally”. Aluminum is not used in construction in a manner that would allow the two substances to rub together and deposit thermite mixture along the heigth of the structure, so it cannot be “naturally occurring”. Aluminum is sometimes used in exteriors of buildings because it does not rust progressively. In other words, the surface of aluminum oxidizes almost instantly, but it does not penetrate beyond that like it can with iron/steel. It also is used in exteriors because it is lightweight and relatively strong. It is NOT, however, strong enough to be put in as a structural item, nor would it be worth the expense to use it for other internal things where there is already protection from the elements. In general, dissimilar metals are avoided anyway due to corrosive, electrical, and variable effects of temperature. So, unless something VERY strange was done with the WTC buildings, there could be no chance of sufficient aluminum in proximity to iron structural beams at all, much less in a way that could form into properly mixed little balls, to explain away unburned thermite, or burned thermite for that matter.

        • @Todd
          Firstly, I do not have to have a full theory to see that there are problems with an existing one. Secondly, I am not entirely convinced that the accepted theory is wrong, just that it is, at least, missing some information. There are too many things that are not explained by the theory accepted by the majority. I was opposed to the bulk of the conspiracy theories from the start, and remained so until recently. Furthermore, I still see more holes in many of the conspiracy theories than in the widely accepted version, but there remain holes in the accepted one too. Maybe there is just info that we have not and may never find out that explain the oddities. Maybe that info was destroyed or its discovery botched, etc. Maybe there is no conspiracy at all. Still, there are serious questions.

          The most glaring problem in the report is that the model shows collapse due to the removal of a column, not the kinking at the top. Even then, the model does not explain a full free fall. It explains how a single column failure could have a domino effect, and how the structure could be a self contained fall. How damage at the top, however, can lead to full collapse does not work. There is falling debris damage and some fires, but all of it was localized in the top 10 floors. It is not as though the columns were removed or made void by this as the model implies. From what I know of structural columns, damage at the base is more likely to initiate a collapse, not damage from the top down. This is because columns are an extension of the strength of the foundation, they are not hung from the top of buildings.

          Now certainly, momentum of collapse can smash and crumble that which is below it as it falls, and the expanding mass and downward momentum can do a lot to collapse a building. Still, without the removal of structural support at multiple levels at once, a free fall is not possible. The report describes how it could appear to be a controlled fall, concentrating on the question of the small debris field, etc. It does not even address the question of the rate of fall. Not an error, but missing a major factor of reality in the formation of a theory.

          My evidence that something, not necessarily explosives, was used, is the speed with which strucural support vanished and the evidence that thermite was in the wreckage. Thermite might not be an explosive, but if properly positioned and lit along support columns it would easily result in a full collapse at free fall speed.

          As far as a detailed theory, I posted several possibilities. I do not have enough information to post in detail, nor enough time, but it seems to me that there is certainly information being ignored, hidden, or explained away, and a variety of other factors here. There are lies. And lies usually are told to cover something. I dont know what for sure, it could be government conspiracy, or business conspiracy, or both, or just covering incompetence, who knows. But it is the existence of the unknowns and the existence of a LOT of motive to tell such lies and even to carry out such a horrible thing as the destruction of those buildings that bothers me. And honestly, those in power stood far more to gain, and in fact gained a lot more, than the whole extremist islamic crusade ever did or will.

          Now, I wont ask you to explain anything in detail, but I would like to hear an answer to the issues I brought up about this report you linked to. Honestly, I would love to be able to go back to thinking it was not an inside job.

  45. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Ok conspiracy theorists, what are the odds?

    The Boston Red Sox predicted by many to be going to the world series this season and led the American league this summer, have a 7 – 19 win loss record in September. Only the 1952 Red Sox lost more September games by losing 20 and the season is not over yet. The Red Sox now tied with Tampa with one game left. Sudden death tomorrow if still tied after today.

    Was this done to peak baseball excitement (follow the dollars right?….) how few would have to be in on it to keep it a secret? How about any silent wives? What were they promised? What were any involved players/managers payed? Were players required to be hypnotized at there contract signing, thus allowing subliminal messages to control there quality of play without player knowledge?

    Earlier this summer there were comments of how boring the season was with New York and Boston having bought there way into the playoffs. No other teams have the bucks these two teams have to sign players. Now this!!! How can it be??? Something ain’t right! Right?

    Tongue in cheek, but sometimes I do have to wonder, 🙂

    • Puritan

      You know as well as I that it is those Damn Yankees who orchestrated this. Just more long term effects of Mr. Lincoln’s war of aggression.

      🙂

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I see rumors of an additional wildcard team next year for each league, with a ONE game playoff between the two wildcard teams in each league. TV networks want one game for the great suspense, they are opposed to 3 games do to lack of interest. Or that is how the rumor goes. What better way to test the theory than to have a couple one game tie breakers tomorrow? We shall see………….. 😉

  46. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/09/chart-climate-change-spin-cycle

    The comments after this article are FAR more interesting than the article. The article is typical leftist-spin-garbage.

    What is interesting is that the moderators at Mother Jones seem to be allowing actual relatively civilized debate on the subject and not censoring “opposing views” and I didn’t see a whole lot of vitriol in the comments section either. I find that at least mildly encouraging.

    • German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble said it would be a folly to boost the EU’s bail-out machinery (EFSF) beyond its €440bn lending limit by deploying leverage to up to €2 trillion, perhaps by raising funds from the European Central Bank.

      “I don’t understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea. The result would be to endanger the AAA sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense,” he said.

      Mr Schauble told Washington to mind its own businesss after President Barack Obama rebuked EU leaders for failing to recapitalise banks and allowing the debt crisis to escalate to the point where it is “scaring the world”.

      “It’s always much easier to give advice to others than to decide for yourself. I am well prepared to give advice to the US government,” he said.

  47. A strong signal regarding the health of an economy, from BF’s underground:

    Illegal immigrants from Mexico are heading back to Mexico, where the market for semi-skilled workers is better. Furthermore, far fewer illegal immigrants are coming here from Mexico.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409221,00.html

    This is serious – sources of employment that have been the standard in America for the last 100 years are closing.
    Unskilled laborers are hopeless – unless he is an entrepreneur – which is very rare.

    Significant social consequences are building into a tidal wave.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      That article is from August 22, 2008. They will come back to apply for all the shovel ready jobs Obama is handing out, 😉

      Seriously though, how many Americans would last more than one day with a shovel in their hand? Think about it. People used to do physical work, but how many could do it today. Most of us would be so sore after one day of digging we would not be able to walk or stand up straight for a week.

    • BF

      Running a little behind the curve aren’t you? This report is over two years old.

      The out migration was widely reported and was tied directly to the housing collapse.

      • JAC,
        Please show me documentation which demonstrates the reverse of this.

        • BF

          Why should I have to do that to prove that your report is three years old?

          Trying to create another diversionary argument?

          You brought up the idea of some potential “tidal wave” of social implications. So since this is three years old, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW did that tidal wave occur?

          Or is it yet to happen at some undetermined time in the future that can not be identified but is absolutely certain?

          • JAC,

            Your post was an attempt to contradict mine, which means you believe it is not true.

            I post it, because nothing has changed – it is still occurring and still demonstrating the root issues.

            Thus, if you do not agree – that is, you do not believe the condition as I posted, Please post your “more recent” nformation that contradicts mine or else mine must stand!

            • JAC

              WHEN, WHERE, and HOW did that tidal wave occur?

              When? — someday. I am not an soothsayer.
              Where? — wherever the reverse migration is occurring. The article said “the United States”.
              How? — the ever increasing pool of unemployed, unskilled workers. Black youth unemployment stands at a reported 45%.

              Now you conjuncture the consequences of that….

            • BF

              I was not questioning the accuracy of the report. However, since you asked:

              http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=112

              While there were reports of large “out migration” from the USA back to Mexico, the data presented by PEW seems to indicate it was more a reduction in migration TO the USA than those returning to Mexico.

              Note that the data is for the same period in the report you cited.

              • JAC,

                Your source is better than mine (mine being (yeech) FOX news), so yours wins.

                However, iyour information is noteworthy given the rabid attitudes of anti-immigration advocates.

      • Georgia Pacific has just announced 700 will be laid of in Arkansas. No timeline for recall & they are holding a jobfair to assist them in finding other jobs. I guess they don’t see housing recovering anytime soon.

    • “Significant social consequences are building into a tidal wave.”

      I am seeing more stories about senseless violence. Much of it is black on white.

      http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20110928_2-year-old_shot_in_mob_brawl_in_S__Philly.html

      • LOI,

        Yes, that is a consequence, and it is likely to get worse, including any color on any color.

        Poverty and hunger is blind to race.

        • Poverty and hunger are blind, but African Americans are impacted harder than whites by Obama’s job killing policies. And they seem to be buying his class warfare blaming the “rich”, which leads to guilt by association.

  48. SK,
    Re: Conspiracies

    Reading your posts, I must assume that you believe there exists no such thing as a “conspiracy” whatsoever.

  49. Puritan,
    Based on your comment here:
    how few would have to be in on it to keep it a secret

    You believe conspiracies cannot exit – period, thus, none have ever occurred.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Not true. I am simply having fun. As far as the towers, I have no clue. I am open to your theory, as I am open to no conspiracy, I have no clue on the topic.

  50. Came across this in comments on Malkin’s site. Thought it might provoke some thought.

    “Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that ‘Freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license’; and they will define and define freedom out of existence.”
    – Voltarine De Cleyre – (American radical poet – 19th century)

    Now think of our current laws where the Supreme Court has upheld our rights “unless there is a compelling Govt interest”.

    • Seems to me-that we used to be more free-so we went with common sense-we didn’t use reason to talk ourselves out of Right-because of the exceptions to the rule. 🙂

  51. Todd,

    1. Explain, in detail, the errors in this report on WTC-7:

    This has been dealt with, in detail, by the 1,500 members of the “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” – you can go thru their DVD, or visit their web site for details.

    But asking for details on SUFA, is ridiculous.

    The general conclusion: your report relies on the ignorance of the laws of physics – specifically, the laws regarding motion and momentum.

    2. Present your evidence that explosives were used on WTC-7.

    (1) The collapse matches typical and repeatable demolish of buildings, of which, I am sure you have witnessed.
    (2) The eye witnesses who heard “explosions” prior to the collapse
    (3) Recorded video/audio which recorded “explosions” prior to the collapse
    (4) The evidence of unburned thermite particles in the dust.

    Again, the A&E for 9/11 Truth have an 1 hour long presentation solely on this one question of yours.

    3. Present your theory – in detail – that explains everything the happened on 9/11.

    Utterly unnecessary.
    It is not anyone’s job here to determine such a thing.

    A lie does not become a “truth” simply because the whole real truth is unknown

    Your position here is:
    We must believe lies until the truth is revealed.
    Because we already have a believe (though a lie), no one can question the belief.
    Therefore, the real truth will never be revealed.

    You highlight the typical sheeple:

    I already have the official story, anything that contradicts, even natural laws, must be wrong.</I.

    If you can’t do this, then you have no ability to explain away the reality of the structural failure of WTC7.

    No, I can demonstrate that the official story is FALSE as it is impossible.

    The question that follows this:
    Why are the authorities lying?

  52. Jon

    So, the theory is that some exposives were set, on purpose, and with purpose. You resist this idea, but you have no ability to explain away the reality of the structural failure of WTC7.

    This is not unreasoned.

    The 1993 Bombing of WTC was, in fact, a near close thing. A few feet of difference and the tower would have TOPPLED.

    My conjuncture:
    The threat to very large towers being toppled was raised – the damage and cost in lives, not only from the people in the buildings, but the 1400 foot threat of the domino of toppling other buildings down a street, would be enormous.

    I speculate that after 1993, FEMA or New York or State or Federal Disaster Authorities (or all of them together) prepared the Towers and WTC7 to be pre-wired for collapse so to mitigate the risk of toppling.

  53. Todd,

    so have all of yours.

    No, sir.
    The laws of Physics are still enforce.

    You call “my theory” utterly improbable and irrational, while ignoring that your theory is even more improbable and irrational.

    No, sir. You remain confused.

    You are stuck here:

    You cannot believe what you see (demolition) – not because of the improbability of that event – in fact, it is the most probable event possibly presented – but because you have leaped into the question of WHY it was demolished and WHO did it.

    Because you go to conjuncture of “….who could possibly have access to do that….” quickly conclude “….only authorities…” – and then you are revolted to such a degree with such a conclusion that you must warp and twist what you really see and know and discredit what is real, deny the laws of physics all because the conclusion otherwise is simply too terrible for you to comprehend

    “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” –
    J. Edgar Hoover

    You cling to the modifications made by the Salomon Brothers, but ignoring the fact that these modifications were made to support the increased load the Salomon Brothers would place on the building. It was not “a heavily reinforced building”, but a “a heavily modified building” that had to be reinforced to support the additional load.

    I obviously do not ignore what I said myself.

    The building was built to hold a size greater than what was built.

    You believe this weakened the building.

    You claim other buildings have been hit by planes or engulfed in flames and not collapsed, but ignore that they were concrete encased steel or typical ‘post & frame steel’ buildings – very different construction from the WTC buildings.

    WTC7 was a “normal” construction.

    Further, if anything, the type of construction of the towers was superior to any other design of its time – given the size and height the towers were built to

    Again, bigger and stronger to you is weakening.

    You discredit everyone else’s theory, but never provide a theory of your own, because you know if you had to lay out all the details it would collapse like a house of cards – at free-fall no less.

    I do not need to provide any alternate conjecture to demonstrate YOURS and the authorities is a lie.

    The question that follows:
    Why are they lying?

  54. SK,

    I will probably make an article for USWep, so I will cherry-pick your comment in the meantime.

    This is a highly complex issue

    Why do you assume this?
    Further, why does the complexity matter?

    Invasions of entire nations is accomplished – you cannot deny this, as invasions of nations is a fact.
    This is incredibly complex.
    It is done is secrecy.

    Do you deny this? (I know you can’t)

    Yet, you deny it!

    It is done by compartmentalization – few know the whole plan – many know a piece, and a piece so innocuous that the whole plan is not revealed or even known.

    and would take significantly more than the 5 people BF sees behind the plan.

    Nonsense.

    By myself, I operated in numerous countries, doing many complex things at the same time.
    All it takes is delegation of compartmentalized tasks.

    First and foremost in my mind is the fact that there are a great number of very angry firemen out there in NY and elsewhere.

    There are … and they protest, demand, and are ignored – because the vast majority of Americans ignore them.
    9/11 Family Steering Committee
    (www).911independentcommission.org/

    Some of these people are skilled explosive and arson technicians. Do you, for one moment think that they would be willing to shove it, and their brothers corpses under the rug FOR ANY REASON?

    Nope, and those that refuse to stand back are part of the 9/11 Truth movements – include “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”
    “…1,605 verified architectural and engineering professionals….”

    It appears to me this is all a surprise to you…..

    This, if you happen to know any firemen, is a very REAL question and not easily dismissed. My old Pappy used to say that what one man can put together, another man can take apart.

    Ah, but you did not read my post regarding the risk of attacking the authorities claim.

    Other than “revenge”, what benefit do these people have vs. the cost?

    The financial cost, the credibility cost, the personal cost of a vendendata against the government is incredibly high.

    Now ideally the best way to put this together would have involved a non-US intelligence agency like the Mossad.

    I would be careful here in making a specific conjuncture on who this may be.

    There are a number of US “allies” who are wholly capable of attacking the US in a false flag – either to promote US involvement in foreign entanglements or to punish US involvement in foreign entanglements – and this group does not include US “enemies” or “adversaries”, such as Russia and China.

    Why I suggest not pointing at one specifically is that will naturally tend to skew the review of evidence one way or another – and where the evidence may shift to highlighting a potential contradiction that may invalidate, say, a Mossad intervention, the human tendency will be to invalidate the whole scenario: “Well, it can’t be Mossad, therefore the Official Story is must be right

    The list of who “benefits” from a fully engaged US in the Middle East is longer than one line.

    they could have assembled a team to plant the explosives,

    As exampled here.
    It is incredibly unlikely that any one, including Mossad, could successfully plant enough thermite throughout 3 WTC towers without out notice.

    Heck, they couldn’t successfully smuggle explosives into Mexico.
    As reported in La Vox De Aztlan, two men, one of them a former Israeli Colonel and Mossad agent, were arrested INSIDE the Mexican congress carrying 9mm pistols and dynamite, but were released following intense pressure from the Israeli Embassy.

