O'Reilly joins Chris Matthews in claiming constitutionalists are 'dangerous'
February 19, 2010
First it was MSNBC's Chris Matthews saying that Oath Keepers is a fringe, radical, extreme right-wing, hatemongering organization. Why? Because Oath Keepers believes in following the Constitution at all times, not merely when it's convenient or when the politicians feel like it.
Now Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, in a segment titled "Tracking Hate Groups," has come out agreeing with the uber-liberal Matthews that simply honoring one's oath to the Constitution is somehow dangerous and unAmerican.
Immediately after Matthews started his slanderous attacks against Oath Keepers, founder Stuart Rhodes reported a doubling in membership. So we say to big-government media hacks like O'Reilly and Matthews: Bring it on! Your attacks are making us stronger. Please keep attacking Oath Keepers!
Hey, Jay... who's your Daddy?
Who controls WTKK, FOX News, CNN, et al?
MSM "programming" determined by a powerful few
January 24, 2010
Jay Severin is free to say almost anything he likes on WTKK's airwaves. But there are certain topics that are so taboo that most mainstream talkers won't risk discussing them. For example, if Severin were to start asking the many disturbing questions still haunting 9/11; if suddenly Jay decided to support the victims' families by demanding Barack H Obama do something to stop the blatant 9/11 coverup, he would quickly find himself kicked to the media curb. And pro-war politicians like Scott Brown would immediately stop kissing his ass.
If the six 9/11 Commissioners who now admit their official report was a whitewash were to ask WTKK, or any other mainstream radio station in America, for air time to explain to listeners the numerous ways their investigation was stalled and then stonewalled by federal officials, their pleas for air time would be rejected by nervous station managers and their information would be deemed "old news." After all, we can't allow speech on the airwaves that might lead impressionable listeners to doubt the official MSM mantra, that "so far, all of the terrorists have been Muslims."
So, who are the powerful people behind the curtain of America's media, preventing certain issues from receiving a fair hearing? Answer: The innocuous-sounding "Council on Foreign Relations." (See above video for details.)
Remove government from airports
For security's sake
January 05, 2010
With the current controversy over whether the flying public should undergo full-body radiation scans at airports, "pure libertarian" Jay Severin has been handed yet another terrific example to hilite the harm caused by big-government takeovers of private businesses. But not only is Severin refusing to call for the removal of government from the all-important task of airport security, he is actively whining because Barack Obama isn't doing enough to "protect" him.
And let us not forget that even before the massive 9-11 security failure, the government was already hog-tying airport security and threatening passenger safety by banning private airline pilots from carrying arms to defend their cockpits, and by transferring to the vice president the sole power to dictate what happens (or doesn't happen) to hijacked aircraft. No, the best way to strengthen airport security in a post-9/11 world is to remove government completely, make airports and airlines 100% responsible for developing their own security procedures, forcing them to compete for the best safety record, and giving them no legal or civil immunity if they screw up. Then let the flying public choose.
No security system will ever be perfect, so the last thing we need is government forcing its single failed system on every carrier, which even the dullest of evildoers can easily avoid and work around, and which serves only to inconvenience and harass the innocent.
9-11 show trials in NYC: the Rules of Corporate Media Engagement
No showing images of the actual 'collapses'!!
Before towers exploded After towers exploded During explosions
OK to show OK to show Absolutely FORBIDDEN!!!!
November 14 2009
With the news that Bush 44 is planning to bring a small number of Gtmo detainees to New York for trial, the approved media have dutifully been working overtime to reignite the raw emotion and passion that gripped America eight years ago, by airing lots of pictures and videos from that terrible day, alongside scary pics of that hairy dude who "everyone knows" did it.
But notice that every 9-11 photo and video they're using now depicts either what happened before or what happened after the twin towers dropped to earth like two giant fistfuls of sand. Be assured that none of the 9-11 visuals chosen to accompany these trials will show the actual moments of "collapse." Why? Because the government's media doesn't want you remembering anything in this video or this video or (gasp!), this video. For if the video evidence of 9-11's demolitions were to start replaying now, after 8 years of constant lies out of Washington, the establishment might finally be forced to explain how their scary hairy dude somehow managed to sneak massive quantities of high-tech explosives past WTC security.
The only mystery remaining for us Best and Brightest is: what the heck is 44's real motive for bringing KSM to New York??? Is this just the latest neocon charade -- another premeditated "screwup" that will conveniently explain away the next false flag?