    Army General and Head of the PGR Releases Two Israelis
    Arrested With Guns and Explosives Inside the Mexican Congress
    By Ernesto Cienfuegos La Voz de Aztlan
    October 15, 2001

    I would suggest -conjecture of course- the explosives were planted legitimately by US disaster agencies to mitigate a threat of a toppling of the towers,

    their henchmen within Muslim terrorist organizations to recruit the hijackers.

    This capability exists in quite a few intelligence agencies in the Middle East/Central Asian area.

    The Mossad could. They are pretty sharp on keeping secrets.

    They are high on my list of suspects.
    They are not the only suspects on my list.

    Larry Silverstein’s connections and asbestos?

    It’s a benefit for him, true.

    How about dragging the US into a real shooting war in the Mideast?
    That certainly would seem to be to Mossad’s benefit cementing the relationship between Israel and the US.

    True.
    But it is also a trap – as suggest by OBL himself – or
    a trap well placed …if it was a trap … by Pakistan to exhaust India’s new ally in the quagmire and Graveyard of Empires, Afghanistan.
    In March 2000, President Bill Clinton visited India. He had bilateral and economic discussions with Prime Minister Vajpayee
    If I was Pakistan, I’d be worried at these events.
    Pakistan enjoyed the US largess during the Cold War – it border Russia and with India strategically neutral, Pakistan parlayed plenty of US cash during that time – especially profitable during the Soviet/Afghan war.
    The end of the cold war cost Pakistan its tribute. US in Afghan reaps billions in US “aid” for Pakistan.

    Or maybe India?
    In 2005, Bush sign a nuclear deal with India, and engaged unprecedented military exercises with the Indian Armed Forces. The US in Central Asia and allied with India significantly offsets growing Chinese military power in Kashmir and Tibet.

    Or maybe Russia, or China….

    …as I said, the list is very long.

    … and this doesn’t include domestic operatives….

    The point:
    speculation on “who” is way too premature.

    First necessary question is:
    “What really happened”

    After that is well know, then the “Why”, then the “Who”.

    US planning would involve thousands of Americans.

    …like invading a nation.

    Some brighter than others.

    …but what can they do to stop invading a nation?

    All subject, even if following obscure orders to deliver X cargo at midnight to Y loading dock at WTC 1, 2 or 7, to asking embarrassing questions or shooting their mouths off.

    So, as a ex-military man, by the comment, you dispute one of the most ingrained tenets of military operation – “You do not question orders”

    People had to do that and those people will talk.

    So, you do not believe countries are invaded by surprise attacks?

    You do not believe any conspiracy is possible, then?

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      My apologies sir, I took you on point for point but it apparently disappeared in the blogosphere. A conspiracy perhaps?

      Actually, of course conspiracies occur. This ridiculous “Fast and Furious” is a classic example. Last night Anderson Cooper !!! was discussing the remote, impossible, hard to believe possibility the the whole purpose of the operation might have been for the administration to gin up a new Assault Weapon ban. (Both shocked and amazed here) They might just actually have wanted those Barretts to have wound up killing Federales. He continued in that vein for awhile as to how this could never, never be and that the only thing different this time was that it was not the 2nd Amendment nuts spreading it around but some “reasonable” people too. Of course he didn’t miss the opportunity to lie about some weapons being “fully automatic”.

      But…fast and furious fell apart, Watergate fell apart, Vietnam fell apart, Iran Contra fell apart and a host of others. Sure there is that possibility that my friend Janet Napolitano keeps pushing that we will never know about all the conspiracies that Homeland Security has stopped and certainly we will never know about any that succeeded but the odds of keeping those thousands of mouths shut in an age of Wiki leaks is slight at best. Americans are really horrible at secret keeping. Just think we have been have been here 235 years and still don’t have an “official secrets act”. I know they are working on it and will probably get it but it ain’t here yet!

      The part I think that is worse than conspiracies is the out in the open stuff that the country ignores. There ius no way to describe the Libya thing other than to paraphrase Peter Arnett, “It’s too bad we had to destroy the country in order to save it.”

      Did you ever get a chance to review my Japan question on the previous ” lack of content board?” I’d appreciate your thoughts if you have time. I’m working again and can only check in from time to time.

  55. Todd,

    To claim momentum as a reason as to why something falls over instead of down you have to make a pretty big assumption.

    Not my claim.

    Momentum=Mass x Velocity.

    When a body in motion contacts a body that is still, there is a transfer of momentum. I believe you understand this, as a simple game of billiards demonstrates this.

    When something is falling, and it hits something that is fixed, that which was fixed receives a transfer of momentum, and the falling body, in that transfer, slows – this is the “conservation of energy” also called the “conservation of momentum”

    This is not observed in WTC 1, 2 or 7 collapse.
    NIST admits this, since it is observable fact.

    Bottom Line’s post also noted this.

  56. Bob,

    Heres the beauty of it BF, why do you think there is so much secrecy from the US government about this?

    Why does the government murder an innocent man, even if evidence demonstrating his innocence sits on a table?
    Because all government legitimacy rests on never being wrong

    I ask this back to you:
    Why has no one been charged, fired, reprimanded, or publicly rebuked for the total failure of national defense?

    Why, it is the same thing that several members of this site constantly state, the government is incompetent.

    I have explained where it is incompetent.
    I have also explained where it excels.

    One of the primary reasons it is incompetent in one area is directly due to its excellence elsewhere.

    You appear utterly incompetent in dealing with peaceful people when the best you do is slaughter people and destroy things.

    The government that likes to project itself as the most powerful and wise throughout the world got caught with their figurative pants down.

    Do you really believe a nation, with all its power, weapons, intelligence agencies and capabilities fails 4 times on the same day?
    They have never failed before.

    When Payne’s jet plane lost radio contact, two fighter jets were launched to intercept -which they did in less than 40 minutes from the onset of the problem in the aircraft – and followed the plane for hours until it crashed in a field.
    According to an Air Force summary, after contact was initially lost, two F-15s from Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., were sent to track the Learjet. The F-15s pulled back and two F-16s in the air from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., moved in to track the aircraft.
    After the Learjet reached the Midwest, the Eglin F-16s pulled off and four F-16s and a midair refueling tanker from the Tulsa National Guard followed it.
    Eventually, two F-16s from Fargo, N.D., moved in close to look into the windows to see if the pilot was slumped over and to help clear air space. Officials hoped that the F-16s could provide assistance to anyone on board who might have helped land

    You believe, though, that no jet made it to intercept any of the four airliners who lost radio contact and flew off course for hours.

  57. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Interesting, Herman Cain is a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank of Kansas City.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

    • What’s up with this????

      Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

      Terrorist organisation’s magazine reportedly says it is ‘ridiculous’ for Iran’s president to blame the attacks on the US government

      In its English language magazine Al-Qaida has reportedly called on Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop citing conspiracy theories that the US was to blame behind 9/11. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images

      Al-Qaida has sent a message to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking him to stop spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

      Iranian media on Wednesday reported quotes from what appears to be an article published in the latest issue of the al-Qaida English language magazine, Inspire, which described Ahmadinejad’s remarks over the 11 September attacks as “ridiculous”.

      In his UN general assembly speech last week, Ahmadinejad cast doubt over the official version of the 2001 attacks.

      “The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al-Qaida was behind 9/11 but rather, the US government,” the article said, according to Iranian media. “So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?”

      Ahmadinejad said in New York that the “mysterious September 11 incident” had been used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. He had also previously expressed scepticism at the US version of events.

      “By using their imperialistic media network which is under the influence of colonialism, they threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the September 11 event with sanctions and military actions,” said Ahmadinejad.

      The al-Qaida article insisted it had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.

      “For them, al-Qaida was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” said the article published in the Inspire magazine. “Al-Qaida … succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

      Al-Qaida also accused Iran of hypocrisy over its “anti-Americanism”.

      The article said: “For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics. It is anti-America when it suits it and it is a collaborator with the US when it suits it, as we have seen in the shameful assistance Iran gave to the US in its invasion of Afghanistan and in the Shia of Iraq, backed by Iran, bringing the American forces into the country and welcoming them with open arms.”

      During his visit to New York, Ahmadinejad also changed his position on gay people in Iran. He had previously famously said: “We don’t have homosexuals [in Iran] like you do in your country. This does not exist in our country.”

      But according to the American news website the Daily Beast, in a meeting with a number of journalists last week, he said: “In Iran, homosexuality is seen as an ugly act … There may be some people who are homosexuals who are in touch with you. But in Iranian society they’re ashamed to announce it so they’re not known. This is an act against God and his prophets. But we as the government can’t go out and stop people.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy

    • I’m gonna get a chance to hear him in person-he’s coming to a park near “me” 🙂 So close I could easily walk, actually-which is good because driving would probably be a pain.

  58. Black Flag,
    Every time I hear the line “weird moon landing denier guy” in this commercial, I think of you!!

    Someone make it stop – I’m starting to have nightmares!

    • Todd,

      Nah, moon landings are real. You can see the remnants on the moon.

      …which is what annoys me to no end…

      Nuts who believe it was all fake, in the face of observable evidence, seriously damage the credibility of those who expose real government lies and fraud.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        We all know it is a typical statist tactic to lump “climate-change-deniers” and “9/11 conspiracy theorists” in with “moon landing deniers. Typical straw-man argument having no logical basis whatsoever, but it appeals to the baser emotions of the people, in an attempt to get the people to believe that the “climate-change-deniers” and “9/11 conspiracy theorists” are just as looney (so to speak) as the moon landing deniers.

        The charge has no basis in fact, and no support of logic, but they figure if they throw it against the wall enough times, it will be effective with “the people”.

  59. What is wrong with these people?? I really don’t get it.

    PETA Plans Porn Website to Promote Animal Rights
    By Staff, Associated Press
    September 20, 2011

    PETA

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals hold an anti-meat publicity stunt in Des Moines, Iowa, on May 12, 2010. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

    Norfolk, Va. (AP) — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to create a pornographic website to promote its animal rights and vegan diet message.

    PETA spokeswoman Lindsay Rajt said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles on Tuesday that the Norfolk, Va.,-based group has applied with ICM Registry to launch the website peta.xxx.

    Rajt says the website will feature graphic videos and photographs. She noted that PETA has used porn stars and nudity to get its message across in the past. She says a pornographic site will allow PETA to reach a broader audience and that publicity about the site is just as important as the site itself.

    Rajt says November is the earliest that PETA could receive approval for the site, which was first reported by The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/peta-plans-porn-website-promote-animal-rights

    • Like I said-I don’t understand these people-extreme is too small a word to describe them.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042862/PETA-advert-claims-shark-attack-victims-like-Ian-Redmond-coming.html

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Sex sells. They want broader exposure of their….. agenda. People who would ordinarily NEVER go to the PETA website might be enticed to go to this one, which is what they are counting on.

      • Maybe but who is paying any attention to their message.

        • I just find it odd that woman -are now being encouraged to bare and use their bodies to promote fair treatment of animals-instead of using their minds and intelligence to convince people of their cause. I guess the ideology has become more important than the means.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The more hits the site gets, the more advertizing revenue it will generate, which means more money for PETA whether anyone “gets the message” or not. For PETA it is a win/win. They will get more money from the few people who actually do get their message and react positively to it (that won’t be many I imagine), but even due to those who just hit the site for “other reasons” will end up generating money for PETA. It is all about the money… nothing else.

  60. Bottom Line says:

    I wish I would have had more time this week to engage in this 9/11 discussion.

    I am going to try to make a condensed point here…

    The laws of motion,thermodynamics, witnesses, video and sound recordings, reason, intelligence community,etc,etc,etc,etc…… all say “X”.

    The official story says “Y”.

    The truth is everywhere. You just have to let go of all of your preconceived notions and just allow yourself to see it.

  61. Lee Habeeb

    Archive | Latest | Log In

    September 29, 2011 4:00 A.M.
    Southern Like Me

    What Americans, and President Obama, can learn from the Great Migration South.

    I’m a Jersey boy. I was born there, went to high school and college there, and assumed I’d spend the rest of my life there. But though I loved the people and food, the Jersey Shore summers, and short rides through the Lincoln Tunnel to Broadway shows and Madison Square Garden, I gave it all up and moved south. Very far south. I’m not alone.

    According to the latest Census figures, and stories in USA Today, the Associated Press, and elsewhere, the South was the fastest growing region in America over the last decade, up 14 percent. “The center of population has moved south in the most extreme way we’ve even seen in history,” Robert Groves, director of the Census Bureau, said a few months ago.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    That migration wasn’t limited to white Yankees like me. The nation’s African American population grew 1.7 million over the last decade — and 75 percent of that growth occurred in the South, according to William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. What those stories and studies failed to report were the reasons propelling that migration. The economic and cultural forces driving this migration south have been ignored by the press. And by the Obama administration

    So I figured this Jersey boy who now calls Oxford, Mississippi, home could explain why. This Yankee turned good ol’ boy could explain the pull — no, the tug — of the South.

    “Have you lost your mind?” is the refrain I heard over and over from friends up north when I told them the news. It was as if I’d just told them I was moving to Madagascar.

    I then explained the move. I started with some humor. I explained that we have electricity in Mississippi. And indoor plumbing. We even have dentists. I told them we have the internet in Mississippi. And cable TV. I told them I travel a lot, and Memphis airport has planes, too.

    I then told them about the quality of life in Oxford, and how far a dollar stretches. And the ease of doing business. When I show them pictures of my house, and get around to my property taxes, things get positively somber. On a home valued at $400,000, my tax tab is $2,000. My parents in New Jersey pay $12,000. And for a whole lot less house. On no land. When I remind friends about the pension liabilities they’ll be inheriting from the state unions, things get downright gloomy.

    I then explain that my work is mostly done by the phone or internet. So where I live has little bearing on how much I earn. But it has a whole lot to do with how much I keep.

    Having disposed of the economic arguments, I knew that one big question lurked: “Okay, Lee, but what’s it like living with a bunch of slow-talking, gun-toting, Bible-thumping racists?”

    My friends didn’t use those exact words, but I knew it’s what they were thinking. I knew because I thought the same thing about the South before I moved here. Most of what we Yankees know about the South comes from TV and movies. Think Hee-Haw meets Mississippi Burning meets The Help and you get the picture.

    But my own prejudices bore little resemblance to the reality I encountered when I moved south. I fell in love with the place. With the pace of life, for openers. Things got done, and done well, but it always seemed as if people had time for one another.

    Though I’d never owned a firearm, I learned that the locals took personal protection into their own hands, knowing that a call to a county sheriff wasn’t a solid defense strategy. I also learned how much fun it was to shoot stuff, from targets to tin cans to turkeys.

    The Bible thumpers proved to be more caricature than anything. The people I met didn’t impose their religion on me. They tried to live by the standards of their faith. Sometimes they did; sometimes they didn’t. But the pervasive pursuit of those standards made the South a better place to live.

    It was on the race front that I was most surprised. Yes, the South had a painful and tragic history. And yes, I encountered bigots who didn’t worry about using the “n” word, and wished for a return to the 50s — the 1850s. But they proved to be the exception.

    Instead, I saw blacks and whites interacting in day-to-day life in ways I never saw up north. Indeed, in the suburban town where I grew up in New Jersey, I could count the African American residents on one hand. But in my small Southern town, my daughter’s first-grade class is thoroughly integrated — 25 percent of her class is African American.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    Like me, businesses around the world liked what they saw in the South, too. Companies like Boeing, Nissan, BMW, and Toyota could have chosen anywhere in the world to locate their most modern plants, but chose to locate them in the South.

    Where there are plants and jobs, people move. And Americans have been moving south from the rust belt and industrial North for decades. In 1960, Detroit had a population of 1,850,000. Today, it has 720,000. Houston is now larger than Detroit, Atlanta is larger than Boston, and Dallas is larger than San Francisco.

    Those numbers reflect a shift in political power. Texas picked up four seats in the House of Representatives this past year, while Ohio and New York lost two. Georgia and South Carolina picked up a seat, while New Jersey and Michigan lost one.

    What caused this migration of capital — the human, industrial, and political varieties? Ask transplanted business owners and they’ll tell you they like investing in states where union bosses and trial lawyers don’t run the show, and where tax burdens are low. They also want a work force that is affordable and well-trained. And that doesn’t see them as the enemy.

    In short, policy matters. So, too, does culture.

    It’s quite a story, actually. Americans, black and white alike, are moving in record numbers to a part of the country where taxes are low, unions are irrelevant, and people love their guns and their faith. And yet we have heard hardly a peep about this great migration from our nation’s public intellectuals.

    Why? Because their ideological prejudices won’t permit them to admit the obvious. They’d prefer to focus their research on the pre-1970s South because they are more comfortable with — and more invested in — that old narrative, while this new one marches on right under their noses. And their keyboards.

    And so it is with a sense of puzzlement that this Jersey boy turned Mississippian watches the decision making of President Obama. Millions of Americans may have voted for him in 2008, but millions have been voting with their feet, and he doesn’t seem the least bit interested in understanding why.

    Last December, gun manufacturer Winchester moved one of its plants — and 1,000 jobs — from East Alton, Ill., to my small town of Oxford. Joseph Rupp, who runs the company, explained: “While I am disappointed that employees represented by the International Association of Machinists chose to reject a proposal that would have allowed us to remain competitive in East Alton, we look forward to expanding our existing operations in Mississippi.”

    For a town of Oxford’s size — about 12,000 people — this was cause for celebration. For East Alton, which has 7,000 residents, it was a catastrophe.

    And I wondered as I read that story, “Does anyone on President Obama’s staff read the business section of the paper?” He should be studying the Winchester story, and why those jobs fled his home state of Illinois. He should be talking to Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Fisher’s recent report revealed that since June 2009, Texas alone was responsible for 37 percent of all net new American jobs.

    He should ask Americans like me who’ve moved South why we did it. And he should be especially interested in understanding why African Americans are fleeing his home city of Chicago for the South, too.

    If he dared to ask, he’d learn that we are all fleeing liberalism and chasing economic freedom, just as our immigrant parents and grandparents did.

    But he won’t bother asking. Our ideological academic-in-chief is content to expand the size and scope of the federal government and ignore the successes of our economic laboratories known as the states. He is pursuing 1960s-style policies that got us Detroit, while ignoring those that got us 21st-century Dallas.

    In the downtown square of Oxford sits a bronze statue of our most famous storyteller, William Faulkner. “The past is never dead,” he once famously wrote. “In fact, it’s not even past.”

    That line has great depth, but in an important sense it’s not quite right.

    It turns out that white Yankee migrants like me, African American migrants from Chicago, and businessmen owners in Illinois and around the world, see something in the South that novelists, journalists, academics, and our current president cannot.

    The future.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278596/southern-me-lee-habeeb?page=2

  62. Obama Tries to Put Foreign Tax Law Above U.S. Tax Law
    by Dan Mitchell

    Earlier this year, President Obama’s IRS proposed a regulation that would force banks in America to report any interest they pay to accounts owned by non-resident aliens (that’s the technical term for foreigners who don’t live in the U.S.).

    What made this regulation so bizarre, however, is that Congress specifically has exempted these account from taxation for the rather obvious reason that they want to attract this mobile capital to the American economy. Indeed, Congress repeatedly has ratified this policy ever since it was first implemented 90 years ago.

    So why, you may be asking, would the IRS propose such a regulation? After all, why impose a regulatory burden on a weakened banking sector when it has nothing to do with enforcing American tax law?

    The answer, if you can believe it, is that they want American banks to help enforce foreign tax law. And the bureaucrats at the IRS want to impose this burden even though the regulation is completely contrary to existing U.S. law.

    Not surprisingly, this rogue behavior by the IRS already has generated considerable opposition. Senator Rubio has been a leader on the issue, being the first to condemn the proposed regulation.

    Both Senators from Texas also have announced their opposition, and the entire Florida congressional delegation came out against the IRS’s regulatory overreach.

    And now we have two more important voices against the IRS’s rogue regulation.

    The Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee in charge of the IRS, Congressman Charles Boustany of Louisiana, just sent a very critical letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner, and these are some of his chief concerns.

    If the regulation were to take effect, it would not only run counter to the will of the Congress, but would potentially drive foreign investments out of our economy, hurting individuals and small businesses by reducing access to capital. I write to request that IRS suspend the proposed regulation. …As the Internal Revenue Code imposes no taxation or reporting requirements on this deposit interest, the proposed regulation serves no compelling tax collection purpose. Instead, it is my understanding that the IRS seeks this new authority to help foreign governments collect their own taxes abroad. …It is disappointing to see the IRS once again try to impose unnecessary regulations and costs on U.S. banks. To attract investment of foreign dollars into the U.S. economy, the Internal Revenue Code generally exempts these deposits from taxation and reporting requirements. These foreign investments in turn help to finance a variety of products essential to economic growth, such as small business loans and home mortgages. Imposing reporting requirements on these deposits through regulatory fiat threatens to drive significant investments out of our economy by undermining the rules Congress has set in place specifically to attract it, and at exactly the time when our economy can least afford it.

    But criticism is not limited to Capitol Hill. The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has spearheaded opposition from think tanks, taxpayer organizations, and public policy groups.

    And now the business community has become involved. Here’s some of what the Chamber of Commerce recently said, and you can click this PDF file (USCC S1506) to read the entire letter.

    Given the fragile state of America’s economic recovery, it is disturbing to see actions by the Treasury that could jeopardize deposits at U.S. banks and credit unions held by nonresident aliens. These deposits, which are not subject to U.S. taxes, are at risk of being abruptly withdrawn and future deposits deterred, which could lead to a reallocation of deposits out of the U.S. banking system and, thus, reduce lending to businesses. Furthermore, complying with the proposed regulation places additional reporting requirements and expenses upon financial firms. Without any real benefit stemming from the collection of this information, imposition of this reporting requirement seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

    This may seem like an arcane issue and international tax matters often are not terribly exciting, but a couple of minutes of watching this video will make you realize there are some very important principles at stake.

    Only the IRS could manage to combine bad tax policy, bad regulatory policy, bad human rights policy, and bad sovereignty policy into one regulation.

    http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/09/29/obama-tries-to-put-foreign-tax-law-above-u-s-tax-law/

    The video is worth watching. What say you SUFA? Are there any pros to this idea?

    • V.H.

      Another “taxes causes bizarre behavior” story.

      The government believes these people will not withdraw their deposits “just because the bank has to report how much interest they pay”.

      The government will implement this, and in 24 hrs, 95% of the deposits will move somewhere else.
      Then the government will act all surprised, as if this was not ever predicated, and implement even worse ideas “to fix the problem their last worst idea caused”.

  63. Maybe this will spark some dialogue 🙂

    eptember 29, 2011
    Private Foundations: Benefactors or Malefactors?
    By Ross C. Reeves

    The “Super Committee” charged with deficit reduction should take notice of a tax policy that permits the wealthiest Americans to divert a third of their tax obligations away from the Treasury and to causes of their own choosing. The same system also subsidizes conversion of taxable investment income to tax-free income and removal of billions in investment assets from the reach of estate and gift taxes.

    The system at work lies in the intricate body of tax law that subsidizes the creation and perpetuation of so-called “private foundations.” Briefly described, these are trusts or similar entities that control hundreds of billions of dollars in investment securities in the form of “endowments.” Although they are accorded the status of “charities” under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, they do not meet any accepted definition of a charity. They do not raise money from the general public, but are instead the creatures of wealthy families and their corporate affiliates. Nor do they actually perform charitable works. Rather, they make discretionary “grants” to actual “operating charities” selected by trustees, as and when they see fit.

    As of 2008, private foundations controlled $650 billion, two-thirds of which was made up of investment securities that earned investment income of over $60 billion. No income taxes were paid on these revenues. Neither the assets nor the earnings are subject to death taxes.

    Ending these tax benefits could solve a substantial part of the Super Committee’s ten-year goal. But a more important reason exists for reform: the tax code. It has established that most un-American of institutions: permanently entrenched wealth with the capacity and intent to influence the national agenda.

    It goes without saying that private foundations are huge players in the world’s financial markets, as venture capitalists, real estate developers, futures traders, and investors in stocks and bonds. Although discouraged from lobbying, they do in fact lobby prodigiously at all levels of government. But their greatest influence on the national agenda is promoting and funding research, public opinion polls, academic studies, advocacy groups, and other intellectual fodder in support of their pet causes. These activities are designed to “leverage” tax dollars in furtherance of their agendas. The names MacArthur, Pew, Kaiser, Koch, and Ford are the most familiar, but these “persuaders” number in the scores if not hundreds.

    The modern system, in summary, works like this. A rich family or corporation creates an endowment to further “charitable” causes selected by the founder, subject only to extremely loose standards of public good. By way of example, the charitable purposes of foundations established by the Buffett family promote abortion rights, education of poor children, nuclear non-proliferation, environmental protection, and human rights. The endowment is donated free of gift tax, and is also removed from the reach of otherwise applicable death taxes. Moreover, the founder receives an immediate deduction from his income taxes for the gift, in effect getting 35% or more of it back from the taxpayers.

    The foundation invariably takes this money and invests it. Although foundations do have to pay taxes on so-called “unrelated business income” (UBI), investment earnings are not considered UBI and thus are free from income tax. If, as some politicians argue, lower taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends constitute a subsidy for the rich, this tax-free universe for foundations is Valhalla itself.

    In 1969 the Congress placed some limitation on the Topsy-like growth of private foundations by imposing an “excise tax” to the extent — and only to the extent — that the foundations do not “pay out” at least 5% of the endowment’s current value in any year. Because foundation investment earnings historically almost invariably exceeded that “distributable” amount, most have had excess earnings to add to the endowment each year.

    Apologists for private foundations argue that these remarkable benefits are a well-tuned public policy to support charities. They equate their activities with those of schools, institutions for the performing and fine arts, hospitals, and other “operating charities.” The private foundations argue that, like conventional charities, they are being subsidized for doing work the government would otherwise have to perform. It is against this claim that their conduct should be measured.

    The first consideration is that they do not support works that the people, acting through their governments, consider wholesome and helpful. They make grants only to those causes their founders and trustees have decided are more important than what government does. Notwithstanding the warm sentiments Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others have for higher taxes, their foundations’ very existence shows disapproval for what the government does and how it does it. If they felt otherwise, they would be more efficient in their largesse by foregoing foundations, paying income taxes on their investments, and dying with these assets in their taxable estates.

    A more important consideration is that private foundations do not even support their own goals. The tax code has paradoxically encouraged giving for charity, but not spending on charity. The founder, as noted, receives an immediate tax deduction as if he had put money in the hands of the needy instead of an “endowment.” But the empirical evidence is that the “gift” stays in the foundation’s money bin forever and is never used to support foundation goals.

    A 2007 IRS study — which has not been updated — tracked, over a ten-year period, the top 100 foundations by asset size. It calculated endowment growth and “distributions” as a percent of their respective endowments (the so-called “payout rate”).

    It comes as no surprise that all endowments grew. That is a natural consequence of making investments on which no income tax is paid.

    The eye-popping statistic is the payout rate of each. With the exception of a mere handful of outliers, every one of the 100 foundations on the list paid almost exactly 5% out for expenses and actual charitable use. To underline a crucial point: 5% is not the average or median distribution by all 100 foundations; it is the individual payout rate of each one of them over a decade — all while endowments were growing steadily and, presumably, the needs of their beneficiaries were increasing.

    A sober observer can reach but one conclusion: over ten years, through hundreds of iterations of decisions made by one hundred boards of trustees, private foundations unerringly chose self-perpetuation over the needs of their intended beneficiaries.

    As shameful as this performance is, private foundations respond with sophistry: we are good, therefore should be around for future generations; therefore we should not spend our money. This syllogism assumes, incorrectly, that it is public policy to perpetuate eternal memorials to the agendas of dead wealthy people. America’s tradition is quite the opposite: reduction of plutocracy and actual spending on charity.

    What is required is a system that matches up the founder’s charitable deduction and the foundation’s tax benefits with public policy. As a start, the charitable deduction for endowment gifts to private foundations should be discounted to present value based on the express undertakings of the foundation to expend the gift or, if none are made, the historic rate of principal distributions from the foundation’s endowment gifts. (Present value calculations such as this are routinely performed in business and tax matters.) Existing foundations should be brought into conformity by increasing the “distributable amount” for excise tax purposes to 10% of endowment value, and by taxing investment income at the same rates as unrelated business income. Under such a regime, foundations may choose to persist in self-perpetuation, but they will have to adapt to a tax structure that demands their fair share.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/private_foundations_benefactors_or_malefactors.html

    • V.H.

      I think somebody has a serious envy thing going on here. There also seems to be some misunderstanding about how the whole thing works in the code. But lets put that aside and deal with the underlying issue.

      Should we allow “tax deductions” for contributions to charity? Should we allow “tax free income” to charitable organizations?

      If so, what limits if any should we place on what is considered “charity” or “tax exempt” purposes?

      • Yes and yes-scary to start defining-it always seem to lead to trouble-but I personally don’t think political activism is charity.

    • V.H.

      As typical of many people who only superficially understand, this author identifies a problem but is completely bizarre regarding its cause.

      He identifies a system where tax credits distort charities and investments – but lays the blame on the “rich” for the distortions.

      He “solves” the problem by making the problem worse – eliminate tax credits and increase taxes!

      He cannot see – and will not see – that the problem is taxes. He believes tax money is “everyone’s money” with the exception of the person who actually has the money.

      He is aghast that the people who actually own the money work to keep it out of the hands of those whose want to “steal” it!

      He does not understand that by his answer, the people whose money it is will work harder to keep it away from him and not “give up” and let government have it without a fight.

      Yes, the system of tax credits creates massive wealth distortions throughout society.
      To solve the distortion – end taxation, not make taxation worse.

      • BF I agree that the government is out of control and I do not blame anyone for trying to protect their money from the greed and stupidity of the government. I agree this guy’s words promote the idea that the money is the governments, which turns me off. But if they are getting to declare a tax advantage through “charity” then what they are doing should be used for charity.

        Whether or not investments should be taxed at all -is the question. But if that was the case we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  64. Why Allen West creates such a buzz with conservatives.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/allen-west-obama-intentionally-killing-the-economy/

  65. During the “Missile Gap” of the 1950s and 1960s, the United States drastically overestimated the number of Soviet missiles, according to 189 documents recently released by the CIA and discussed by former CIA agents and historians on Monday at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston.

    The declassified documents “showed the Soviets didn’t really have an advantage,” Chief of the CIA’s Historical Collections Division Bruce S. Barkan said. During the Missile Gap period, there was a growing perception in the U.S. that the Soviet Union had hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

    But a declassified document from Sept. 21, 1961—part of a larger set of newly released material called the Missile Gap Report—debunked this theory, providing evidence that the Soviets only had four ICBMs. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/27/gap-missile-cia-soviets/#.ToOeNYsw8IQ.email

    • I wonder how many people got wealthy because of the Cold War? Could it be that the Cold War was nothing but fear mongoring to enrich a few people? Who is going to take the place of Al Qeida now that we are friends with them in Libya? Oh, it’s a Domestic Terrorist who might look like Howdy Doody 🙂

      • V.H.

        Yep, as I’ve posted before, taxation has very little to do with getting money for government, but most to do with manipulating the desires and wants of citizens in society.

        It is a beating stick with a few carrots stuck to it.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Most of us knew that JFK was full of crap. By the time we got in the service at the end of the decade we knew he was. That cute little Soviet trick about closing off Berlin in ’61 and building the wall should have gotten your attention though.

      Many can blame Stalin for the Iron Curtain as Churchill called it but we had to wait 45 years through a load of Soviet dictators before Gorbachev tore the damned thing down.

      While I don’t agree that we were the cause of all this, we do bear the responsibility of the result today. Listen to Reagan’s speeches, throughout he offers to work with Russia. It was Bush and the rest of the Cold War crew who spurned helping Russia. we are responsible for Putin. We have the unmitigated gall to condemn them for Chechnya and Georgia while we are off on our own adventures.

      My own political opinion tells me that pretty much everything after Reagan sucks, big time.

  66. Gman,
    Re: Cold war

    A few, special, people got very very rich. The rest of us became much poorer for it.
    Yes, it was mostly fear mongering.

    The Russians had absolutely no desire for war – they are still suffering from the loss of 30 million of its citizens from the last one. WW1 and WW2 devastated the young adults of Russia – the very necessary demographic for creating a productive society.

    Russia today has maintained a modicum of economic growth due to massive immigration – but now the reverse baby boom is coming to impact Russia – they simply do not have enough people and not enough babies being born. Their population is starting to shrink.