Passengers: Government is lying about Flight 253
Couple saw who helped underwear bomber onto plane; accuses FBI's Ron Smith of blatant coverup
Kurt and Lori Haskell
December 31, 2009
Flight 253 passengers Kurt and Lori Haskell have a message for the American people regarding their recent brush with death, what they heard and saw and how the (ever-changing) official story is a gross fabrication. You won't find this story on CNN or Fox News...or hear it talked about on WTKK or WRKO. All the state-approved media are in total lockdown, reporting only what the government is telling them to report. To get at the real truth we must, as always, turn to the internet. See Kurt Haskell's written statement here.Happy Veterans Day. All troops home, yesterday!
Glenn Beck's tirade against 9-11 movement contained good questions
September 12, 2009
Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck routinely shills for the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, declaring that anyone who questions it is "un-American." Guys like Beck and Jay Severin do everything in their power to prop up the official line and ridicule the skeptics. But, ironically, Beck's recent anti-911 movement rant only demonstrated the movement's success, as Beck was compelled to frame his tirade around several of the movement's own questions about 9-11. Watch this.
Who'da thunk it: Romneycare is just another Hackorama
Just 3 years in, Mitt's 'model' government program is sucked into Big Government's inescapable void
2006: Drooling liberals hover over Mitt Romney as he ushers in government-run health care in America
August 6 ,2009
For three years, we Best and Brightest have tried to explain to Jay Severin why Romneycare disqualified Mitt Romney from ever being president of these United States. But Jay apparently loved his buddy Mitt so much that he was willing to overlook Romney's cardinal sin of pioneering Obamacare.
Severin was honest enough in the beginning to admit Romneycare was socialist, but he defended it anyway saying it would be "less bad" than if a Democrat had been first to let government in. We disagreed sharply, observing that Romneycare would be seized upon by the Democrats as a catalyst for "change." The Dems would, no doubt, take Romney's "less-bad" program and run with it!
Three years hence we can already see that we Best and Brightest were right and Jay was foolish, unless of course his real motivation for kissing Romney's commie butt had been unknown to us listeners. E.g., perhaps Jay was secretly having grand visions of being Press Secretary in a Romney White House? Just saying...
We also warned Severin that Romneycare would suffer the same shameful fate as every other Big Government program in the history of man: I.e., it would become just another hackorama for the politically connected.
As it turns out, the Five Iron Laws of Big Government don't magically stop working just because it's a "Republican" making government bigger.
Should police have the power to arrest you in your own home...for 'yelling' at them?
Bad arrest in Cambridge reminds us cops are only human
Did Sgt. Crowley let his personal emotions affect his professional behavior?
July 25, 2009
The most salient, undisputed fact to emerge in Sgt. James Crowley's controversial burglary-call arrest on July 16th is the fact that he knew the person he was arresting was not a burglar.
His defenders say Sgt. Crowley "tried to leave" the private residence after realizing no burglary was in fact occurring, but, unfortunately, an angry resident at the address "kept yelling at him."
TRIED to leave?
Did the angry resident's tirade somehow carry with it a magic power to prevent Sgt. Crowley from acting prudently? Of course not; he still could have left the scene the moment he realized there was no crime occurring at that address, regardless of what the upset resident was saying about him -- or his mama.
One of the biggest challenges that peace officers face is the need to resist taking personally the verbal abuse that comes with the job. No cop is perfect, however; there are bound to be instances when an agitated citizen manages to push just the right emotional button of an officer, leading some to unprofessionally reach into their legal bag o' tricks and vengefully pull out the notoriously weak, catch-all charge of "disorderly conduct."
But just because we know cops sometimes fall prey to this temptation, that doesn't mean talk radio ought to celebrate it as some kind of virtue.
The Crowley controversy appears to be a classic case of disorderly-conduct syndrome: in a moment of weakness, a police sergeant allowed himself to take personally a citizen's disrespectful tone.
A lesson learned?
Next time Cambridge peace officers find themselves inside the home of an innocent person who, reasonably or unreasonably, becomes agitated by the government's mistaken encroachment into the private residence, we hope they will show the strength of character becoming of a peace officer: be bigger than the agitated resident. Next time simply apologize, walk away, and go to the next 911 call, which will hopefully be just another false alarm requiring nothing more of the officer than a little thick skin.
Is Associated Press involved in a government hoax?