    • Then the question should be asked: The nation fell for the big lie called the Cold War, it has been proven to be a lie, but why do people still fall for the same BS? It’s insane to continue to believe anything coming out of DC or passed on by the MSM. But yet, here we are, surrounded by sheeple who are willing to allow their freedoms to be stolen, and they don’t even know it. Shameful!

      • GMan

        The Cold War was NOT A LIE.

        It certainly involved a lot more than just fear of ICBM’s.

        • Interesting. Obviously Communism was made to be a big enemy, as we lost many lives fighting against it. I truly amazes me how we have fought so many wars in such a short time. Let’s go backwards from here. Libya – illegal war, run by so called terrorists who are funded by the U.S.. Iraq – Invaded with the claim of WMD’s. None were ever found. Afghanistan – The US blamed Bin Laden and Al Qeida, however, if one would study Bin Ladens religion, he would not have allowed 911 to happen, he never took responsibility. Gulf War I, Bush gave the green light to Hussain to invade Kuwait. This was done via cables that were recently released. Vietnam – The US entered the war based on a lie about an attack that did not occur.

          One lie after another, purpetuated by those in power, for those making the profits from it. The Cold War is no different, alot of fear, with not much in the terms a facts to back them up.
          So, now we have Iran and Pakistan in the crosshairs. What terrible thing will the govt fund next that will lead to more war? Or will it be domestic so they can rob us of more freedoms?

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        I am sorry. I have Eastern European roots. No family left over there that I am aware of but let me tell you to those folks in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Ukraine, the Cold War was very real. I will not understand how the abject ruthlessness of an SOB like Stalin can be ignored by anyone. The cold war was a royal pain in the ass, it interrupted my life, as it did those of many others and it cost some friends and acquaintances theirs. In the long run, it was well worth it. Every damned penny we spent was worth it because the alternative was a hot war. It is always hard to prove something is true that did not happen. But, if we could dig up the Kulaks and interview the Polish Officer Corps that perished at Katyn forest I bet you they would agree with me.

        The funny thing about the Nazi’s is that they themselves took some damned good footage of Soviet atrocities while they were busy with their own crimes.

  67. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/charticle-obamanomics-not-sustainable

    Anyone else a bit scared that about 20.5% of ALL AMERICAN disposable income comes from payments to people FROM the government?

    That is astonishing… but not really surprising.

  68. The teacher needs to be fired! He’ll just find another way to punish them. Suddenly “God Bless” is equivalent to a curse word.

    Teacher penalizes students for saying “bless you”

    FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) — A Northern California teacher says he doesn’t want to hear a common courtesy in his classroom.

    He’s even lowering students’ grades if they say “bless you” after someone sneezes.

    Steve Cuckovich says the practice is disrespectful and disruptive. He’s banned saying “bless you” in his high school health class in Vacaville.

    He even knocked 25 points from one student’s grade for saying the phrase in class.

    Cuckovich says the policy has nothing to do with religion, but says the phrase is just a outdated practice and disrupts class time.

    “When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body,” Cuckovich said. “So they were saying, ‘god bless you’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, I said what you’re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.”

    After parents complained about students losing points for saying “bless you”, Cuckovich says he decided to stop the practice.

    However, the teacher says he will just find another way to discipline students for saying “bless you” in class.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=8372183

  69. Sssssnnaaaaapp!

    State Gets $5 Mil Bonus For Food Stamp Sign Up
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/sep/5-mil-performance-bonus-food-stamp-sign

    Some early morning mental math comes up with being able to employ at least 250 people at $400/wk for a year with the 5 million. Wonder what the state will do with the cash?

    JAC..it’s on you brother!

    • Turn the 1 out of 5 into 1 out of 4.

    • Anita

      How are you doing my dear?

      Yes! Oregon is very proud of their WELFARE State. It is a very strange place here among the loonies.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      If they hired those 250 to investigate Food Stamp Fraud they would find out they probably have 200 million more dollars. You have not lived until you have spent serious time in a “poor” community. You become known to the folks because, frankly, you have become furniture no different than the parking meters or lamp posts and they go about their normal daily routine. Two weeks ago I was in the bodega run by a Pakistani in central Brooklyn and watched a guy come in and buy two Heinikens and a pack of cigarettes with food stamps. As a store owner, if asked by the USDA you merely have to be able to cover the amount of stamps with your normal eligible food stocks. By the way, a $ 1.00 food stamp is worth .50 cents in cash in a straight exchange should you need quick drug or gambling money.

      What the hell, I will continue! When we cleaned out apartments of the elderly who had died we found virtual lifetime supplies of adult pampers, ensure, plastic gloves etc.and in addition found prescription drugs by the barrelfull. Investigation would reveal that many drugs were the same type but different strengths. So the medicare/medicaid mill would give these suckers 500 pill supplies and then the following week the Doc, who probably had an investment in the mill, would change the dosage. There were literally closets full of this crap. We used to flush them all because they weren’t returnable. How about that shrink we rented office space to who would charge NY State $ 150.00 per hour to analyze the underserved Latino population in the neighborhood and use imported Argentine shrinks who came here six months at a clip and got $ 75.00 per hour? My son the VA lawyer tells me that they will spring, as will Medicare or Medicaid$ 7,000 for one of those hovercraft personal scooters,for the obese and elderly because that’s what they USED to cost. Actual prices are $ 3,000 and below today but Uncle Sugar cannot seem to find the bodies to revisit these costs. Think of that every time you see one of those stupid commercials where they “guarantee” to get you one at absolutely no cost.

  70. KEISER: Democrats killing Obama’s jobs agenda
    President’s own party is undermining administration agenda

    By Carol Keiser

    The Washington Times

    Wednesday, September 28, 2011

    The White House trade agenda suffered a new setback last week when the Senate rejected a bill to strengthen the president’s ability to conduct trade diplomacy with other countries.

    Sounds like another sorry example of Washington’s partisan paralysis, doesn’t it?

    Now consider this bizarre fact: Republicans offered the proposal and Democrats defeated it. Shouldn’t it have been the other way around?

    So here’s a fresh reason to wonder whether President Obama is serious about creating jobs and encouraging economic growth by boosting exports.

    We know he won’t strike any new trade deals soon, following last week’s embarrassing vote on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). It would have given the Obama administration the ability to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to Congress for up-or-down votes.

    The up-or-down vote is crucial because it strips Congress of the ability to alter the text of an existing agreement through a never-ending series of amendments. Other nations will bargain with only one entity – the president, usually through his trade representative – and not with 535 members of Congress and all of their separate agendas.

    If trade talks were a game show, they’d be “Deal or No Deal.” A president who lacks Trade Promotion Authority compels other countries to declare, at the outset, “no deal.” Nothing gets started – and this new failure probably even delivers a blow to the deliberations surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Mr. Obama has claimed is critical to American competitiveness in the global economy.

    In the past, politics have explained the denial of TPA. During the Clinton years, congressional Republicans refused to grant it. During the Bush years, congressional Democrats refused to grant it.

    These were bad choices, but at least they had a partisan rationale.

    Now we’ve witnessed a brand-new species of gridlock: Senate Democrats have denied a president of their own party the power to hold meaningful trade talks with other nations. If the United States had a parliamentary system, this would be like a vote of no confidence in the government.

    The result suggests that Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is kaput, either because he can’t persuade a handful of members of his own party to embrace his vision of creating jobs through exports or because he never really believed the vision he set forth in the first place.

    More than 18 months ago, Mr. Obama promised that U.S. exports would double in five years. He also said that the passage of three pending trade agreements was crucial to this goal. He has called for their approval on many high-profile occasions, most recently during his jobs address to Congress.

    “Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea,” he said on Sept. 8. “That’s what we need to get done.”

    But they can’t get done until Mr. Obama first submits them to Congress. They were negotiated during the previous administration (before President Bush’s TPA expired) and Mr. Obama has talked them up for a year-and-a half. Yet they’re still sitting on his desk in the Oval Office.

    Once upon a time, supporters of free trade were hopeful that Mr. Obama meant what he said and that he was genuinely committed to helping U.S. companies sell their made-in-America products to foreign consumers.

    Now pessimism has set in. “This is ridiculous,” says Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican, who is the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. “Every third foggy night, the president makes a speech and says we need these trade agreements.” Now Mr. Roberts predicts that there won’t be any trade agreements this year or next.

    We may know soon. South Korean president Lee Myung-bak will visit the United States next month and the president will host a state dinner for him on Oct. 13.

    Will Mr. Obama be able to tell Mr. Lee in person that he has bothered, at long last, to submit their trade agreement to Congress?

    Mark your calendar.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/democrats-killing-obamas-jobs-agenda/print/

    • V.H.

      I say GOOD for the Democrats.

      The rest of the world knows how our system works and if the Administration is doing its job as liaison with Congress there should be no major “amendments”.

      It makes one wonder how the USA was able to do trade deals for the first 200 years.

      I also loved this little CONTRADICTION in concepts: “Once upon a time, supporters of free trade were hopeful that Mr. Obama meant what he said and that he was genuinely committed to helping U.S. companies sell their made-in-America products to foreign consumers.”

      In other words, supporters of “free trade” were hopeful the Govt would intervene on their behalf to “get other countries” to buy their products.

      V., are you going to get on the Herman Cain wagon? Or do you have another favorite?

      • At this point-I haven’t decided-he’s coming here in a couple weeks-plan to go hear him in person.
        Tell me again why I shouldn’t vote for Newt 🙂 He has a new Contract have you looked at it yet?

        • V.H.

          Just heard about it this morning. Newt is the smartest guy in the bunch. My problems with him stem from all his other work which was a continuation of the status quo. More govt, bigger govt, but more “effective” govt.

          I have liked Cain for some time. But I confess some concerns that he is also an establishment kind of guy. But right now I like him the most of the bunch.

          Newt does have one major thing going for him the others do not. That is if you subscribe to idea of moderate changes. Newt has the experience to deal with the “politics” between the Admin and Congress that the others do not. But that could also work against him as he has many enemies among the current Democrat leadership.

          Bottom line V., it doesn’t look like we are going to have any good choices this time around either.

          • Newt really does have that thing-he seems smart, level headed, schooled in history-that makes you want to vote for him-I like a lot of his ideas BUT he is going around talking about signing 100’s of executive orders his first day in office to immediately change the direction the country is going in-I have a problem with this form of implementation.

            • I agree. He has also shown a propensity to change his spots depending on the weather. After the Dems took Congress he went around touting solutions that required more Federal involvement in local solutions.

              Now, if he were to explain that those executive orders would be rescinding previous executive orders…..????

              I am looking for that person with the brains, knowledge, and leadership qualities AND who clearly states that it is NOT THEIR JOB TO RUN THE COUNTRY. That while they have principles they will not violate they have no Hardened Agenda except to increase freedom, liberty and justice.

              It is NOT the President’s job to develop and implement a “PLAN” of any kind for this country. It is their job to oversee the management of the Executive Branch and execute the laws passed by Congress. The knowledge of history and smarts comes in when needing to VETO acts of Congress that violate the movement towards more freedom, liberty and justice.

              This is the source of my concern about Cain. He now has a PLAN that he will be forced to try to implement or will be chastised for abandoning later. We are looking for far to much detail in our Presidential candidates in my view. Core principles and approach to the role of the Federal Govt should be OUR focus.

              Maybe Cain/Gingrich ?????????????

              I would pay money to see Newt debate against Biden. Although Mr. O might have to pick a new VP candidate to face off against Newt.

              • I see your point but only up to a point-having credible ideas-seems like a good thing. But I believe there is a slim line between being principled and being an ideological dictator. How about Newt/Ron Paul 🙂

                I figure if Newt was President he would stand on his promises-or at least I hope he would( if memory serves me-he really tried to fulfill his last contract) and I can’t help but believe He may be the only one with enough experience to get anything done. But these executive orders! gonna have to actually read his plan-have it bookmarked but haven’t read it yet.

                I must admit-I have a strong desire to vote for him. But we’ll see.

  71. We used to say “When the going gets tough, the tough gets going” What happened? Now we tell the exceptional to tone it down-instilling the idea that being better is somehow bad. And we tell the others they shouldn’t even have to try to beat him-it’s too hard(put a whinny tone with those last words)

    I hope this posts-I’ve tried 3 times. And hopefully it won’t show up several more times.

    11-year-old football star told not to score too many touchdowns
    Share443
    posted at 8:02 pm on September 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe
    printer-friendly

    Demias Jimerson of Malvern, Ark., is 11 years old — and he’s so good at football that “he’s going to score almost every time he touches the ball,”
    according to his intermediate school principal, Terri Bryant.

    In other words, he’s so good he must be stopped. Because Jimerson runs circles around the other kids on the field, Bryant has decided he’s not allowed to score more than three touchdowns, provided his team has at least a 14-point lead.

    In Malvern, they call that “the Madre Hill” rule, after Razorback great Madre Hill, who, like Jimerson, grew up in the tiny Arkansas town and breezed by his competitors at mind-boggling speed.

    According to Bryant, she’s re-invoking the rule not to punish Jimerson but to provide his competitors with a chance to develop as players, too.

    It’s easy to see the temptation she faces. It’s only natural that the other kids become discouraged when they find they can’t quite compete with Jimerson. But I also know what my dad would say (sheesh, quotin’ him two posts in a row — he’s gonna get cocky!): If you want to be the best, you have to compete with the best. He’d pump my head so full of confidence — and encourage me to practice and push myself so relentlessly — that I’d tackle Jimerson or pass out trying to catch him. (Not healthy, you say? Maybe you’re right. I know burn-out is a real phenomenon — but I also think there’s something to it.)

    Doesn’t the principal see? Running with Jimerson does develop the other players. Maybe they’re not immediately able to discern the ways they’ve improved. But, for every time a kid comes only oh-so-close to tackling Jimerson, he’s going to tackle some other less-speedy quarterback with greater ease. In other words, Bryant and the parents of the other children are missing a prime opportunity to encourage their kids to keep pushing and to teach them all that they can do is their best but that, eventually, their best will pay off — if not on the football field, then in the increased disciplined and irrepressible optimism they cultivated while competing with Jimerson.

    Reminds me a little of the whole Tiger Mother debate: Might we be doing children a disservice by allowing them to get up from the piano before they’ve conquered the most difficult passage of “The Little Donkey”?

    For what it’s worth, Jimerson seems pretty unaffected by the shackles the school has put on his prodigious talent:

    “I got, kinda got shocked because I didn’t know that was gonna happen, but it did,” said Jimerson. Adding, “I’m ok with it.” …

    But the Madre Hill rule is only for fifth and sixth grades. Next year, Jimerson goes to seventh grade.

    “I’m gonna run hard and bring our team to victory,” said Jimerson. Then he added, “but God always comes first, before anything, and grades second.”

    God, grades, then touchdowns — Madre Hill Rule or not.

    Sounds like a pretty good kid to me. Here’s hoping he follows in Madre Hill’s footsteps all the way to the University of Arkansas!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/29/11-year-old-football-star-told-not-to-score-too-many-touchdowns/

  72. Test 🙂

  73. The REAL CONSTITUTION, second edition.

    I suggest this book for the library of those who are serious about understanding our History and the meaning of the Constitution as it was written. I have not ordered my copy yet but I have cited the author here at SUFA many times. I have read many of his individual works on the topic and think the book would make a good addition to your reading and collection.

    http://store.tenthamendmentcenter.com/product-p/bktoc1.htm

  74. The Nude Runner

    A woman was having a daytime affair while her husband was at work.

    One rainy day she was in bed with her boyfriend when, to her horror, she heard her husband’s car pull into the driveway. ‘Oh my God – Hurry! Grab your clothes and jump out the window. My husband’s home early!’

    I can’t jump out the window. It’s raining out there!’ ‘If my husband catches us in here, he’ll kill us both!’ she replied. ‘He’s got a hot temper and a gun, so the rain is the least of your problems!’

    So the boyfriend scoots out of bed, grabs his clothes and jumps out the window! As he ran down the street in the pouring rain, he quickly discovered he had run right into the middle of the town’s annual marathon, so he started running along beside the others, about 300 of them.

    Being naked, with his clothes tucked under his arm, he tried to blend in as best he could.

    After a little while a small group of runners who had been watching him with some curiosity, jogged closer. Do you always run in the nude?’ one asked. ‘Oh yes!’ he replied, gasping for air. ‘It feels so wonderfully free!’

    Another runner moved along side. ‘Do you always run carrying your clothes with you under your arm?’ ‘Oh, yes’ our friend answered breathlessly. ‘That way I can get dressed right at the end of the run
    and get in my car to go home!’

    Then, a third runner cast his eyes a little lower and asked, ‘Do you always wear a condom when you run?’

    Nope…just when it’s raining.

  75. http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/the-sad-american/

    Ranting about the sorry ass state of the American mindset.

  76. America, where the poor are left to die on the streets……

    ON Jan. 4, 2010, Raymond Fok was changing trains on his way to kidney dialysis treatment when he collapsed on the Canal Street subway platform. Emergency medical technicians examined him and took him by ambulance to the nearest hospital, New York Downtown, near the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge. Workers in the emergency room recorded that Mr. Fok’s speech was slurred and that he was lurching from side to side when he walked.

    “He was a very typical hemorrhagic stroke,” said Jeffrey Menkes, the hospital’s president. From the emergency room, the hospital admitted Mr. Fok to the intensive-care unit on the third floor, where workers tried to find out more about their patient — not just his medical history, but his insurance or Medicaid status, his address, his Social Security or taxpayer identification number, the location of family members.

    Once his condition had stabilized, the hospital moved him to a regular room on the fifth floor, where staff members expected to treat him for 7 to 10 days before discharging him to a sub-acute-care center for rehabilitation, the usual regimen for stroke victims.

    Nineteen months later, Mr. Fok, 58, greeted a reporter from his bed in Room 516, eager to have a visitor. In the previous year and a half, perhaps 100 or more patients had come and gone from the room’s other bed, but Mr. Fok had gone nowhere. “Yes, I remember you,” he said. “John, right?”

    The price of his treatment: $1.4 million.

    And who was paying for it?

    “The government,” Mr. Fok guessed, though he was not sure. “The hospital is losing money.”

    In a city with a large immigrant population, it is not rare for hospitals to have one or more patients who, for reasons unrelated to their medical condition, do not seem to leave. At Downtown, where a bed costs the hospital more than $2,000 a day, there are currently three long-term patients who no longer need acute care but cannot be discharged because they have nowhere to go. The hospital pays nearly all costs for these patients’ treatment. One man left recently after a stay of more than five years.

    They are the forgotten people in the health care system — uninsured, usually undocumented, without resources and stuck in the system’s most expensive course of care. Some are abandoned by or estranged from relatives; some belong in rehabilitation centers, where care is much cheaper, but because of their immigration status they are not enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare, so the places will not take them. For hospitals, some of these patients, like Mr. Fok, come in as medical cases and then quickly become puzzles for detective work.

    Mr. Fok released the hospital to discuss his treatment, which involved every department of the staff, from laundry and food services to psychiatric care, social work and community outreach.

    “The first two or three months was a hard time,” Mr. Fok said from his hospital bed, the left side of his face still partially frozen from the stroke. He had a tattoo around one arm and two lumps on his bare leg where the dialysis needles removed and then returned his blood three times a week. He has spent 23 years in the United States, but his English remains rudimentary.

    In the beginning, he said, “always I thought, how long before I go out? Because when you wake up in the same room every day it’s the same thing, ‘When I can get out?’ It’s always depressing. But day by day, day by day, you don’t need to worry about what will happen, because when you wake up it’s always the same room.”

    RAYMOND FOK was born in Madagascar and grew up in Hong Kong, where he became a police officer. In 1988, he brought his wife and two young sons on what he told officials was a vacation in New York, and then never returned. Mr. Fok left some question about his reasons for overstaying the family’s tourist visas, repeating that he had feared Hong Kong’s approaching handover to the Chinese government, though at the time this was nine years away.

    In New York he found a job at a vegetable market in Chinatown, earning $5 an hour to feed a family of four — and soon, with the birth of his daughter 18 years ago, five. A friend helped him rent an apartment in a heavily Chinese section of Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, and taught him to navigate the subways. But the friend refused to help him apply for permanent residence, Mr. Fok said.

    Eventually he landed a job driving a truck for a Chinese-owned company in New Jersey, at $400 a week, off the books, with no insurance benefits, he said. He had a driver’s license and bought a car to commute.

    “Make a life, pay rent, support a family,” he said. His wife worked in a laundry on Delancey Street. His sons went to school and later found jobs in bodegas or bagel shops. It was enough.

    But driving was stressful, with no extra pay for overtime, and he lived on fatty foods consumed on the go. When his kidneys failed, an emergency-care provision in Medicaid paid for dialysis treatments, though he was otherwise ineligible for coverage.

    For Mr. Menkes at New York Downtown, any day the emergency room door might let in the next Mr. Fok. Under federal law, hospitals are required to treat anyone who comes in, regardless of his or her immigration status or ability to pay. Half of the in-patients at Downtown are Asian immigrants, many of them undocumented, Mr. Menkes said. Forty-five percent of those on the staff speak at least one dialect of Chinese. When Mr. Fok arrived — with no Social Security number, no green card, no insurance, disoriented, no known family or address — the hospital was ready for him.

    Downtown Hospital, which has an annual operating budget of $200 million, runs at a slim margin, Mr. Menkes said. Three-quarters of its patients receive either Medicaid or Medicare, which have cut reimbursement rates for doctors, even as expenses have risen. Many private doctors have stopped seeing Medicaid patients, but for the hospital, a private nonprofit institution, this is not an option. The hospital loses money on most babies it delivers, Mr. Menkes said, because reimbursement rates fall below the cost of delivery in New York.

    Mr. Fok came in the door a sick man. He had kidney failure, hypertension and a weak heart, in addition to having suffered the stroke. He could not eat because of a swallowing disorder caused by the stroke. His left side was immobilized.

    “While he was in I.C.U., he said he wanted to die,” said Norma Robinson, a case manager in the hospital’s continuum of care department, which coordinates a patient’s physical and emotional treatment. “Psych came in. A social worker evaluated him. He said he had a son but didn’t know the son’s name.”

    So began a mission by the hospital staff to reconstruct the identity of Raymond Fok, with little cooperation and sometimes active interference from the patient. The family had no land telephone line, and Mr. Fok said he did not know anyone’s cellphone number. The detectives were starting from scratch and could not necessarily trust their prime source.

    In the hospital’s favor, Mr. Fok had no one else to talk to. He had very few visitors, and his roommates changed every few days, before he could bond. “We were his visitors,” said Chui-Man Lai, an assistant vice president of patient services, community outreach and provider relations. “That’s why information comes up to the surface bit by bit. Mr. Fok didn’t want to expose his family, because the whole family is undocumented.” (His daughter is actually a United States citizen.)

    Gradually, nuggets of information came to light. “He said, ‘I have two sons but I’m not associated with them,’ ” Ms. Robinson said. He said that his wife worked in a laundry but that he did not know the name or number. For nearly a year, according to staff members, Mr. Fok declined to provide any other information about his family. He sometimes refused physical therapy or spoke inappropriately to the therapists, said Sharon Fan, a social worker. Ms. Robinson instructed the nurses to watch out for family members visiting him.

    When his health became stable, Mr. Fok no longer needed the acute-level care the hospital provided. The administrators tried to find a less costly home for him.

    “No nursing home would take him because he had no Medicaid and no green card,” Ms. Robinson said. Early this year, after more than 12 months of treatment, employees had a brief glimmer of hope. An evening nurse spotted a woman who seemed to be Mr. Fok’s wife visiting the room. But hopes were short-lived. “She said she can’t take care of her husband,” Ms. Lai said. The staff redoubled its surveillance, but never saw her again. “It was just that one time,” Ms. Lai said.

    Mr. Fok told the hospital that he lived in a five-story walkup, which made going home all but impossible. He needed regular transportation to dialysis, and even if he had Medicaid, the transportation providers carry patients up or down only two flights of steps, said Emma Turner, an administrative supervisor in the continuum of care department.

    In fact, the Foks’ apartment is on the ground floor, just five steps up from street level.

    “He didn’t belong here,” Mr. Menkes said. “But what’s the alternative?”

    TO a stranger meeting Mr. Fok for the first time, he can seem eager for conversation, candid about his life. One former roommate described him as amiable and talkative. He loved soccer. He hated the hospital food. On an August 2011 morning at the hospital, he described the strained family situation in Bensonhurst.

    “My sons hate me,” he said. “They say, ‘Why you bring me here? You don’t have idea. You bring me here; it was a mistake.’ I don’t think it was a mistake. When you come here you see a lot of the world. In Hong Kong you see just a little bit of sky, but here you can see a big sky, a lot of people, different people. It’s the capital of the world, New York. Different people, different cultures. But they don’t like it.”

    He added: “I’m not worried about it, because I got to take care of myself, first. And second, when they grow up they will understand. One day they will have families and they will understand, too.”

    His sons, who he said are 29 and 22, declined to be interviewed for this article. His daughter deferred to her brothers.

    With Mr. Fok unable to work, the others had to pay the $1,200 monthly rent without him. He said his sons paid only the electric bill, so they could run the computer and air-conditioner; for the rest, his wife worked 13 hours a day, seven days a week at $5 an hour. She had little time to visit him in the hospital — and no time to take care of him should the hospital discharge him.

    New York’s Department of Social Services allows Medicaid and other welfare benefits to illegal immigrants who can demonstrate that the government does not intend to deport them, or who have an immediate relative who is a citizen and files an application on their behalf. Getting the first kind of documentation can take a year or more, Mr. Menkes said. But for Mr. Fok, the second, quicker, option was also possible. His daughter, who was born in New York, was about to turn 18, and could apply for him to receive benefits as what is known as a person permanently residing under color of law, or Prucol. There was only one problem: no one knew how to reach her.

    “We continued to feed him, do his laundry, provide nurses and doctors,” Mr. Menkes said. “But he doesn’t belong in an acute-care hospital.” By early 2011, his bill had risen past $1 million, of which the hospital was receiving reimbursement only for his dialysis treatments, which were less than one-tenth of the total costs.

    Finally, in March, there was a breakthrough. Mr. Fok was making progress in physical therapy, and staff members told him he could walk if he had a lightweight device called a hemi cane or hemi walker — basically a cross between a cane and a walker, designed for people with use of only one arm.

    “I’m good with faces,” Ms. Robinson said. “I come out of the elevator and I see a girl who looks just like him, carrying a hemi walker. I said, ‘Who are you?’ She said, ‘I’m Mr. Fok’s daughter.’ ”

    ON Aug. 17, after one year, seven months and 13 days, Mr. Fok returned to his apartment in Bensonhurst, carrying 21 filled prescriptions and his hemi walker. For the $1.4 million in services that Downtown had provided, total reimbursement to the hospital from Medicaid was $114,000, Mr. Menkes said.

    Mr. Fok’s immigration status never kept him from receiving treatment, but it helped make sure that his care would be delivered in the most expensive setting possible and in a place no one wants to spend more time than necessary. He was cut off from his family. On several occasions he showed signs of depression or expressed suicidal thoughts.

    If he had been insured or immediately eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, he might have gone to a nursing home after a week or two, where the average daily cost in New York is about $350 — and where he might have had steady companionship. Or he might have received a home health aide in his apartment, which could have cost even less, depending on the required hours.

    For hospitals like Downtown that treat many illegal immigrants, the health care plan enacted last year does nothing to solve this liability, Mr. Menkes said. During debates about reform, lawmakers insisted that the plan’s benefits not extend to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

    Lawmakers now are proposing cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit, which may put even more pressure on hospitals like Downtown. Nor is this likely to change. Few politicians who want to be re-elected will advocate broadening public services to illegal immigrants or increasing the taxpayer cost of health care.

    For Mr. Fok and his family, the return home has been difficult. After his discharge, he did not immediately get a home health aide. In a family already stressed financially and with difficult relationships, having a patriarch who needs full-time care has raised the tension levels. No one had time before; how could they now?

    In late August, Mr. Fok’s older son called the hospital, irate.

    “He said, ‘It’s an unsafe discharge; I’m going to report you to the attorney general,’ ” Ms. Robinson said. “ ‘Take him back.’ I said, ‘No, we’re not going to take him back.’ He said: ‘I work and I take care of the apartment. Take him back. I want to finish college, and I have a year and a half to go.’ ”

    On a mid-September afternoon, nearly one month after his discharge, Mr. Fok sat in a wheelchair in the crowded waiting room at Chinatown Dialysis Center, a long ambulette ride from Bensonhurst. His hair and beard were neatly trimmed, and he wore a spotless T-shirt.

    He was glad to be home, he said. “Yeah, of course.”

    But as the conversation continued, he reversed this statement. He spoke in tired monosyllables and did not make eye contact, as he had in the hospital.

    Since he came home, his sons have been angry at him, he said: “Because I give them a hard time now. They got to take care of me.”

    He cannot prepare food for himself or walk to the door to open it. He needs help getting to the bathroom. He said he had not walked since leaving the hospital, even with the hemi walker. Asked if he would rather be back in the hospital, he said yes.

    “I’d like to go back but cannot,” he said. “What reason to go back?”

      • Seems there is a lot of gray area in our black and white political debate on immigration. Obviously the answer 23 years ago was enforcing our laws and making them leave when their visa ran out. But we didn’t-so now we have a generation of people who where raised here-who have a legitamite reason to be angry-they are kept in poverty and denied basic freedoms we take for granted. We have older people who came illegally but have nothing to return too. WE also have a lot of people in between these too groups-that I would happily ship out tomorrow and some I wouldn’t. But If we listen to the liberals and don’t enforce our laws-the problem just grows. If we listen to the right-everybody who is illegal gets kicked out no matter the circumstances. Both hardline arguments are total roadblocks to any intelligent answer, IMO.

        We have to realize that we must make a distinction between those who have come recently(not sure our to define recent) and those who have been here for years. Those who came illegally and those who were brought here without having any say in the matter. There is no way to reach “fair” in this mess of a situation.

        Yes, we need to close the borders and we need to enforce our work and whatever other types of visa’s we give out-that are currently in place. But it looks like we aren’t going to do that because the arguments on both sides are too rigid-so maybe we can actually have a conversation about doing both at the same time. Because the hard line arguments certainly aren’t getting us anywhere.

        On suggestion-those who came, by their choice illegally-can stay if they meet certain criteria-but they cannot become citizens-their children however can at some point.

        Now hopefully, others will give their opinions-I have run my mouth on this subject enough. 🙂

        • VH, I agree there should be some common ground. First though we need to stem the in flow. Our borders need to be secured. Did you see that DHS was considering a fence on the northern border?

          We can relieve some of the pressure by increasing legal quotas and adding more INS agents to process applications. I would also bring back the once a year reporting to INS. Remember the ads back in the ’50s telling all immigrants to report to the nearest post office every January? Next I would pick a date, say 5 years, Jan. 1. 2006.. All those who came here after that date must leave voluntarily within 6 months. They should register on departure and will be eligible for return if they file the proper legal papers within 1 year. Anyone here more than 5 years must register. If they have a clean legal record, they will get a probationary green card good for 5 years. If they serve out the probation without an arrest record, the green card becomes permanent but citizenship will not be granted. This is the penalty for violating our laws. All their children born here are citizens by birth. Those not born here and under the age of 14 at the time they register will be granted citizenship at 18 provided they have clean legal records. Those between 14 and 18, will be granted citizenship at the age of 21 provided they have clean records. Citizenship will be granted to anyone with a honorable discharge from the uniformed services or after the completion of 4 years of honorable service. Those who do not follow these rule or have broken our laws and been arrested will be deported with no right of return.

        • I should have added that controlling the borders must come first. The scenerio I gave could be passed by Congress but the amnisty part would only go into effect 18 months after securing the border. The executive must prove an 80% reduction in illegal immigration before the amnisty part is implemented. Another precondition is that 80% of the illegals here less than 5 years must have left. That part of the program would start 1 year after the beginning of the border security part. So at the end of 18 months, 80% of the in flux has been stopped and 80% of the recent illegals have left. Then those here more than 5 years must start registering. They will have a 6 month window to register. At the end of the that 6 months (2 years into the program) the recent illegals who departed may start returning legally. Anyone one caught entering the US after the commencement of this program will serve a 90 day prison sentence and be deported with no right of return. Future incursions will escalate the prison term 6 months for each incursion. They come here to make money. They fail at that if incarcerated.

          I would also add that anyone here more than five years could accept the voluntary deportation with the right to return legally in one year. Those returning legally would be able to follow the normal path to citizenship. Thus a husband and wife pair could alternate in the voluntary deportation program thus reaching the goal of citizenship if it was important to them.

          Those that come here illegally should not expect citizenship nor should we allow the politicians to pander for their votes by promising them citizenship.