Official AP source of captured soldier video keeps changing, without retractions or corrections
July 20, 2009
As we reported yesterday, the AP wrote a news story over the weekend claiming the video of captured US soldier Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl was first posted at "the Taliban website." We noticed right away that no link was provided to verify the story, and then we found that no such "Taliban website" appears even to exist!
Oops.
Today the AP changed its story. It no longer says the video originated at "the Taliban's website." Now they claim the video was posted at "a website pointed out by the Taliban."
Wow. That is a big difference, one which should've required an official correction by the AP, but no correction has been issued. And worse, the editors provide no URL to back up even their new claim, i.e., that the Taliban "pointed out" the video's original URL. This new twist not only fails to provide us the primary URL, it begs the additional question of who contacted whom (and how) during this "pointing out" of the video's originator.
Fishier still is this more recent AP story which quite cleverly makes no allusion whatsoever to the owner of the video, instead assigning a possessive apostrophe to a day of the week rather than to a tangible entity: "Only after Saturday's internet airing of a 28-minute video in which..."
So now we learn from the AP that the original video was "aired on the internet" by "Saturday."
This is either unbelievably shoddy journalism or the Associated Press is engaging in some type of shady activity with the government. After all, identifying the origin of the video should be a crucial part of this investigation.
Ha Ha Ha!
Fox News now thinks 9-11 is funny?!
July 06, 2009
Fox "News" Channel is evidently in a panic over the growing success of the 9-11 movement. They'd clearly hoped that trying to ignore us would make us go away. But, oops, we haven't. Which apparently requires a Plan B.
Enter laughter
Fox News is now treating 9-11 justice as "joke material."
Watch as the zany Fox host and his knee-slapping guests try their best to laugh off the rising tide of questions about the official story, using kindergarten-level humor to dismiss people who've courageously gone public with their skepticism toward Barack W Bush's wacky 9-11 conspiracy theory.
Congratulations to the 9-11 movement for this latest success in showing a mainstream medium for the complicit shill it is.
To Fox News, we say please keep laughing at 9-11. Please keep trash-talking the skeptics without discussing any of the devastating evidence brought forward by highly credible researchers and brave government officials. Please keep focusing only on Hollywood celebs who speak out on the controversy. Be careful to never mention the hundreds of serious military, intelligence & law enforcement officials or the architectural and engineering professionals who have stepped forward. Never acknowledge the fact that conservatives like us Best and Brightest are also demanding an end to the 9-11 coverup.
Ha Ha Ha, right, Fox News?
Your utter contempt for justice in this case is clear evidence of your complicity, and of the truth's impending victory. So keep laughing.
Will the real Osama bin Laden please stand up?
Original Osama: New, improved Osama:
"No, I didn't do it" "Yes, I did it"
June 26, 2009
Defenders of President Barack Obama's official 9-11 explanation love to remind us that CIA asset Osama bin Laden proudly admitted to engineering the 9-11 attacks.
Case closed, right?
Wrong.
Trouble is, the "Osama bin Laden" who supposedly confessed to 9-11 appeared quite different from the original Osama who'd been hired by Washington in the 1980s as a "freedom fighter" against the Soviets. The original Osama reportedly denied having had any knowledge of the 9-11 plot whatsoever. So we have two Osama bin Ladens; one a proud anti-American terrorist and the other a patsy who was set up to take the blame for 9-11.
Which Osama should we believe?
From looking at the FBI's opinion on this controversy, it is clear which Osama is telling the truth. Just don't hold your breath waiting for Jay Severin or Barack Obama to mention the fact that bin Laden is not even wanted for 9-11.
Why JFK was assassinated How JFK was assassinated
Executive Order 11110 challenged the Federal Say WHAT?!!
Reserve banksters Why are you ordering me off the president's car???
June 22, 2009
Having learned the ugly truth about the thieving federal government -- its secret backroom dealings and fake left/right paradigm; its CIA black operations, shadow-government puppeteering, false flag attacks and wars for empire -- we can see more clearly than ever that President John F Kennedy was killed not by some crazed, lone nut, but rather by a rogue faction within the U.S. government that felt threatened by Kennedy's honesty.
One of the more plausible motives for JFK's killing, then, was his extremely gutsy move in June of 1963, his signing of Executive Order #11110, a major frontal assault against the Federal Reserve banking scam.
It appears that messing with the private banksters can be hazardous to a president's health!
The joke's on you, America
The Dems were against military tribunals...before they were for them!
Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama decide to keep the change after all
May 18, 2009
The Military Industrial Complex's apparent support for politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama may have seemed strange at first, but it's making perfect sense today. These ostensible agents of hope and change were evidently just a couple of neo-con artists, paid actors if you will, pretending to embody everything voters were demanding after George Bush's nightmarish reign. They are the neocons' elixir, a sweetener added to the foul-tasting Bush-era policies and power grabs to make them go down easier.
It turns out that neocons don't much care which party they have to hijack to have their wars.
The Democrats' latest flip flop is a particularly dangerous one; the decision to carry forward Bush/Cheney's Gitmo-style military tribunals, where bogus confessions blurted out by terrified detainees are taken as gospel by the politicians, and then swallowed whole and regurgitated over and over by media shills like Jay Severin and Michael Graham.
Bush Doctrine of Unequal Justice upheld by Dems
So the Big 2 Democrats are "reluctantly" agreeing with the Bush administration's claim that anyone even accused of having ties to terrorism must immediately be stripped of her right to basic constitutional protections, such as habeas corpus. Of course Pelosi's and Obama's interpretation of who might be a terrorist - and therefore who will be "permitted" to keep his constitutional rights - is far different from the average American's interpretation. Heck, even you might be a terrorist to their thinking, if you're "too patriotic."
Torture is merely a symptom of a much larger sickness (but the media can never tell you this)
The Establishment Media has long understood that if they can just get the public debating the wrong questions, then they won't need to worry about the answers. The current media "debate" over the post-9-11 torture program is a classic example, as it was evidently intended to deflect our attention away from how true Western criminal justice works.
Our media gatekeepers want us to believe that torture is somehow a dilemma in and of itself, some difficult ethics question to be haggled over endlessly by "legal experts." But in reality torture is but a symptom. Western civilization long ago realized that torture doesn't work, as those being tortured will do or say virtually anything to stop the brutal abuses being put to them.
So the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, had to be waterboarded 183 times before he finally "confessed to 9-11" is a huge red flag that something is radically wrong with the current 9-11 legal proceedings. I.e., they're not legal. Far from signifying certainty of his guilt, the fact that it took so much horrendous abuse of this man to make him confess signifies the exact opposite; serious doubt about his guilt. Yet, we're all nevertheless expected to blindly assume that tortured confessions are somehow legit.
Obstruction of Justice is the real, unspoken issue
So if torture is just a symptom of a wider disease, then what is the wider disease? Surely it is Obstruction of Justice. You can bet that whenever any western government is resorting to torture in order to claim successful convictions in a criminal case, a major coverup must be underway. For during any serious government coverup, the politicians will always do their damndest to sidestep and tapdance around the best and fairest system of jurisprudence ever devised by man, lest they themselves end up wearing the orange jump suits. The truth is, the politicians and their suckups in the media are using "the torture issue" as a means of evading 9-11 justice, of keeping what really happened on 9-11 from spilling out even more than it already has.
Reagan opposed torture and inhumane treatment in all situations
So how come The Gipper's principled conservativism is now considered 'Far Left'?
Ronald Wilson Reagan
May 01, 2009
Despite having to deal with radicalized Middle Easterners of his own back in the early 1980s, Republican President Ronald Reagan championed the world-wide ban on torture, calling it an "abhorrent practice" that must be prosecuted in all instances.
Perhaps Reagan understood what seasoned CIA investigators have been trying to tell Washington since 9-11: coerced confessions are worse than merely worthless; they counterproductively send agents on wild goose chases around the globe, allowing the truly guilty to escape justice.
Did Daddy Warbucks sell Little Orphan Umar to the CIA?
Billions in Recent Yememi Investments and the Underwear Bomber’s Daddy
Umaru Mutallab
December 31, 2010
Why are we attacking the people of Yemen? Because some kid is alleged to have sewn a big fire-cracker into his underwear then sat on it in a plane over Detroit? Nope. Not even close. If you want to know what this is all about, follow Daddy’s money all the way to the IMF and Jaiz Bank. Read entire story.
Yet another similarity between 9/11 and Fort Hood
Disarmed victims
November 12 2009
Two months before 9-11, domestic airline pilots were officially prohibited by the Bush administration from keeping firearms in their cockpits for self-defense, thus paving the way for hijacking-made-easy. Now we learn that U.S. troops were also barred from carrying firearms on U.S. military bases, paving the way for an alleged lone gunman to shoot over 40 innocents despite being surrounded by scores of combat-ready soldiers.
Proof, once and for all, that big-government gun control works great - for mass murderers.