          I would not impose fines and previously proposed by the politicians. It sounds too much like citizenship is for sale. It must be earned.

          • Is a pretty good plan-only thing I would add off the top of my head is the question of % and clean records-don’t want to deport a person because of some silly childhood prank or fairly normal stupidity in their youth. But also don’t want to give an opening for 10 years of legal debate either, before we can deport someone. So the words stating these conditions would have to be as precise as possible.

            But the main thing I wonder about is what to do in the mean time-when one side won’t even consider closing the border and the other won’t discuss any type of plan to fix the problem while the border is open. And I agree wholeheartedly that inflow of new illegals must be stopped first. But making it impossible for all these people to legally work-while we educate them and medicate them-is counter-productive. So what common sense laws can the States pass that discourages illegal immigration but doesn’t lead to more people like Mr Fok. Or the young woman who’s being deported after 11 years of court battles.

            Could it be as simple as-it’s illegal to hire any illegal who has been here less than 5 years.

            • Any proposal such as this can be fine tuned to fit various scenerios. Legal issues should be felonies and such not speeding tickets etc. Immigration judges could determine if youthful indescreation is present. Gang participation, however, should be an immediate ticket home. I like the fact that it requires voluntary action on the part of the illegal. He must come out of the shadows and register. Failure to do so places the person at risk for certain deportation if caught. Voluntary action will save the government from tracking down the miscreants.

              As for the politicians, I think (hope) the hangup is over confidence that amnesty will follow after the border is closed. This is why the bill needs to be written specifically to ensure that this happens should the metrics be met. I would like to see the judiciary certify to Congress that the metrics have been met. Thus all 3 branches of government are involved. Congress also needs to appropriate the funds to ensure the border is closed. It needs to be a win-win for both sides. The left gets their compassion and amnesty while the right gets closed borders and rule of law. We all know the left is pandering for votes in the hopes that any new citizens will support them. This is why it is important to have the penalty for illegal entry be the loss of any potential voting rights. Neither party should expect political gains from the solution. The gains should go to the nation as a whole not to the parties.

              Hiring illegals is already illegal but frequently not enforced. It should be enforced as a part of the border security improvements. After the 2 year implementation period, any employers using illegals should be dealt with severely. The objective should be to remove the monetary gains from illegal employment . So I would make the fines 10x the wages paid to the illegal.

              In general I am not in favor of amnesty because amnesty just increases the attractive force resulting in more illegal immigrants. This is why closing the border is a precondition. Simultanously, we need to increase our quotas so that illegal immigration is not as attractive. Like most other Americans, I am not against legal immigration. I just find it hypocritical of the politicians to pontificate about the rule of law and then turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                T Ray and VH, I see we are getting someplace here. There are now THREE of us who believe the problem can be solved by securing the border and then offering legal residence status to those who have no criminal past but never allowing them citizenship, just legal status. It is such a fair proposal why it garners the hostility it does I don’t know. That is the penalty for breaking the law. If in fact these folks are just coming here for a better ;life, it solves the problem. Supposedly, that’s what they are looking for. One of these days I will get around to checking the citizenship status of my own grandparents. They all came here legally but neither grandmother ever learned functional English. the Grandfathers apparently were at least able to speak the language. It is an interesting topic for discussion and research since I suspect most early 20th and late 19th century immigrants were more interested in the freedom to prosper angle than in going through the hassle of becoming citizens.

                Once we get the idea up and running, tweaking the details should be a snap. For example if you are now legal, you can come and go at your pleasure and there is no longer a need to worry about bringing the hordes of relatives here that some fear. You can go see Mom and Pops anytime you want, even your siblings and older children .

              • SK, I don’t think it’s as easy as one thinks. How much are we going to spend to “secure” the border? How is this fence to be manned and at what cost? How do we stop access by water (going around any physical fence – just as illegals from the Caribbean)?

                Is there not a way to improve border security without the mandate that it be done before any resulting reform of immigration policy/procedures?

                I believe the only coherent way is to do both at the same time – as I have suggested before (http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/mother-may-i-immigration-reform/). I believe that if we change/reform entry into the country we will succeed in reducing the amount of illegal crossings of the border to those with criminal intent (drug smugglers for instance) by large amounts.

                I also believe we reduce the exploitation of a shadow workforce by those unscrupulous businesses in the country, at the same time getting those here to put into the system as does any legal immigrant/resident alien.

                As long as either side demands “X” first, we won’t see that reform occur.

                Just my two cents.

              • Plainly, I think border security is a good question for the D13. The reforms will not work unless we can take the pressure off the border. This is why we need to liberalize the legal path for entry while at the same time make it more painful if illegal entry occurs, hence the 90d retention. Just throwing the illegals back over the border so they can make another try the next night is ineffective. The drug running issue is completely separate and should be dealt with severely by law enforcement. Would sealing the border be cheaper than all the costs of providing healthcare, school, and other benefits to the illegals? I know that CA spends alot of money on this as do other states.

                I do not think that the amnesty program will be acceptable without the security first. If we offer amnesty first or even simultaneously, then all we will do is increase the current to the electromagnet. The attractive force will get stronger and the inflow will increase. This is what happened with the last amnesty. The border was supposed to be closed then too but never was.

                Again look for the win-win solution. The solution should benefit the country as a whole not one party or the other. We all know what the game is, trolling for voters.

                After following your link and reading it, I do not know how good or reliable the criminal record system is in Mexico or other latin countries. I also do not think it would be wise to just open the gates and let the world flood in. It takes time for these new residents to assimulate and understand our culture. There is already too much balkanization of certain groups. Hopefully some of that will decrease if they are out of the shadows.

              • T-Ray,

                I had intended a more detailed reply to your comment, but then I read “I do not think that the amnesty program will be acceptable without the security first” and realized that it would be an unproductive effort since this is stumbling block of the right (as “amnesty first/now” is for the left).

                As long as the debate falls on the “do this first” requirement there will be no significant national reform of the immigration issue.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              so simple, just call them alleged illegal aliens!

  77. Okay, yous crazies on the right … looks like the revolution is taking hold on … what say yous now?

    Wives and Lovers … The Christie factor … Revolution on Wall Street … Bills-Bengals …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/10/wives-and-lovers-christie-factor.html

  78. Here we go-this is what I’m talking about when it comes to the hardline arguments of the left-this has nothing to do with Feelings-this has to do with changing reality to fit their purposes-to hell with the law-a court doesn’t have to tell me that being an undocumented immigrant is illegal.

    SPJ Urges End to “Illegal Alien,” “Illegal Immigrant”

    The Society of Professional Journalists, hearing an emotional plea from Rebecca Aguilar, a member of SPJ and of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, voted Tuesday to recommend that newsrooms discontinue using the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant.” The resolution from the 7,800-member organization says only courts can decide when a person has committed an illegal act.

    Aguilar argued that using those words insulted Latinos and all those who are or had once been in the United States illegally. She used the example of her mother, who became a “proud American” in 1980. Her mother felt insulted “every time she heard that word,” Aguilar said of the phrase “illegal alien.”

    “She turned the tide,” the new president-elect, Sonny Albarado, projects editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock, said of Aguilar. “She delivered the statement with such passion. After that, there was just a great overwhelming outpouring of support.” Aguilar, a freelance broadcaster in Dallas, is a board member of NAHJ and of the Fort Worth SPJ chapter, was an SPJ “diversity fellow,” and is a new member of SPJ’s Diversity Committee.

    The resolution, introduced by the SPJ Diversity Committee at the Excellence in Journalism convention in New Orleans, was originally rejected by the Resolutions Committee. Its members recommended that objections be brought to the stylebook committee of the Associated Press, Albarado said.

    That did not sit well with members who argued that not all news organizations use the AP stylebook. Jeremy Steele, a member of the Diversity Committee who is director of media relations for the John Truscott Group in Lansing, Mich., tweaked the language into something more acceptable, said Albarado, who would follow Fred Brown and Robert Leger as an SPJ president of Latino heritage, Alborado said Thursday.

    The motion passed on a voice vote.

    “I hope that it makes a statement about sensitivity to language. It has an effect on the people it refers to,” Albarado said. “I hope it shows people that journalists are concerned about being accurate when they refer to people, plus I hope it helps shape the discussion.”

    The resolution reads:

    “WHEREAS, the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics urges all journalists to be ‘honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information’ and;

    “WHEREAS, mainstream news reports are increasingly using the politically charged phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ and the more offensive and bureaucratic ‘illegal alien’ to describe undocumented immigrants, particularly Latinos and;

    “WHEREAS, a fundamental principle embedded in our U.S. Constitution is that everyone (including non-citizens) is considered innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law and;

    “WHEREAS, this constitutional doctrine, often described as ‘innocent-until-proven-guilty,’ applies not just to U.S. Citizens but to everyone in the United States and;

    “WHEREAS, only the court system, not reporters and editors, can decide when a person has committed an illegal act and;

    “WHEREAS, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is also concerned with the increasing use of pejorative and potentially inaccurate terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States;

    “THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Society of Professional Journalists convention of delegates: urges journalists and style guide editors to stop the use of illegal alien and encourage continuous discussion and re-evaluation of the use of illegal immigrant in news stories.”

    http://mije.org/richardprince/unity-backer-has-second-thoughts#SPJ

    Have a great day!

    • Alleged illegal alien then.

    • Another debate on the subject. My feelings: get over it, I’ve been called worse. Just solve the issue and become a legal immigrant.

      Which Is Acceptable: ‘Undocumented’ vs. ‘Illegal’ Immigrant?
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122314131

    • I would agree with the idea when discussing individuals, just like any defendant in a case, alleged until convicted.

      However, they want to change the terms used to soften the image in the mind of the public when discussing the overall issue. One doesn’t discuss the alleged murderers when discussing the murder rate, nor should one be confused about the illegal immigrants when discussing the illegal immigration issue.

  79. T-Ray

    *roll eyes*

    Yep, more enforcement has made drug use less common and safer, resulting in few arrests and crime.
    Yep, more enforcement has made the border safer, and few “illegal” immigrants are coming over.

    Your answer to failure is more extreme of the same failure.

    • BF, I have heard your arguments on this subject before and quite frankly believe you live in a fantasy world that does not exist and will never exist. Borders are a worldwide reality. Deal with it. Go to the southern border and look across. You see the same dirt on the otherside. Why then is there such an economic difference between the two countries? Go to the northern border and look across. That economic difference does not exist. So there is a net driving force for those south of the border to move north. Most immigrants bring their habits and politics with them. It takes a number of years to retrain these individuals to our society and culture not to mention our language. Absolutely unrestrained immigation will overload this process ultimately changing our culture and politcal processes probably to the detriment of all. If I overload my truck, it stops working as a truck. If I overload this democracy with hoards that do not understand it, it too will stop working.

      I was not addressing the drug problems just the immigration problems. But I am sure that you will pick apart everything I said line by line and refute it in ever increasing minutia. And in the process will not add anything positive to the discussion other than open the flood gates. Go back and read carefully what I said. There needs to be a method for reducing pressure on the border. That amounts to liberalization of the entry process and quotas. Not open borders but significantly greater opportunites for entry legally. Along with that we need to increase the likelyhood that those crossing illegally will be apprehended and that there is a penalty for crossing illegally. Since they are coming here for work, then denying them work via detention for 90d accomplishes that.

      For those that are already here, I proposed methods for them to attain legal residency and even citizenship. But it requires that they come out of the shadows voluntarily. I think what I proposed is more than fair and in fact quite generous. But I am sure that in your eyes it is quite ludicrous and onerous.

      • T-Ray,

        I find it incredibly humorous that you believe you live in reality – pontificating MORE assaults on non-violent people, MORE enforcement of immoral laws, thinking it will solve the problem of violence.

        You live in a fantasy with such beliefs – given I have the facts that your solutions do not work, period.

        But that does not deter the dogmatic and the Statist faithful – if their failures compound, it is because they have not done their work “hard enough”, until millions are dead.

        It matters not one wit what “another side of the road” does or does not, is rich or is not, is brown skinned or is not.

        I sense the reason you have so much fear of such people is that you know they are better than you. You are the wimpy one.

        They come here without the language, education, upbringing – and the whip your ass.

        So your own solution is to ban them.

        • PS

          But I am sure that you will pick apart everything I said line by line and refute it in ever increasing minutia

          You bet!

          Because it is that minutia that your premise and fallacies lie. You ignore these things – leap to incredible and disastrous conclusions because of them.

          You have long ago dismissed any tally of your incoherent beliefs. You, like most Americans, have shoved them into a dark corner, somehow believing they are true -even if the are a mess of contradictions- and that in that dark corner they will all, somehow, sort themselves out.

          But the darkness gets larger, the corner gets filled with more and more unresolved contradictions and you look upon your nation with grave concern seeing it go to hell in a hand basket.

          Yet, you cannot understand why this is happening, all the while you just keep shoveling stuff into that corner.

          • BF-how about you give us a common sense plan that will lead to the result you desire-something, anything, based on our currant system ,which limits our choice’s, more than how to get ready for the fall.

  80. For some reason this struck me as funny-but I cannot figure out the political strategy of this move.

    Can liberals shop at Target now?
    byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
    Follow on Twitter:@charliespiering
    First lady Michelle Obama, wearing a hat and sunglasses, center, stands in line at a Target Department store in Alexandria, Va., Thursday, Sept. 29, 2011, after doing some shopping. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

    Photos of First Lady Michelle Obama were featured on all major network newscasts yesterday as she was spotted shopping at a local Target retail
    store wearing a hat and sunglasses.

    Target notoriously sparked the outrage of liberals and LGTB activists after donating money to Republicans in Minnesota.

    Just last year activists at MoveOn.org, funded by liberal billionaire George Soros sponsored a huge campaign against Target creating a “Boycott Target” group on Facebook and collecting over 260,000 supportive signatures.

    “Target’s refusal to acknowledge its customers’ outrage at their attempt to buy elections is scandalous,” said Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn, at the time.

    Word of the boycott has subsided in recent months, and an investment fund controlled by billionaire George Soros purchased 543,900 shares of Target stock in August 2011.

    But if the boycott is over, someone forgot to tell the 80,000+ members of the Boycott Target Facebook group.

    “OMG! Michelle Obama is on the news for having shopped at Target. Let the current administration know that they need only to deal with companies who support a liberal agenda.” wrote an incredulous member.

    MoveOn.org, hasn’t responded for a request for comment on the issue.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/can-liberals-shop-target-now?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner%20Political%20Digest%20SUNDAY%20-%2010/02/2011&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Political%20Digest

  81. Good morning all…..D13 is back….(not that I was missed)…have been on the border for some time and saw a question above while catching up. And a great question at that. Perhaps people should ask those you watch and work on the border what the best solution is…..we actually know. So, I think that I will write an update article on what is happening on the border and how we are dealing with it. What is sad to see……the tourist industry is now non existent.. Restaurants close at 6 pm. If you drive or walk across to any border town now…you risk being killed, raped, or kidnapped. It is a war zone worse than Beirut. What is even worse than that is the news blackout that has been imposed. Anyway, I think an update is appropriate.

    What say you, USW?

  82. V.H.

    BF-how about you give us a common sense plan that will lead to the result you desire-something, anything, based on our currant system ,which limits our choice’s, more than how to get ready for the fall.

    You have not been paying attention.

    My desire is irrelevant.

    I have demonstrated, I believe, beyond a shadow of any doubt that neither you or I or 99.9% of any person on this continent can “do” or “plan” anything so to avoid the inevitability of the consequences resulting from political action since 1913.

    To believe you have the necessary political power is naive.

    Worse, even if you did, you would NOT do the necessary political actions necessary!

    I have shown -consistently- that even YOU are not interested whatsoever in doing the necessary stuff to avoid these harsh consequences.

    You refuse to relinquish government action that benefits you.

    You cannot see that everyone else is like you, doing that exact same thing – refusing to relinquish their government benefits – you spit at them for what you see is their failure (and they spit at you for the same reason), but all fail to realize it is their and your failure – it is the same failure at the same time.

    So the beat goes on and on…. right over the cliff.

    (PS: “you” are representative of most of SUFA, not just you personally).

    Knowing this gives but a few options.
    (1) Changing the system is utterly futile – there is no will to do so, for to do so changes the system~!
    Yes, you do not want to change the system – you simply want the system for your own benefit, and merely exclude others from those benefits – thus the system will not change.

    You cannot change a system whose design prohibits change to the system.

    (2) If the system will not change, it will collapse. That which cannot go on, tends to stop.

    So one must prepare for the consequences of that collapse.

    But who is doing that? Only a fraction.

    Then you need to ask these questions:
    (3) What is the form of the collapse, so to know what will come after the collapse?
    (4) What do I do today to prepare for that “after collapse” environment?

    I have offered my future sight to what will occur – a devolution of the centralization of political power.
    I have offered the extent of the devolution – all the way to civic government.
    I have offered the plan for this – involve one’s self locally, now, to build a history and reputation as a competent civic political activist or politician (the latter if you like digging in shit … local shit … but shit anyway).

    • BF

      So-even if every word you just wrote is correct-it doesn’t matter-we still need to push to make things better-not perfect maybe, but better. We have that ability. Is it better, more moral to you, to just let these people who are in the middle of this debate just hang in limbo for years-while we wait for the system to fall. Because I don’t.

  83. V.H.

    I have not left anyone in “limbo”.
    I am not waiting for the system to collapse.

    You can only use the minute of your life doing one thing – you cannot do two things in that minute.

    You wish to effort in futility so to sooth your emotional need of running in quicksand, thus, surrender that effort doing something worthwhile.

    • Obviously, we are not ever going to agree on this point. What you see as running in quicksand-I see as fighting for whats right based on the reality of our circumstances. I might know, I was going to die in a month(I’m not-as far as I know) 🙂 but I would still try to stop a murder if I saw it happening-I wouldn’t say-well they are going to die eventually too-so I’ll just let him die-and use my minutes to warn people to prepare for death.

  84. Good morning, BF…..still sparring with the masses,I see.:smile:

    I have not inquired about your injury…how is your arm doing?

    • D13

      Good morning my Texican friend. Glad to see you alive and well. Frankly, I was getting a little worried by your absence.

      Please post your update on the border. I did notice that last week, or the week before, there were some military types commenting on the border situation and noting that it was NOT consistent with the Administration’s story. Figured your groups were finally getting some to speak out who can get media attention.

      Hope all is well in the heat land.

    • D13,

      You always know when my arm is sore, don’t you 🙂

  85. Time to think about the Future:

    The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
    By Glenn Greenwald

    It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

    What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens,far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.

    • BF

      Are we at war with Al Quieda or are we not???

      You claim that Nation States are immoral and will soon disappear. Traditional war is between Nation States. But as you have pointed out here before, the modern warrior in the middle east, is not tied to a Nation State. This group has declared war on the USA. Seems to me that a group declaring war, independent of Nation State status, is completely consistent with your view on the subject of States.

      So if THEY decided to declare and wage “4th generation warfare” who are we to argue otherwise and behave according to the rules THEY have defined?

      Are we supposed to wage a 4th Generation War using 2nd Generation strategies??

      If we are at war with this group then its members are fair game for attack, where ever they exist. It is THEY who defined the battlefield as existing where ever THEY occur.

      Your argument rests on the claim that we are NOT at war with this group. So how is it that you support that argument?

      • JAC

        Are we at war with Al Quieda or are we not???

        No.

        But you already have assumed without evidence that the man was such an operative.
        And even if he was, he is entitled to his rights

        You claim that Nation States are immoral and will soon disappear.Traditional war is between Nation States.

        By your definition, your fight with the local hoodlum is a war, justifying you blowing up a city block to kill him.

        You have done well highlighting precisely the consequences of Obama’s action. The Rubicon has been crossed with nary a whimper.

        Your argument rests on the claim that we are NOT at war with this group. So how is it that you support that argument?

        Not …
        One…
        Bit.

        My argument rests on the irrelevance of the Constitution. The 5th Amendment has been vanquished.

        By simple writ, with no trial, no judge, nor jury of your peers, you can be summarily executed.

        Good luck for your future.

        • BF

          It would behoove you to stop attacking the person asking the questions and deal with the issue or question.

          Once again, WHY ARE WE NOT AT WAR with this group? Especially given that THEY declared war against us.

          Your argument that we are not because the Constitution is irrelevant is quite simply, nonsense.

          The question is absolutely relevant because someone who is a member of the group is a combatant and the battlefield is the place of THEIR choosing.

          By the way, this guy claimed not only membership but a leadership role with this group. How can you even begin to claim otherwise?

          • JAC,

            Once again, WHY ARE WE NOT AT WAR with this group? Especially given that THEY declared war against us.

            Explain how the US government can be at “war” with a street gang, just because they use that word.

            Your argument that we are not because the Constitution is irrelevant is quite simply, nonsense.

            NO.

            The point is that a man was executed by writ. You are confused in the thinking this has to do with some war.

            By the way, this guy claimed not only membership but a leadership role with this group. How can you even begin to claim otherwise?

            Where is your proof?
            Otherwise, you are merely pulling stuff out of the air.

        • BF

          You have no idea what I want or don’t want.

          The only thing I want right now is for you to explain why you think we are NOT at war with a group who has declared war against the USA.

          You claiming none exists is an opinion, not a rational reason.

      • BF is correct, there has been no declaration of war against al Queda (a terrorist organization). Further there is no UN Resolution authorizing any military action against al Queda (a terrorist organization). I would also argue that “declaring” war against a terrorist group is not supported in US or International Law.

        Therefore any actions taken against said group in a sovereign nation without the consent of that nation (Pakistan for repeated instances of violations of their sovereignty by the US) is arguable as a violation of international law and an act of war upon that nation.

        Further, actions against a US citizen not on a battlefield in time of Congressional authorized hostilities is a violation of the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. Where is the Constitutional authority for a President to order the assassination of a US citizen?

        If such a travesty is allowed to stand then the public tacitly approves of the government acting against any citizen any administration decides to deem as an enemy (by whatever terminology they choose to use) of the US. Will you stand behind an assassination of a US citizen when it occurs within the borders of the USA? If so, why is that different from killing one in a foreign nation? Why not solve the Guantanamo situation by just outright shooting those in captivity then – or are you going to argue they are entitled to due process?

        What a dark road now being traveled.

        • oops………I wrote, “If so, why is that different…”

          I should have written, “If NOT, why is that different…”

          • Re: Declaration of war on Al Qaeda. This works for me.

            President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress and the nation
            .Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
            It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

            • Anita,

              So any speech is sufficient as long as the President calls it a war? Your threshold for the rule of law is that low? A speech trumps the United States Constitution?

              And what say you to the other questions I asked in my post?

              • In Sept ’11..yes..that speech was sufficient. We were a freaked out nation, the entire administration was in favor of striking back as were many other nations of the world. I bet your thought process was different on that day too.

                This guy was no American in my eyes. Why didn’t he give up his citizenship? He sure wasn’t on our side. I don’t care where he was when they got him. Do you really think they are going to knock on your door next? Sure just kill all of us…then who is going to be their grunts..it just doesn’t add up.

              • plainly

                This was not JUST a speech. Bush declared we were at war. Right or wrong that is what he did AND CONGRESS CLAPPED LOUDLY.

                Furthermore, Congress took NO ACTION to refute the President’s claim. Congress was complicit in the declaration and execution.

                We agree that Congress has become a spineless entity for not coming right out and declaring war, but the reality is that Congress has allowed the Administration to “legally declare” war on its behalf.

              • Wow Anita – I am almost speechless in your trashing of over 200 years of Constitutional authority.

                On 9/11 my thinking was someone will pay – and off to Afghanistan we went – under Congressional authority. There hasn’t been and isn’t any authority to fight al Queda in countries outside of Afghanistan (and probably Iraq), regardless of what Bush said in any speech.

                There have been al Queda associated arrests here, but by your (and JAC’s?) thinking it would be fine to allow the assassination of these people because they are al Queda and are battlefield targets regardless of their location.

                And it makes no difference what he is, or isn’t, in your eyes – but in the eyes of the Constitution.

              • Well Plainly.. I’m just as speechless at your thoughts. By your thinking we should just lay down and play dead.

              • Anita,

                Really, where did I say that at all? lol……Your thinking is seriously flawed to draw that conclusion.

              • Plainly I’m just as weary of these wars as you are. This war continues. Wars are not pretty. People die. US citizen or not, he was fighting against us.And were just supposed to take it? What the……….

    • I would like to point out that while BF’s claim is true that the Govt argued “State Secrets” with respect to a portion of the case against Alwalki, it had NO BEARING on the judges rejection of the case brought by his father and the ACLU. From the Wall St Journal at the time of the Judge’s decision to reject the petition for stay of Govt’s listing for execution:

      “A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the Obama administration’s targeted-killing program, meaning the U.S. can continue to go after a Yemeni-American cleric whom it blames for terrorist plots.

      The case, brought by the father of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, raised difficult questions about the breadth of U.S. executive power, but U.S. District Judge John Bates said he couldn’t answer them as the father lacked legal standing to bring the case.

      The “serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum,” Judge Bates wrote in an 83-page ruling.

      The judge acknowledged the “somewhat unsettling nature” of his conclusion “that there are circumstances in which the [president’s] unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas” is “judicially unreviewable.” NOTE THAT THE JUDGE RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT THE GOVT’S ARGUMENT BUT DEFERS TO ANOTHER DAY.

      The U.S. says Mr. Awlaki is a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, the group that the U.S. believes was behind the recent thwarted attempt to blow up U.S.-bound planes with package bombs as well as a failed attempt to bomb an airliner last Christmas. AQAP has claimed responsibility for the plots.

      Mr. Awlaki is believed to be in hiding in Yemen, where he regularly issues Islamist sermons popular among jihadists on the Internet. He is a target of a U.S. program aiming to kill leaders of terror groups, U.S. officials say.

      Mr. Awlaki’s father, Nasser al-Awlaki, brought the case with the help of lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. They argued the father had to bring the case as the younger Mr. Awlaki couldn’t seek protection of the courts himself for fear of being killed.

      The lawsuit sought to prevent Mr. Awlaki’s killing unless he presented an “imminent” threat.

      The government, in its court arguments, didn’t confirm plans to kill Mr. Awlaki. It argued that the cleric, as a U.S. citizen, could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or filing suit himself.

      Judge Bates wrote that Mr. Awlaki had used the Internet in recent months to issue anti-American messages, while taking no action to indicate he wants the U.S. judicial system to hear his case. To the contrary, the judge wrote, Mr. Awlaki wrote an article in April asserting that Muslims “should not be forced to accept rulings of courts of law that are contrary to the law of Allah.””

  86. V.H.

    Obviously, we are not ever going to agree on this point. What you see as running in quicksand-I see as fighting for whats right based on the reality of our circumstances.

    Fighting shadows….. is all you are doing.

    I have asked often, and yet, never received a coherent answer.

    How do you propose to change a system that has been absolutely insulated from change since 1865?

    If you had 100 year plan ….maybe…

    But you do not have a 100 years.

    You do not even know the first step of a plan, even if you had a 100 years. You lost the battle before you even knew you were in one.

    The public school system was the battle, and you lost.

    Heck, I have no doubt you support the public school system – and thus, you are feeding the enemy with new generation of troops for the foreseeable future. And you think you can change the system, when you are tacitly supporting the status quo?

    “If you are thinking 1 year ahead, plant seeds If you are thinking 10 years ahead, plant a tree If you are thinking 100 years ahead, educate the people.” — Chinese Emperor Kuan Tsu, 5th centuring BC

    So the enemy has your children’s education – and your cause is hopeless;
    you are not teaching them anything but the system
    your marching in quicksand is not changing anything
    the system cannot be changed.

    I might know, I was going to die in a month(I’m not-as far as I know) 🙂 but I would still try to stop a murder if I saw it happening-I wouldn’t say-well they are going to die eventually too-so I’ll just let him die-and use my minutes to warn people to prepare for death

    If a man is falling from a plane without a parachute, what you are saying is that the best you can do is run under him in hopes you can break his fall – this is the only and best thing you can think of doing.

    I recommend to others, however, that they avoid the falling man and prepare to deal with the consequences of the impact -from afar.

    • As I said-we aren’t going to agree-but I have made all the points I feel are necessary. We may not be able to stop the fall of our country-but we don’t have to let the man fall out of the plane in the meantime.

      • V.H.

        Please provide a coherent description on how you believe you can accomplish your goal – when there has been no example – not one of such a thing for the last 175 years.

        Please provide an idea on how you will be able to change the system of politics that has been cemented in place for 175 years, and do this change within 18 months.

        You believe “your guy” -whoever that would be- can do it, once he sits in the big chair.

        Yet, “your guy” – all of them with no exceptions – while sitting in the big chair made things worse.

        Please provide how you believe – this time – this would not be the case.

  87. V.H. and SUFA,

    The face of reality.

    After the next election, no matter who is elected:

    The economy will be a disaster.
    Unemployment will be well over 10%.
    QE3 will not be working.
    The Federal deficit will be approaching $150 billion a month. It will be out of control.
    All promises by Obama are laughed off. All calls for patience will be ignored.

    The Republicans will gain control over all three branches, and with big majorities.
    That’s when the trouble will begin.

    Keynesians are in control of the entire academic community.

    They are in control in the advisory institutions: the think tanks.
    The best we can hope for are a few monetarists calling for semi-stable money.
    They were silent in 2008 and 2009. They were cheerleaders instead. They will not likely change.

    We will have a new President with no operational plan.

    The crisis will be international. There will be a race to debase currencies.

    In this setting, the great threat will be a trade war.

    With Democrats out of the picture for two years, there will be enormous pressure on the President to spend.
    The Tea Party Republicans in the House may be able to block this.
    They must break with the Party’s leaders.
    Most will not do this.

    Remember what happened under Bush II: a huge increase in spending/deficits.
    Bad as it will be in 2012, it will be worse in 2014. There will be no hope in 2014.

    If Romney is elected, he will face hostile Tea Party Republicans.
    If one of the others is elected, he will be pressured to fill his Administration with CFR Team B members.
    Reagan did, after all. James Baker, Bush’s adviser, ran Reagan’s White House.

    I am assuming that Ron Paul is not elected.

    The crisis cannot be solved by more of the same: huge deficits and a huge increase in the monetary base.
    But that is all that the Establishment has to offer: Keynesian prescriptions that do not work.

    We are at long last heading into the perfect storm.
    There will be no political port in this storm.
    The proposed solutions will all fail: “Don’t mess with my Medicare or my Social Security or our Defense, or our Education or … or .. or … or …”
    The voters are willing to make marginal cuts in programs that don’t benefit them directly, but not in the ones that offer a long-run reduction in their welfare checks.

    This will be a great opportunity for those who are ready.

    • Granted-this may well be our future-but we have been talking about changing a policy within the system-not the whole system. If the whole thing falls than yea-all these conversations are moot-but until it falls they are not. Now I am out of here-gonna go have some fun.

  88. OOPS…you had me to the point…..”This will be a great opportunity for those who are ready”…..No one is ready.

  89. JAC,

    This was not JUST a speech. Bush declared we were at war. Right or wrong that is what he did AND CONGRESS CLAPPED LOUDLY.

    Furthermore, Congress took NO ACTION to refute the President’s claim. Congress was complicit in the declaration and execution.

    We agree that Congress has become a spineless entity for not coming right out and declaring war, but the reality is that Congress has allowed the Administration to “legally declare” war on its behalf.

    Bush received Congressional authority to attack Afghanistan, and later Iraq, not one to wage world-wide war on a terrorist group – and I don’t give a damn how loud those idiots clapped!

    Congress also did not hand the President any authority to suspend the Constitution against anyone – period.

    The rule of law is dead in this country at this rate.

    • plainly

      The Resolution passed by Congress

      “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

      SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

      SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

      (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

      (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

      (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

      (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
      Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

      Attest:

      Secretary.

      107th CONGRESS

      1st Session

      S. J. RES. 23

      JOINT RESOLUTION
      To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

      Plainly, please note subsection (a). This my friend is an open ended authority to wage war, any where in the world, against those the President determines are part of the organizations associated with the 9/11 attacks, namely Al Quada and its affiliates.

      The problem is not that the rule of law is dead, but that the law itself has become corrupt.

      • By that resolution – as long as it stands – then the President may wage war on US soil and the Constitution is null and void?
        .
        Well hell, welcome to the dictatorship. No elections needed.

        I’m surprised you stand behind such actions by the government. 😦

        • plainly

          I never said I supported one side of the argument or the other.

          The reason for my initial questions was that this is a much more complicated issue than is being portrayed by either side. The Constitutional violations are not quite as clear cut as are being claimed.

          I have not reviewed the rest of the War Powers Act but I suspect that this did not give the Pres. authority to “wage war” within the USA. But it does give him authority to take action against the same nations, groups or individuals within our borders. This is further supported by the authority granted in the Patriot Act.

          One of the arguments given against Congress issuing a “Formal Declaration of War” was that it WOULD have given the President greater authority to suspend rights within the USA, under the War Powers Act. Therefore, Congress restricted the authority to more restrictive provisions of the War Powers Act.

          The REAL issue, relative to legality is in my mind whether we are at war or not. Yes or No.

          Unfortunately both Congress and the Administration jump back and forth between these two answers depending on what it is they want to get away with at any given moment.

          • I do not believe we are at war with an organization – wars are declared against nations. Actions against al Queda outside of either Afghanistan or Iraq fall into a law enforcement purview IMO.

            By that resolution the US “declared war” against every nation on Earth by saying we attack who we want, when we want, where we want and that’s legal.

            What happens if we pissed off Pakistan enough that they – stupidly – launched a nuke (extreme example) because we waged war on their nation by attacking across their border without their knowledge or consent? By such behavior we assign our sovereignty to be of no greater value than we afford other nations – how foolish of us.

            We assign our citizens no greater protection of law than we afford to others by this behavior.

            It is, without a doubt in my mind, against all this country is suppose to stand for.

  90. Anita, moving down here.

    Plainly I’m just as weary of these wars as you are. This war continues. Wars are not pretty. People die. US citizen or not, he was fighting against us.And were just supposed to take it? What the……….

    Yes, I am tired of this war. I want our troops home and not continuing to die for the illusion that the US will be able to aid the Afghans in creating a stable democracy that will last not long once we fully depart. I never supported the Iraq adventure.

    But, that is not my point at all. Let me frame my thinking this way – look at the precedence being set. The Constitution and rule of law can be suspended by Executive Order. Is that a nation you want to live in really?

    • plainlyspoken

      That is not what is happening here. It is much more complicated and convoluted. See the actual Congressional Authorization above.

      • JAC

        It is – as I pointed out directly – in contravention to the Constitution.

        You can do a Buck and “interpret” all you want.

        • BF

          Killing an American who is fighting for an organization we are at war with is NOT a contravention of the Constitution.

          So, please EXPLAIN YOUR reason for believing we are NOT at war.

          • Even in war it is murder to kill one not directly threatening you. If we conclude that ANY one acting against the US can be killed then we can kill all the detainees we hold in Guantanamo, as well as killing anyone – anywhere – on no more that the decision of one person.

            • plainly

              Sorry but you are stretching to far I think.

              Prisoners are prisoners. Their term of detention and handling can change depending on whether they are prisoners of war, combatants or simply criminals.

              But neither gives the authority to simply kill them.

              I do not believe that under the rules of war that it is considered murder to target the leadership of the opposing force. Maybe I am wrong on this but I know that all nations did this in the great wars of the 20th century.

              Also note that the authority did not extend to anyone acting against the USA. Only those tied to groups or nations or individuals tied to the 9/11 attacks.

              • Maybe, but then this whole process of authorizing assassination is stretching the authority of the President too far.

                As a nation we have overstepped ourselves in the world and when we get slapped back into place we’ll have earned it.

          • JAC,

            War is waged between States, not groups.

            • BF

              So now tell me in a world of NO STATES, when is war waged and who wages it?

            • BF

              Re: No State world

              That is just ridiculous.

              My many ancestors waged war on many other tribes and clans simply for the enjoyment and of course the wenches, gold, silver and fine wine.

              Oh, and protection of hunting grounds and water sources. Yes, this is territorial but no Nation State existed.

              • JAC,

                You are funny today.

                You ask a question postulating a no State world, then you pontificate back at me when I answer your question.

                But, you are merely a 15th Century man, yelling “Pray to God without a Pope!?!? Ridiculous!”

                No, they called them Kingdoms – the base structure remains the same:
                “Monopoly on violence within a geographical area”

    • NOPE. But I also don’t want to be a sitting duck. I understand we are at a crossroad with the Constitution and that is a serious issue. But more serious to me at the moment is that I’m in the crosshairs.

      • I understand your thought but I fall back to Ben Franklin:

        They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  91. JAC

    Only those tied to groups or nations or individuals tied to the 9/11 attacks

    Exactly my point and Plainly’s point.

    The prisoners are now subject to extrajudicial execution -for they meet the unConstitutional …. and extremely dangerous…. criteria.

    • BF

      Sorry but your stretching beyond reason as well.

      As I pointed out to Plainly, once these folks were captured the other laws and rules take over.

      Note the Judge’s comments in the Alawaki case. He stated that if he didn’t want to be targeted all he had to do was surrender to authorities as he would then be afforded protection under the law as a “prisoner”. Although he stopped short of stating what “type” of prisoner, it is clear the law protects prisoners, despite the 2001 authorization.

  92. JAC,

    but U.S. District Judge John Bates said he couldn’t answer them as the father lacked legal standing to bring the case.

    Right.

    So the case requires the man to submit to the US – the government that have already proven they will hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, and torture them (some to death) – so a judge, who may or may not actually hold jurisdiction to hear the case regardless – can hear if the guy has a case.

    Thus, if such a man refuses, the President can kill him.

    Welcome to the 4th Reich. Sieg Heil!

  93. Gman, LOI or BF

    Could one of you post a new thread so we can speed up the discussions and perhaps start some new ones???

    I haven’t got the access yet and it appears USW is booked up.

  94. BF

    “You are funny today.”

    Not at all. I am simply asking you to be consistent with your own requirements. Namely that you must recognize the reality of human history.

    You claim that NO WAR would exist WITHOUT States.

    I simply pointed out that war did in fact exist in the past without States. I am not talking about Kings and definable kingdoms here. But tribal and clan warfare. One people against another fighting over resources. Sometimes for turf but sometimes just for the resources, which they took home with them.

    Whether the Vikings or the Cheyenne and Comanche, they waged war without having anything resembling a STATE, as you yourself has described a State in the past.

    Now it seems to fit your claim you are trying to redefine STATE to include large family, clans or tribal groups. Yet you have used these same historical human groups in the past as examples of how a STATELESS society might function.

    So it looks to me like you need to take some time and clarify your position regarding what a STATE is and then how WAR can ONLY occur under a STATE.

  95. BF
    “I sense the reason you have so much fear of such people is that you know they are better than you. You are the wimpy one.
    They come here without the language, education, upbringing – and the whip your ass.
    So your own solution is to ban them.”

    Flag you are being quite presumptuous to think you know me well enough to say that I fear immigrants, that they are better than a wimpy me and that they could whip my ass, i.e., out work me.

    I helped build my first house at the age of 11, went full time in summers and vacations on a carpenter crew starting at 13 for the next ten years. I have shinned up ice covered rafters, shingled in the snow, and 105°F and 95% RH weather, built barns, houses, and all manner of farm buildings. I have jacked up old post and beam barns loaded to the peak with baled hay (tons) to save them from an overload collapse praying the whole time that they did not fall on me. I helped my Dad design and build special equipment for some of the unusual jobs we did. All of this while a teenager over forty years ago. The money earned funded college. Since then I have roofed every house I have owned and done structural and remodeling work on them. In my current house, I have gutted and rebuilt, including tile, the primary bathroom, replaced an 80’ deck, designed and built (from foundation to peak) a 28’ x 48’ Gambrel barn/shop/garage with full loft, and just finished gutting and remodeling the basement after a broken pipe flood. The only outside help was the carpet layers in the basement and the gutter hangers who just finished two weeks ago. That crew was Mexican. They did not work any harder, if as hard, as I did forty years ago.

    I yield to no man.

    Last night I got 1 hour of sleep. My wife is an invalid and is typically up 3 times in the night. So I suffer from much sleep deprivation. Despite the lack of sleep, I was up at 5:30 and put in a full day of work. I have another 2-3 hrs to do tonight. I have not had a vacation in 7 years nor more than 2 days away from home in that time, all instances traveling for business. In the last 3 months, my wife has been in the ER 4 times, had one surgery and spent 1 week in the hospital. When she is in the hospital, I am there at 6:30 am to see doctors on their rounds and back at night for supper with a full day of work in between. Unlike you and many others on this site, I do not blog during work hours. I simply have too much to do. During the above barn building episode, my wife was recovering from open heart surgery on top of her other problems. So I was not only working full time, building the barn on weekends, but caring for her as well, including sleeping on the floor next to her bed, doing all the shopping and doing all the cooking. Let me also add that I own 5 acres of CA mixed grass land and oak. I clear brush to keep fire danger down, cut my own firewood, tend 4 dozen fruit trees, and make my own cider, applesauce, pies and plum jelly. For relaxation, I keep a cheap 40 year old German sports car running. I might add there is not a single dime of government money entering this household, no SSDI, no Medicare, no Medicaide, no SS retirement nor anything else. My wife’s daycare exceeds $4K/mo. I will drop over well $50K this year for medical related expenses.

    I asked you to go back and read what I wrote. I did not ban immigration. In fact, I specifically said to increase legal immigration. What I want stopped is the illegal crossing of the border. My proposal provided means for all currently here to become legal and even a method for them to acquire citizenship without asking for money. For those that insist upon breaking our laws, I proposed escalating incarceration to discourage this. The “violence” involved is no more than the violence imposed on me to support these illegals in our schools, ERs, welfare roles, etc. It actually moves that violence to the one causing the problems in the first place.

    As for your opinion that we should have a swinging door border, BULL. If American citizens invaded Mexico at the rate of 1M/yr and demanded schooling in English, drivers tests and other government records in English, didn’t pay taxes, marched in demonstrations waving the stars and stripes, filled their ERs and demanded treatment for free, claimed citizenship for any children born in country, preached making Mexico the 51st state (Aztlan), and took jobs from Mexican nationals, I am sure Mexico would rise up and forcefully (w/violence) and rightly evict them and possibly incarcerate them up for a period of time. I know you care not what Mexico does, but in my opinion we have been more than fair, more than patient and overly generous with our southern visitors.

    Please, in the future forgo your arrogant, eye rolling, holier than thou attitude and start offering real suggests that might actually improve life in this country. Waving the white or black flag of surrender is not a solution. Sorry if you are having a bad day and everyone is on your case, but I too have not had a good day and it is not over yet.

    PS, as for professional work, I have significantly more academic published articles in refereed journals, oral papers, plus patents than our illustrious, highly educated, brilliant, professorial president.

    • T-Ray,

      Your personal trials -though admirable- does in no way excuse any assault upon other people who merely desire to earn a living.

      • You are being thick headed today. No one is assaulting anyone or preventing anyone from earning a living. I am merely asking that these illegal immigrants play by the same rules, pay the same taxes, obey the same laws that I do. Those that do violate the laws, should not expect me to help support them. The violence is being done to me as well. Every time my wife incurs a hospital bill, that bill is inflated to pay for others who are not paying. I pay extra on auto insurance because there is a high probability that should I get in an accident that the other party is an illegal w/o insurance. So what about the theft from me and every other law abiding US citizen and resident to support those who labor for cash and pay no FICA or income tax? Please answer that truthfully.

        • T-Ray

          You are being thick headed today.

          Principles are like that.
          They don’t move.

          No one is assaulting anyone or preventing anyone from earning a living.

          Sure you are.
          You don’t want some poor, uneducated suffering fool competing against you.

          You can’t deal with him…. you with your $million dollar education, social services, silver spoon.

          You want to stop that poor fellow at some line on the map — so you can get a job you do NOT want.

          I am merely asking that these illegal immigrants play by the same rules

          ah….
          WHOSE RULES

          Rules of Humanity?
          Or
          Rules of some legitimized evil?

          You pick only those rules that you think benefit you.
          You do not see more than a finger-tip further than that.

          You are Faust. You deal with the devil. You bet your soul.
          He always wins.

          . So what about the theft from me and every other law abiding US citizen and resident to support those who labor for cash and pay no FICA or income tax? Please answer that truthfully.

          So what are you going to do about it?

          You blame some poor, shirtless soul from Mexico?

          You are chained, but blame a man who tries to avoid chains.

          You do nothing, say nothing, stand for nothing against those that chain you.

          • Those poor shirtless people buy food with food stamps at my expense and load it into SUVs that are newer than anything I own. They get free healthcare at my expense. They pay little to no taxes but drive on roads and use mass transit I payed for. When my wife sees a doctor and they ask if we get anything from the government, the response is no, they say “but the illegals get it”. But all of this is my fault not the one here illegally getting services for nothing. If I ask them to live by the same rules, I am committing violence on them! What a hypocrite you are.

  96. JAC,

    Your attempt to portray war as an act of criminals is pointless, except in one way….

    “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.”– Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

  97. T-Ray

    Those poor shirtless people buy food with food stamps at my expense and load it into SUVs that are newer than anything I own. They get free healthcare at my expense. They pay little to no taxes but drive on roads and use mass transit I payed for. When my wife sees a doctor and they ask if we get anything from the government, the response is no, they say “but the illegals get it”. But all of this is my fault not the one here illegally getting services for nothing. If I ask them to live by the same rules, I am committing violence on them! What a hypocrite you are.

    No hypocrite am I as I do not participate as you do.

    You demand they live by some rules you deem are “right”.

    They are not right – thus, your demand is immoral.

    You blame those who want to work for the problems caused by those YOU support to prevent them from working.

    You throw stones at the innocent – and you wonder why you suffer.

  98. T-Ray

    Those poor shirtless people buy food with food stamps at my expense and load it into SUVs that are newer than anything I own.

    So you claim someone on food stamps can buy a new $40,000 SUV.

    They get free healthcare at my expense.

    You are not paying for them

    They pay little to no taxes

    So?

    but drive on roads and use mass transit I payed for.

    You did not pay for them

    When my wife sees a doctor and they ask if we get anything from the government, the response is no, they say “but the illegals get it”.

    So?

    But all of this is my fault not the one here illegally getting services for nothing.

    Why is it your fault that someone gets service?

    If I ask them to live by the same rules,

    So you agree that if the rules says T-Ray must die, you will commit suicide, Right?

    I am committing violence on them! What a hypocrite you are.

    No, I am not.
    You are.

    You wish to use violence to stop a man from working.

    All the rest of your post is whiny, irrelevant, childish envy of someone else having things you do not have.

    Because you do not have it, you want to destroy what they have by any means you think.

    Your attitude is dangerously perverse.

    Look in your own pocket and your own action, not what someone else has or does.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Flag,

      We’ve had a ton of conversations/debates about illegal immigration resulting my eventual deeper understanding that the root of the problem is indeed “imaginary lines” and everything they represent. Reading along being witness to your similar correspondence with others has prompt me to take note of something.

      The problem is that the system has failed and created a shitload of problems for everyone(no surprise)…Yet you consistently make comments invalidating any Americans being victim as well. I’m not sure whether you do so because you’re just trying to push buttons, or whether you actually believe it.

      There is a biased in your arguments, and you need to fully recognize that Americans are getting screwed in the deal too.

      It is not about whiny, irrelevant, childish envy.

      I didn’t vote for imaginary lines either, but I’ve been victim to the subsequent reaction of the labor market to a mass influx of “illegal humans”.

      The problem is very real to me, because my survival depends on it. From spring to fall and MAYBE, HOPEFULLY, a little in the winter, I have to earn enough to cover the whole year with shit wages. It is a fickle and frugal existence. Anything that deducts from that earning period and/or profit margin threatens me obtaining enough to cover the basics. Too many rainy days, too many tools needing replacement, too low a wage, too much gas used, etc, ….and I might not meet my bottom line going into winter.

      The subsequent reaction of the labor market to “illegal humans” creates an advantage for those not subject to the demands of the system. “Illegal humans” create a surplus in the labor market, thus decreasing demand, therefore price, as well as get employment advantages over an American because they can afford to work cheaper.<——-Period.

      People like me get another blow handed to us as a result. Earnings and job availability drops significantly, but the systems steadily demands more. People like me(canaries) feel the pinch.

      Lately(the past few months) I've been working a lot. This winter will likely be slow but steady, which is a good thing when compared to nothing. When all the housing market issues started to get bad enough, work slowed BIG TIME, and many "illegal humans" went to the other side of the "imaginary line". The re-migration noticeably opened up positions, but wages haven't readjusted, and likely won't fast enough to compensate for increased taxes and/or inflation, …but things still need to be painted.

      I have become poorer because now I work for less.

      Damn those "imaginary lines".

%d bloggers like this: